20190116 : Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions ( Jan 16, 2019 , profile.theguardian.com )
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
OK, obviously I need to weigh in on Elizabeth Warren's trade proposal. I've been a huge
fan of her plans so far. This one, not so much, although some of the critiques are overdone
1/
Last month, I released my economic patriotism agenda -- my commitment to fundamentally
changing the government's approach to the economy so that we put the interests of American
workers and families ahead of the interests of multinational corporations. I've already
released my ideas for applying economic patriotism to manufacturing and to Wall Street. This
is my plan for using economic patriotism to overhaul our approach to trade.
8:41 AM - 30 Jul 2019
The truth is that this would have been a bad and destructive plan if implemented in, say,
1980. At this point it's still problematic, but not disastrous (this is going to be a long
tweet storm) 2/
Background: the way we currently do trade negotiations is that professionals negotiate out
of public view, but with input from key business players. Then Congress gets an up or down
vote on the result 3/
This can sound like a process rigged in favor of special interests. But it was created by
FDR, and its actual intent was largely the opposite. It took away the ability of
Congresspeople to stuff trade bills with goodies for their donors and districts 4/
And while business interests certainly got a lot of input, it was set up in a way that set
different groups against each other -- exporters versus import-competing industries -- and
this served the interests of the general public 5/
Without this system we wouldn't have achieved the great opening of world markets after
World War II -- and that opening was a very good thing overall, especially for poor
countries, and helped promote peace 6/
So what has changed? The key point is that the system pretty much achieved its goals;
we're a low-tariff world. And that has had a peculiar consequence: these days "trade
negotiations" aren't mainly about trade, they're about intellectual property and regulation
7/
And it's not at all clear that such deals are actually good for the world, which is why I
was a soft opponent of TPP 8/
Not to keep you in suspense, I'm thumbs down. I don't think the proposal is likely to be
the terrible, worker-destroying pact some progressives assert, but it doesn't look like a
good thing either for the world or for the United States, and you have to wonder why the
Obama administration, in particular, would consider devoting any political capital to getting
this through.
So what Warren proposes is that we partially unravel the system FDR built, making trade
negotiations more transparent and giving Congress a bigger role in shaping the deals. This
sounds more democratic, but that's a bit deceiving 9/
Mainly it would substitute one kind of special interest distortion for another. That would
have been a clearly bad thing when trade deals were actually about trade. Today, I think it's
ambiguous 10/
Warren would also expand the criteria for trade policy to include a number of non-trade
goals, like labor rights and environmental protection. Here again there are arguments on both
sides 11/
On one side, the potential for abuse would be large -- we could be slapping tariffs on
countries for all kinds of reasons, turning trade policy into global power politics, which
would be really bas for smaller, weaker countries 12/
On the other hand, there are some cases where trade policy will almost surely have to be
used to enforce some common action. If we ever do act on climate change, carbon tariffs will
be needed to discipline free riders 13/
"President Obama on Sunday praised the energy bill passed by the House late last week as
an 'extraordinary first step,' but he spoke out against a provision that would impose trade
penalties on countries that do not accept limits on global warming pollution."
And I also think the report gives a false impression of what this is about, making it seem
as if it's nothing but dirty politics...
Overall, this is the weakest Warren plan so far. (Still waiting to hear from her on health
care! Harris has taken point there, and done it well) But it's not bad enough to change the
verdict that she's the strongest contender on policy grounds 14/
He backs Harris's attempt to split difference on health care reform.
The problem with PK and Kurt and EMike is that if you don't deliver better services and
rising living standards - no matter the excuses we don't care about your excuses -
you're going to get more racism, demagogues like Trump and toxic politics.
The Dems's track record for the past 40 years is objectively awful. PK lives in a rich
man's bubble if he believes corporate trade has been good for humanity and peace.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D) sparred Tuesday night
over her proposed "no first use" policy on nuclear weapons during the Democratic debate.
In defending the proposed policy, Warren argued for diplomatic and economic solutions to
conflict, saying "we should not be asking our military to take on jobs that do not have a
military solution."
But Bullock opposed that proposal, saying, "I don't want to turn around and say, 'Well,
Detroit has to be gone before we would ever use that.'"
Warren is the lead sponsor of the Senate version of a bill that would make it U.S. policy
not to use nuclear weapons first.
It has long been the policy of the United States that the country reserves the right to
launch a preemptive nuclear strike.
Former President Obama reportedly weighed changing the policy before leaving office, but
ultimately did not after advisers argued doing so could embolden adversaries.
Backers of a no first use policy argue it would improve U.S. national security by reducing
the risk of miscalculation while still allowing the United States to launch a nuclear strike
in response to an attack.
During the debate, Warren argued such a policy would "make the world safer."
"The United States is not going to use nuclear weapons preemptively, and we need to say so
to the entire world," she said. "It reduces the likelihood that someone miscalculates,
someone misunderstands."
Bullock argued he wouldn't want to take the option off the table, but that there should be
negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.
"Never, I hope, certainly in my term or anyone else would we really even get close to
pulling that trigger," he said. "Going from a position of strength, we should be negotiating
down so there aren't nuclear weapons. But drawing those lines in the sand at this point, I
wouldn't do."
Warren shot back that the world is closer to nuclear warfare after Trump's presidency,
which is seeing the end of a landmark arms control agreement with Russia, the development of
a low-yield submarine-launched warhead and the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear
agreement.
"We don't expand trust around the world by saying, 'you know, we might be the first one to
use a nuclear weapon,'" she said. "We have to have an announced policy that is one the entire
world can live with."
Bullock said he agreed on the need to return to nonproliferation standards but that
unpredictable enemies such as North Korea require keeping first use as an option.
"When so many crazy folks are getting closer to having a nuclear weapon, I don't want them
to think, 'I could strike this country,'" he said. "Part of the strength really is to
deter."
----
Long-standing US policy has been to lump chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons in a single
category. So, our guv'mint implicitly reserves the
right to respond to a chemical attack (say) with
nuclear weapons. This was how the US got het up
about Iraq's supposed 'weapons of mass destruction',
which is how the US lumps them together under
the heading 'CBN' weapons. Iraq certainly
had chemical weapons, possibly biological ones,
and much less plausibly a nuclear weapons program.
It was all about those mysterious 'aluminum tubes',
which supposedly could be used for uranium-enriching centrifuges. (Not these tubes,
apparently.)
But I digress. Suffice it to say, the US has
quite a few self-serving policies.
Now, the real question is, how much longer
do we want to have Mr Trump in control
of the nuclear football, as the nuke-
authorizing gadget is known?
@Wally as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi
gives great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq
vote) and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a fair
job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to contribute to
the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking about
FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was only about
trade, not FP as usually understood.
I did find this
July 9, 2019 article in truthdig calling on him to apologize, tho.
And no matter how it's sliced, Biden's still a warmonger.
I sense something is afoot. Pure speculation but crazier things have happened:
Michelle as Biden's VP. Vote for Joe, get Michelle.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
@Wally
@Wally sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you
or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full 0.5
sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an explicit use of
the term "apology" from Joe).
What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the video
linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake --
true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving
that).
Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in lieu of
an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".
I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in the
words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.
@wokkamile
. . . when I run for Pope? I can't wait for you to spin my many wrong thoughts;>).
#1.2.1
#1.2.1 sense, what matters to the issue and complaint being discussed is not what you
or I think of Joe and Iraq (we agree) or even what the objective truth is (I did a full
0.5 sec google search, lazy latte-sipping liberal that I am, and couldn't find an
explicit use of the term "apology" from Joe).
What matters is TG's perception or memory of what Joe said about his vote. In the
video linked above, she talks about how Joe has said it was a mistake --
true -- and that "he's apologized for it, many times" (I couldn't find a link proving
that).
Edit: In Tulsi's forgiving world, she might equate or accept the term "mistake" in
lieu of an official, formal expression of regret using the term "apology".
I might be able to give you Tulsi's private # and you could ask her personally, but in
the words of that immortal American Statesman Richard Nixon, That Would Be Wrong.
@wokkamile IMO, this is not a fatal error by Tulsi.
Despite what we are being sold, Biden is a very weak candidate and many others are working
to take him down. No one was willing to take on Harris who was designated as the rising star
in the Hamptons. But Tulsi did, based upon principle. Funny thing is that Tulsi told Harris
that she was coming after her in advance, but Harris was unprepared.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
@wokkamile
that this is exactly what Tulsi was doing. It seems to have been effective. For one thing, it
took everyone, including the CNN hosts, off guard.
She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this debate.
#1 as this question is being raised again in a few threads: my guess is Tulsi gives
great weight to people who apologize and own up for their mistakes (Joe on his Iraq vote)
and she believes in forgiveness, and 2dly she knows she also has made mistakes in her
public service career.
Besides the above, she might have felt some of the others on the stage were doing a
fair job of going after Joe last night, albeit not on Iraq, and she didn't want to
contribute to the pile-on. She may also have had a strategy of focusing on Harris in this
debate.
There will be future debates to go after Joe on Iraq, if she chooses. Perhaps we might
hope for a sponsored debate where the mods spend more than 1% of the air time talking
about FP. Last night, unless I missed something, the few minutes on foreign stuff was
only about trade, not FP as usually understood.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) told Luke Rudkowski of "We Are Change," a libertarian
media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on
as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as H.R.24 The Federal Reserve
Transparency Act of 2019.
Last night Tulsi Gabbard went after Harris on her support of the for profit prison system in
Cali at the expense of human beoings......
soon enough Harris supporters were tweeting that Gabbard is an "Assad apologist".
"Assad apologist is war monger agit prop against anyone who might get in the way of the
profitable forever wars for al Qaeda (in Idlib etc) and the Saudi royals.
im1dc": propagandizing for the war profiteers is not limited to the press it is in the
diverse democrat campaigns pandering for contributions caring nothing for the US or humans in
general. Gabbard being the obvious exception garnering their sound bites.
The Joseph McCarthy-style attack on the Representative by the California Senator and
associates is shocking and dangerous and revealing of "character."
After Democratic 2020 candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) dressed down Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-CA) over her criminal justice record, Harris hit back - suggesting that Gabbard is somehow
'below her' - and an "apologist" for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
In response, Harris thumbed her nose at Gabbard , telling CNN 's Anderson Cooperafter the
debate: "This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did
expect that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight ... when people are at 0 or 1% or
whatever she might be at , so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Harris added "Listen, I think that this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an
individual , [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad, who has murdered the people of his country
like cockroaches. She has embraced and been an apologist for him in the way she refuses to call
him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously, so I'm prepared
to move on."
Wait a second...
Tulsi wasn't having it. In a Thursday interview with CNN 's Chris Cuomo, Gabbard punched
back - saying "[T]he only response that I've heard her and her campaign give is to push out
smear attacks on me, claim that I am somehow some kind of foreign agent or a traitor to my
country, the country that I love, the country that I put my life on the line to serve , the
country that I still serve today as a soldier in the Army National Guard."
Gabbard also made clear that she believes Assad is " a brutal dictator, just like Saddam
Hussein, just like Gaddafi in Libya ," adding "The reason that I'm so outspoken on this issue
of ending these wasteful regime change wars is because I have seen firsthand this high human
cost of war and the impact that it has on my fellow brothers and sisters in uniform. "
"... When Lindsey Graham tweets about Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh Rogin are attacking her , you know she's got their panties in a bunch. ..."
"... You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried. ..."
"... Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will come after her with everything they have. ..."
"... When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. ..."
"... The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go Gabbard. ..."
"... The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will be. ..."
The second debate among Democratic hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common
decency of most of them and Tulsi Gabbard's immense, career-ending attack on Kamala Harris'
(D-Deep State) record as an Attorney General in California.
Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard cut her down to size with
one of the single best minutes of political television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton,
"Because you'd be in jail."
Gabbard's takedown of Harris was so spot on and her closing statement about the
irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration's foreign policy was so powerful she had to be
actively suppressed on Twitter. And, within minutes of the debate ending the media and the
political machines moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and
a favorite of the alt-right.
Now, folks, let me tell you something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the
right of me are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the
establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn't have been polling at 1% going into
that debate.
She would have been promoted as Harris' strongest competition and served up for Harris to
co-opt.
That is not what happened.
No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and baselessly as she is by all the
right people on both the left and the right is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real
deal and 2) they are scared of her.
You expect it from the Harris camp, obviously. But when it comes directly from people like
Navid Jamali (double agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is
beginning to get worried.
Gabbard is now getting the Ron Paul treatment. It will only intensify from here. They will
come after her with everything they have.
In the past week she's destroyed Kamala Harris on national TV, sued Google for
electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie's (R-KY) bill to audit the Federal Reserve. What
does she do next week, end the Drug War?
Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work in progress. But what I see in her is something that has
the potential to be very special. She's young enough to be both passionately brave and willing
to go where the truth takes her.
And that truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty years:
the US Empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third
rail of US politics. That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of US politics is empire. Any candidate that is publicly against the
empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who
profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks and unite against the
threat. The good news is that all they have is their pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to
their authority on foreign policy.
Foreign policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise.
And the response to her performance at the second debate was as predictable as the sun
rising in the east. It's also easily countered. Gabbard will face an uphill battle from here
and we'll find out in the coming weeks just how deep into Trump Derangement Syndrome the
average Democrat voter is.
If she doesn't begin climbing in the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have
signed onto crazy Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But they
will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push Trump back to his
days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing against our stupid foreign
policy.
No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point. It's the area where Trump
is the weakest. He's not weak on women's rights, racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the
idiotic identity politics of the rest of the Democratic field.
He's weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place, foreign policy.
Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It's why we saw an international conspiracy
formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized against Tulsi
Gabbard.
That's good. As a solider she knows that when you're taking flak you are over your target.
Now let's hope she's capable of sustaining herself to push this election cycle away from the
insanity the elite want to distract us with and make it about the only thing keeping the world
from healing, ending the empire of chaos.
Those who benefit from the US being a Colonial Empire are closing ranks and that is
certainly a huge endorsement for Gabbard.
The colonial masters have been forgetting that more and more people are not benefitting
from having like 800 military bases/wars/colonies all over and want them dissolved. Go
Gabbard.
The longer the US acts like a colonial power, the more painful the dismantling will
be.
Do politicians control the military, especially the strategic arm and weapons of mass
destruction, both here in the US and in Russia? Perhaps only partially, and even that is
doubtful given rapidly unfolding emergency situations. A convincing case could be made that
it's too late, that war is inevitable.
You sound intelligent. Read Herman Kahn's treatise "On Thermonuclear War." It is
mathematical. But Basically nuclear war is out of hands of politicians. But it won't start
from large nuclear powers. If Iran sunk a US Carrier, there would be NO NUCLEAR WAR PERIOD.
But a nuclear war could be caused by an accident of smaller powers but it would be very
limited and not spread.
"The more destructive we [America] look, the less they like us and our program. To the
extent that some in our midst talk and threaten potential world annihilation as a U.S.
defense measure, we focus undeserved attention on ourselves as being dangerous and even
irresponsible -- appearing to be willing to risk uncounted hundreds of millions or billions
of bystanders as to our selfish ambitions and desires." Herman Kahn...
That quote typifies Trump's cavalier yapping about nuclear weapons and his threats in the
last year to expunge North Korea, Iran and most recently Afghanistan. This is the kind of
conversation that most people in the world hate and they hate Trump and the United States for
it. The US is blamed for Trump's loose cannon conduct. So that generates concern and
heightens the potential for a nuclear weapons accident.
As for the world, it would survive a nuclear war. Many people would survive just as the
animals of Chernobyl have survived and thrived even though radioactive. Dumb politicians like
Trump that talk out their *** and sound imbalanced appear flaky. Rest assured the Joint
Chief's would never let Trump near a nuclear weapon.
With nuclear war you also have to mathematically project dud rockets and rockets that land
on your own people or detonate at launch.
Forget Biden, a deadbeat deep state ***. he could never be elected being such a MIC pawn.
Just go Tulsi first (with Rand Paul would be good!) . She'll have to dig deep in the shitheap
to find another honest Dem to play sidekick. But Tulsi stands out above them all as
intelligent and independant. No surprise the Dem and Rep MSM ****-spewers are attacking her.
Go tulsi -the only candidate i would vote for (since they'll nobble her candidacy i guess i
wont be voting).
Liked Trump when he was anti-swamp. But they nobbled him and now he's just a ***-pawn. So
sad he sold his balls.
Tulsi's predicament if of her own doing. She's to the right for today's Dems, but still
too far to the left for the GOP. Her positions on the 2nd Amendment and accusing Trump of
being an Al Qaeda sympathizer have pretty much killed her chances with moderates, too. She's
not really that sane, she just looks that way because the rest of the Dem candidates are
socialist whack jobs.
Newsflash: Trump does support Al Qaeda by virtue his blind support of the Saudi regime
which champions, funds, and spreads Sunni Wahhabism, the violent Jihadist core philosophy of
both Al Qaeda and Isis.
Compare Tulsi Gabbard to Kamala Harris. Harris is a frontrunner for the nomination only
because she is a she and is half black. That is all she has going for her. She owes her
political career to her willingness to **** an old geezer politician from California (Willie
Brown?) As a result, she became state AG. Which shows you just how corrupt politics is at the
state level. Now she's a real candidate for the demorat nomination even though she is a a
total POS, especially compared to someone like Gabbard, who has served her country, talks
straight, and doesn't take **** from the pompous a-holes in the dem establishment. I hope she
stays in the race.
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military
force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates
saw less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute
event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment
Jake Tapper said "I want to turn to foreign policy" to the moment Don Lemon interrupted
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to correctly explain how President
Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in Idlib, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had
elapsed.
...
Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad
apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the
word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend
despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing,
"Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while
Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous
Gabbard defenders on the platform.
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United
States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael Tracey.
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't
enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate". From the
time that he announced his candidacy in 2015 to the present moment, I have never found
implausible the possibility that the President may be controlled opposition. Or, more
mundanely, simply the self-promoting carnival barker that just about all evidence strongly
suggests that he always was. How closely have you looked at Mr. Trump's actual record,
starting from before he announced?
And, to what extent, since becoming President, has Mr. Trump actually opposed the
Globo-Homo agenda?
Trump wasn't their candidate (which suggests that he's clean), and (so far) he hasn't
enabled a war with Iran, so what happens with him is an open question.
I wonder what makes you (or anyone) so sure that "Trump wasn't their candidate".
The Deep State, Empire, Zio-Glob, or whatever you want to call it, was obviously 100%
behind Hillary Clinton. She and her husband were totally blackmailable, and the media fury
when she lost was something to see.
For his part, Trump looked surprised (and not too happy) that he won. It's clear that he
has links to the Deep State, but he was set up to lose (the media from the start presenting
him as the joke candidate – the irrelevant clown). The script was for serious, boring
and ineffectual Jeb Bush to lose to the heroic champion of Social Justice, and first woman
President Hillary Clinton.
When Trump actually found himself President (and could see the trouble he was in) –
for survival, he fully committed to Israel and the Zionists. The idea was that they would
defend him , against their Cultural Bolshevik cousins in the US. The Adelsons and the
Israelis love him while the US Cultural Bolshevik Jews hate him.
The US public are just extras in this show. If he cared about them he would do something
about 9/11 – which he won't. He's a high rise developer from New York and knows better
than anyone that 9/11 was all fakery. Here's his first public reaction (on the day):
@Wally for Harris complains that maybe Tulsi Gabbard isn't familiar with Harris' full
record on crime, yet she claimed ignorance when West asked her about the Mnuchin affair, a
rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.
I used to think much more highly of Huerta and Barbara Lee.
Well, at least Bernie-backing Cornell West hasn't drifted East in his principles.
Huerta is now Co-Chair of the Harris campaign and she responds to Tulsi's
observations:
#4 for Harris complains that maybe Tulsi Gabbard isn't familiar with Harris' full
record on crime, yet she claimed ignorance when West asked her about the Mnuchin affair,
a rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.
I used to think much more highly of Huerta and Barbara Lee.
Well, at least Bernie-backing Cornell West hasn't drifted East in his principles.
Bernie supporters shouted that while they were throwing chairs. I know it for a fact
because somebody who was there told someone else who said something like that and it
eventually got back to me.
@wokkamile
@wokkamile Huerta's facial language was telling she me was lying straight to my face
about Mnuchin.
There was a tic, looking down, and a bankers smile.
#4 for Harris complains that maybe Tulsi Gabbard isn't familiar with Harris' full
record on crime, yet she claimed ignorance when West asked her about the Mnuchin affair,
a rather important matter from Harris' AG tenure.
I used to think much more highly of Huerta and Barbara Lee.
Well, at least Bernie-backing Cornell West hasn't drifted East in his principles.
was solidly in Hillary's corner in 2016. She carried water for the Dem establishment,
including lying through her teeth about Bernie supporters during the Nevada caucuses.
Now she's carrying water for Hillary's heir presumptive, Kamala Harris. Same old same old.
I don't trust Huerta one bit.
Huerta is now Co-Chair of the Harris campaign and she responds to Tulsi's
observations:
Have not gone over to TOP for a bit. A front pager was going full Monty smearing
Tulsi.
So Michael Moore wants Michele Obama to run against Trump. She is the only one who can
crush Trump. If this not some PR stunt to get his name in the press, Moore is truly a
mainstream DNC'er. Poll after poll shows Bernie beating Trump. So what would be Michele's
policies? The same as her neoliberal husband? Moore is living in a Hollywood bubble. I have
never seen Michele ever in venue where she is challenged and debated. How is she going to do
against an aggressive Trump on a common stage? Who would be her VP? Lady Gaga?
Speaking on the "Ben Shapiro Show" podcast, the Daily Wire editor-in-chief said
Harris failed to effectively
respond to attacks
during Wednesday's debate from
Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard
and Biden, and could not defend her health care plan.
"The Kamala moment is over. This is now becoming a Joe Biden versus Elizabeth Warren race and it's
doing so pretty quickly,"
he said
, likening
Harris' previous rise in the polls to a similar point in 2015 when Carly Fiorina had a strong debate
performance.
Shapiro emphasized the "brutal" challenge to Harris' record as a California prosecutor from Gabbard,
saying Gabbard "brought the hammer about as hard as I've seen someone bring a hammer in a presidential
debate since Chris Christie went after Marco Rubio."
"This is the meme from 'The Simpsons': stop, stop,
he's already dead."
genxer1
Leader
1m
The Dems need to ditch the DNC - they have too much influence over the party thanks to
Clinton. Trump won without the RNC or endorsement from practically anybody. The dems will
probably do this after their 2020 loss.
CSG21
Leader
3m
I think Kamala is done for the rest of time, not just for this election, after that
takedown. Good thing, she is evil.
KiscoDigglerq
Leader
4m
I loved it when Kamala said she listened to Snoop and Tupac in college....only for half
the world to instantly point out both of them released their respective first albums AFTER
she graduated. Pander much, Kamala?
Reply
Share
Report
5
Likes
Shaunna007
4m
Harris reminds me of Hillary. Not an honest person. I am glad Tulsi Gabbard put a dagger
through Harris. Done and done!
Reply
Share
Report
10
Likes
trucker49119
Leader
2m
Shaunna007
Still don't like gabbi gabbard however!!!!
Reply
Share
Report
1 Like
bigfeet1964
Leader
4m
poor Biden, It is called Texting. Not a website.
Reply
Share
Report
5
Likes
whbdi
Leader
4m
Tulsi - Did you take that red pill that was prescribed by the doctor?
Reply
Share
Report
2
Likes
JUSSIETHEDEMPLANT
Leader
5m
I personally want Warren to run against President Trump. I know who will carry the
American Indian vote.
Reply
Share
Report
8
Likes
Trumpmakesyouliberal
Leader
4m
JUSSIETHEDEMPLANT
Trump cannot lay a glove on Biden. Biden is our next President.
Reply
Share
Report
1stonetoscreamracistusuallyis
Leader
3m
Trumpmakesyouliberal
Hahahahaha. Put the crack pipe down
Reply
Share
Report
1 Like
stormsun
Leader
2m
Trumpmakesyouliberal
Did you plagiarize that from one of Joe's old college papers?
Reply
Share
Report
Show
3
more replies
obamakeepswinning
Leader
5m
I thing for sure, I won't be Trump
Reply
Share
Report
Rick1970b
Leader
4m
obamakeepswinning
no, you won't be.
Reply
Share
Report
3
Likes
apenultimate on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 7:31pm Well, Tulsi for the past couple months had
been averaging around 500 new unique donors per day. Early in the day before her 2nd debate
performance, her campaign announced she had reached 110,000 unique donors. In 1.5 days, she
gained more than 10,000 more.
During the first debate, in the week after the debate Tulsi gained 8,500 donors above her
usual donor gains. Tulsi managed to do 9,500 more than average in less than 2 days this time
around. This time around seems much better.
She needed a debate boost from the second debate of 8,000 donors above her typical daily
donor gain to be ensured to reach the 130,000 unique donor minimum. She has already surpassed
that gain.
But, the polling requirements still need to be met . . .
Tulsi is going on an annual 2-week National Guard training pretty much now. She will not be
able to personally campaign during this time. That's one reason this debate was so crucial.
Let's see if it can elevate her in the coming polls.
A national Economist/YouGov poll had her at 2% through July 30. That one is not qualifying,
but it's a good trend.
I have *heard* (but not confirmed) that only one qualifying poll from each of the first 4
states are allowed for qualifying (but all qualifying national polls count). Tulsi has 1
qualifying poll from New Hampshire. If what I heard above is true, this means no other polls
from New Hampshire count towards the debate requirements. They must be qualifying polls from
Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina, or national polls from here on out.
on Snoopydawg's thread about Tulsi confronting Kamala, but I'd like to repost it here. I
think the American people are responding not just to what Tulsi is saying, but how she is
presenting herself.
Tulsi is a warrior. That's one of the main things she's accomplishing here: letting the
voters see that about her.
She's directly confronting and exposing the old guard and their heirs presumptive. She's
taking on the "powers that be", right to their faces, with strength and confidence.
And she's demonstrating to the American people that she is fully willing and capable of
doing so.
"... Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify. ..."
"... represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine. ..."
"... being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. ..."
Screenshot
It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates
in this young election cycle. "Leaders as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to
end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it
over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could
you?"
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could
have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa 2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you
have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding, "Whether we're talking about Central America, whether
we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have got to be completely engaged."
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will
tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked
a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from
Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build
indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.
Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange
between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani
. Except Paul, then a relatively unknown
congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national GOP frontrunner. Gabbard
is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3 percent.
Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most
interesting Democrat running for president and Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with
frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another
opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent and she has yet to qualify.
The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential
candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy
Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa. Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits:
Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who
seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black
support.
Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former
secretary of housing and urban development Julian Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to
the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border
crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's making, expanding Medicare to
cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes illegal
immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.
Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's
38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime
change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across
the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove
more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown.
"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness
than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans --
The View
brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as
is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with
nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of Congress's will on Yemen.
That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has
realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and
it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns
on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans'
sharp turn
against forever war, arguably the
most important public opinion trend of our time.
Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which
admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she
attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad, she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention,
failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these matters
than hawks
.
A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee
will be a covert hawk rather than a secret right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.
Tulsi is more experienced and articulate on foreign AND domestic policy than any
other Democrat up there (Bernie being an independent). She's also more genuine.
But
being 'woke', as the author failed to point out, is code for having the backing of
the still extant Clinton/Obama cartel and hence the idiot US media. And that she
does not have
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with
voters on either side. Here is an
excerpt from NPR
.
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that
Americans have limited confidence in its public schools, courts, organized labor and
banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political parties
and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87
percent say they have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military. That
is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."
A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing
Given that this magazine was partially founded as a reaction to the Iraq War, why
does an article about Tulsi Gabbard, one of the only presidential candidates who
takes a mostly non-interventionist foreign policy stance, surprise you? She is a
progressive, yes, and a Democrat, but her stance on war is very conservative.
You
don't have to be a Republican to be conservative or to hold some conservative views.
Warren is a corporate kiss a** and a perfect example of precisely why the
person you're talking to might as well be listening to a Chipmunks song for
all the ridiculous partisan deflection going on. Literally nothing of value in
any of that and the implication that Dumbocraps are any different than
Republicans in talking a lot and saying and doing nothing is frankly one of
the insults to the intelligence that convinced me very early to reject both
"sides" of this Candyland based majik partisan aisle
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It
would be very unfortunate if she got bumped out. I live in California (an open primary
state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary
It doesn't "hurt" Tulsi's "credibility" that she met with Assad. It's been clear from the
beginning of the Syrian civil war that he was the sole viable protector of Christian and
other religious minorities in the region after the fall of Saddam. The U.S. should never
have armed and trained the country's rebels. But it's again apparent that Democrats have
no interest in saving Christians from Islamic killers.
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.
I like her, and support her, and
think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance
that her course would lead to the White House.
Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll
have a louder voice in Congress. However, the best she could do with this is influence.
They all support Israel w/o condition. Unfortunately. None of them are any better
than her on this issue, and they are much worse than her on most FP and military
issues.
I am fully supporting Gabbard's campaign, but few people are concerned about our senseless
wars. The issue does not make the top ten voter concerns in recent polls.
For whatever reason the President Primary debates tend to avoid most foreign policy
issues. Democrats love getting the gory details of healthcare that sort prove Reagan's
joke "They know too much" but there are few question on Foreign Policy. I think it
reasonable to ask "What would your administration do with Venezuela?" (And Yes I like
really basic Open End questions at debates.)
And yes there are good parts of Tulsi but
she does need to campaign things outside of No Wars as that usually does not win
Primaries.
Forever wars are driven by Wash. through campaign funds coming from the war industry,
foreign states and those in the USA who support other countries over their own. How could
an anti-war candidate get those funds necessary for campaigning? And, as I said before,
Obama and Trump both campaigned to end the wars but didn't. What makes anyone think the
next president, when in office, will do anything different? Plus, one has to take into
consideration the DNC's choice, and all the intrigues surrounding that process. Tulsi
hasn't paid all those dues necessary for a shot at the presidency.
Some people were as stupid as to think that Trump would lose by a landslide in 2016.
Some people were as stupid as to think that Candidate
Five-Year-Old-Girl-in-a-Grown-Up-Woman's-Body, who managed to hijack (or, rather,
joyride) Obama's foreign policy and to start two (or, rather, three, given that
Yemen is also her legacy) foreign wars yet, knowing about the "nice" legacy of
Afghanistan and Iraq, would be any appealing. So
I wonder
how anyone with
both hemispheres functional can believe that discarding Gabbard and Sanders, while
picking any of the political reincarnations of the ingnorant, arrogant and, first of
all, almost childishly self-righteous moron who managed to wreck the country's
entire foreign policy without even being the president can win against the man who
cleaned up that child's (despite her physically being his age-mate) mess in Syria
and, judging by what the Italian press says, is letting others to clean an even
greater mess of hers in Libya.
Looks that on foreign policy Tulsi is the only sane option.
That's exactly why the bipartisan establishment, the corrupt corporate media and the MIC
hate her vehemently.
I am a registered Republican so I can't vote for Tulsi in the MD primaries, but I will
consider donating to her campaign to help her get into the third debate.
I can forgive a
Democrat for supporting universal healthcare so long as they
don't buy into the identity politics garbage.
Although I'm fairly conservative, I will take a Democrat with character over who we
have in the White House today.
Eric, you can change your registration for long enough to vote for someone you
obviously think is worth voting for.
I was a registered Democrat for all of my
voting life, although I often voted for Republicans. As a result of Bush Jr.'s war
against Iraq, I swore never to vote for a Republican again.
But when Ron Paul was on the ballot in the Republican primary, I re-registered,
as a Republican, just so I could vote for him. (In California, the party determines
whether its primary is open or closed.) After 6 weeks, following the primary, I
re-registered again, this time as a no-party-preference voter.
It's not that I liked everything Ron Paul believed in (but I did like the fact
that he was genuine and truthful). But I agreed with him on the really important
issues involving foreign policy.
So you have options, Eric. It won't soil you to change party registration
temporarily if it allows you to vote for someone you might vote for in the general
election. In fact, you might feel good about it. I know I did. Voting for Ron Paul
was the first time in a long time that I felt good about my vote. And this time,
I'll vote for Tulsi Gabbard in the primary even if I have to write her name in.
Tulsi is not running for President. She's running for running mate for either Bernie or
Warren. Both need her foreign policy chops and military cred.
She will bring voters to the ticket, unlike most V.P. picks.
Given Bernie age, should he
pick her, she could end up President after all.
Works for me.
The Democratic Party uber alles types over at Daily Kos are supporting Gabbard's primary
challenger for her Congressional seat, attacking her for her previous stands on abortion
and same sex marriage, and really laying into her for playing footsies with a dictator
like Assad. And while Bernie has some support over there, especially among the readers who
take their polls, there are others who still won't forgive him for not actually joining
the Dems officially (and who buy all of the "he cost Clinton the election" stupidity).
The most tragic thing is not that they simply buy that stupidity. It is that they
still
buy it. After almost three years. Bernie didn't cost Clinton the election.
Clinton
cost Democrats the election. Much like any of her political
reincarnations they are about to pick will.
"... Attacking the authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way." ..."
"... That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name somehow failed to trend despite being the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This discrepancy has drawn criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on the platform . ..."
"... It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into mainstream consciousness all at the same time. ..."
"... "Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and CNN contributor Wajahat Ali. ..."
"... All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to Caroline Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on, because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now. ..."
"... War is the glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects. ..."
"... The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging, because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention, the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal, ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing oppression, the first step is punching a hole in the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and acceptable. ..."
In the race to determine who will serve as Commander in Chief of the most powerful military
force in the history of civilization, night two of the CNN Democratic presidential debates saw
less than six minutes dedicated to discussing US military policy during the 180-minute
event.
That's six, as in the number before seven. Not sixty. Not sixteen. Six. From the moment Jake Tapper said "I want to
turn to foreign policy" to the
moment Don Lemon interrupted Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard just as she was preparing to
correctly explain how President Trump is supporting Al-Qaeda in
Idlib
, approximately five minutes and fifty seconds had elapsed. The questions then turned toward
the Mueller report and impeachment proceedings.
Night one of the CNN debates saw almost twice as much time, with
a whole eleven minutes by my count dedicated to questions of war and peace for the
leadership of the most warlike nation on the planet. This discrepancy could very well be due to
the fact that night two was the slot allotted to Gabbard, whose campaign largely revolves
around the platform of ending US warmongering. CNN is a virulent establishment propaganda firm
with an extensive history of promoting
lies and
brazen psyops in facilitation of US imperialism , so it would make sense that they would
try to avoid a subject which would inevitably lead to unauthorized truth-telling on the
matter.
But the near-absence of foreign policy discussion didn't stop the Hawaii congresswoman from
getting in some unauthorized truth-telling anyway.
Attacking the
authoritarian prosecutorial record of Senator Kamala Harris to thunderous applause from the
audience, Gabbard criticized the way her opponent "put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana
violations and then laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana," "blocked
evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the court's forced her to
do so," "kept people in prisons beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state
of California," and "fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in
the worst kind of way."
Harris, who it turns out fights
very well when advancing but folds under pressure, had no answer for Gabbard's attack,
preferring to focus on attacking Joe Biden instead . Later, when she was a nice safe distance
out of Gabbard's earshot, she uncorked a
long-debunked but still effective smear which establishment narrative managers have been
dying for an excuse to run wild with.
"This, coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has
murdered the people of his country like cockroaches," Harris told
Anderson Cooper after the debate.
"She who has embraced and been an apologist for him in a way that she refuses to call him
a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously and so I'm
prepared to move on."
That was all it took. Harris' press secretary Ian Sams unleashed a string of tweets
about Gabbard being an "Assad apologist", which was followed by a deluge of establishment
narrative managers who sent the word "Assad" trending on Twitter, at times when Gabbard's name
somehow failed to trend despite being
the top-searched candidate on Google after the debate. As of this writing, "Assad" is showing on the #5 trending list
on the side bar of Twitter's new layout, while Gabbard's name is nowhere to be seen. This
discrepancy has drawn
criticism from numerous Gabbard defenders on
the platform .
"Somehow I have a hard time believing that 'Assad' is the top trending item in the United
States but 'Tulsi' is nowhere to be found," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into
mainstream consciousness all at the same time.
The Washington Post 's Josh Rogin went on a frantic, lie-filled Twitter
storm as soon as he saw an opportunity, claiming with no evidence
whatsoever that Gabbard lied when she said she met with Assad for purposes of diplomacy and
that she "helped Assad whitewash a mass atrocity", and falsely claiming that " she praised
Russian bombing of Syrian civilians ".
In reality all
Gabbard did was meet with Assad to discuss the possibility of peace, and, more importantly,
she said the US shouldn't be involved in regime change interventionism in Syria. This latter
bit of business is the real reason professional war propagandists like Rogin are targeting her;
not because they honestly believe that a longtime US service member and sitting House
Representative is an "Assad apologist", but because she commits the unforgivable heresy of
resisting the mechanics of America's forever war .
MSNBC's Joy Reid gleefully leapt into the smearing frenzy, falsely claiming that "Gabbard
will not criticize Assad, no matter what." Gabbard has publicly and unequivocally both decried
Assad as a "brutal dictator" and claimed he's guilty of war crimes, much
to the irritation of anti-imperialists like myself who hold a far more skeptical eye to the
war propaganda narratives about what's going on in Syria. At no time has Gabbard ever claimed
that Assad is a nice person or that he isn't a brutal leader; all she's done is say the US
shouldn't get involved in another regime change war there because US regime change
interventionism is consistently and predictably disastrous. That's not being an "Assad
apologist", that's having basic common sense.
"Beware the Russian bots and their promotion of Tulsi Gabbard and sowing racial
dischord [sic], especially around Kamala Harris," tweeted New York Times and
CNN contributor Wajahat Ali.
All the usual war cheerleaders from Lindsey Graham to
Caroline
Orr to Jennifer Rubin piled on,
because this feeding frenzy had nothing to do with concern that Gabbard adores Bashar al-Assad
and everything to do with wanting more war. Add that to the fact that Gabbard just publicly
eviscerated a charming, ambitious and completely amoral centrist who would excel at putting a
friendly humanitarian face on future wars if elected, and it's easy to understand why the
narrative managers are flipping out so hard right now.
War is the
glue that holds the empire together . A politician can get away with opposing some aspects
of the status quo when it comes to healthcare or education, but war as a strategy for
maintaining global dominance is strictly off limits. This is how you tell the difference
between someone who actually wants to change things and someone who's just going through the
motions for show; the real rebels forcefully oppose the actual pillars of empire by calling for
an end to military bloodshed, while the performers just stick to the safe subjects.
The shrill, hysterical pushback that Gabbard received last night was very encouraging,
because it means she's forcing them to fight back. In a media environment where the war
propaganda machine normally coasts along almost entirely unhindered in mainstream attention,
the fact that someone has positioned themselves to move the needle like this says good things
for our future. If our society is to have any chance of ever throwing off the omnicidal,
ecocidal power establishment which keeps us in a state of endless war and soul-crushing
oppression, the first step is punching a hole in
the narrative matrix which keeps us hypnotized into believing that this is all normal and
acceptable.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Whoever disrupts that narrative control
is doing the real work.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish
is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying
my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written)
in any way they like free of charge.
"It really is interesting how aggressively the narrative managers thrust this line into
mainstream consciousness all at the same time." - C.J.
I think we see evidence of this sort of thing all the time. "Russian collusion" was thrust
upon MSM consumers in coordinated fashion for many months. Now that it has largely fizzled
out, "racism" has taken its place. "Racism". "Racism". "Racism". It seems as if MSM drones
plug into the Mothership to get their talking points. This sort of behavior was featured in
the 1939 film, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", when the Establishment decided Mr. Smith
needed to be crushed.
Harris's deflection of Gabbard's attacks are right in line with the Establishment's
treatment of people who don't tow the line. Harris is trying to dismiss Gabbard as if her
opinion has no weight. Harris is probably wishing hard that Gabbard won't make the next round
of debates.
if Tulsi is nominee, i'll vote for her and vote republican for house/senate etc. her
anti-war policy is what i was hoping Trump would do. in reality if the republicans hold a
chamber in congress then any anti-gun and healthcare bills won't get through. but on day one
Tulsi can start removing our troops from Ukraine, Syria, Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Turkey, and
wherever the hell else they are
Tulsi Gabbard is no cankles. She is a veteran, she's female, and she has some good
policies. Buyer beware her site mentions nothing about gun control. Liberals always make me
nervous.
As president I'll end the failed war on drugs, legalize marijuana, end cash bail, and
ban private prisons and bring about real criminal justice reform. ( link )
Everyone talks a big game..but Trump's actually delivered on a few good policies. Example
he ended Trans-Pacific partnership. He is renegotiating bad deals with NAFTA and China. He's
able to take the heat form the deep state and criminals all around him. He's kept the stock
market up. I suspect the stock market is the tide lifting all boats. So far Trump's been
pretty good.
The only thing I have against Tulsi Gabbard is that she recently voted for the ridiculous
Democrat sponsored Defense budget that was even more than the Pentagon requested.
Tulsi Gabbard should be the Democratic Nominee. I support Trump, voted for him, but he is
too distracted, too much of an overactive schmoe. He made all of these promises and yes the
attacks have been relentless, but nothing is being accomplished. Trump has deep state clowns
all around him including Bolton and Pompeo. The deficit is going through the roof, the
artificial, superficial manipulated stock market is going to eventually hurt a lot of
people.
I don't agree with many of her policies but Tulsi Gabbard is a sane and a thoughtful
thinker. She will think before reacting. Her Ron Paul approach to our overreach in the world
is absolutely appropriate. Think about this, we spend $850 Billion Dollars on defense so we
can feed the war industry. That is more than all the countries of the world combined
literally!!! If we brought all the troops home, closed up most bases outside the US, and
protected our borders, our deficit would plummet, we could rebuild the infrastructure, we
could figure out the health care B.S. We would get along with the rest of the world instead
of being looked at as an enemy.
Everybody is coming out of the woodwork because she knows, like most, that Assad did not
pepper spray his own people. Cripes, when does this insanity end?
Drawing down the US military to the point you describe will put 1 million American men and
women between the ages of 18 and 40 out of work. Do you not realize in addition to feeding
the MIC the military is one giant jobs program? Those young men and women, the vast majority
of whom do not want to learn to code, would find themselves competing against foreigners and
teenagers for $15 minimum wage jobs.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world would openly laugh at us and secretly plot how to take
advantage of the power vacuum. Evil does not rest when unopposed, it becomes stronger.
When half the world's population (= all Chinese plus all Muslims) wants to destroy your
country, "insanity" is defined as beating your swords into ploughshares.
The enemies of Tulsi Gabbard are not the Zionazis who helped Trump win the elections or
MAGA hat wearing hillbillies who have no clue whats the difference between Hong Kong and King
Kong. It is the liberals who voted for Hillary and went berserk after their beloved mafia
bitch lost who hate Tulsi Gabbard. Because she makes them look like what they are, i.e. scum.
Sure, conservatives will never vote for a intelligent woman. But they are not the
problem.
"Liberals who voted for Hillary" is a false premise. The Democratic National Committee
forced Hillary Clinton on liberals, they fixed the primaries so she would win. Liberals and
progressives wanted Bernie Sanders who would have kicked Trump's ***.
"... On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone else. ..."
"... @doh1304 ..."
"... Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet. It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard about any of these issues. ..."
"... Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala. ..."
Why go after Biden? He's already imploding; she would only look cruel, beating up on a senile
old man for her own aggrandizement. Harris, OTOH, is a clear enemy, perpetrator of obvious
crimes. Exposing her could only make her look like a paladin.
On top of the cake Kamala Not-The-Wrestler responded as expected, with a neoMcCarthyite
slander, which will only work with Tulsi's haters and make Harris look like a tool to everyone
else.
Harris is sort of right, it is a strategy only used by someone trying to come from behind,
but that's because people with Tulsi's integrity are not allowed to start at the "Top-tier". up
14 users have voted. --
@doh1304 Harris' record was both fair game and easy pickings because no one had gone there yet.
It gained Tulsi the maximum impact because those who don't follow politics had not heard
about any of these issues.
Joe is so far down in the actual REAL polls, (not the land line polls as has been
exposed), that the oligarchy has given up on him. Tulsi senses Joe is low hanging fruit. The
DNC is going to cheat Bernie with either Kamala or Liz. Tulsi just took out Kamala.
Don't be surprised if she goes after Pocahontas in the next debates.
The crisis actors are just there to say what the democrats can't do or to derail anyone
who thinks they are going to change the system. Delaney, Bullock, DeBlasio and everyone else
who doesn't stand a chance have all been negative on Warren and Bernie pushing their MFA. Did
Delaney set himself up for Warren to smack him down? The silly ass smile on his face made me
think that. Then he was all over Twitter the next day saying how good he did in the debate.
And after 24 hours he finally had a comeback to Warren's response.
The other reason for so many candidates of course is to split the votes during the first
part so that the super delegates can come in and play.
attitude certainly was smacked down in righteous fashion. Hollywood level
righteous.
Having those extras on stage feature so prominently in the debates certainly was
interesting.
Can't believe Russian bots conspired to make Kamala implement an anti-truancy program, force
prisoners into slave labor, withhold evidence that would have released a death row inmate, and
keep cops unaccountable for police shootings. Those Russians are diabolical.
Harris's spokesman explains Tulsi's takedown of Kamala: It was Russia!
gjohnsit on Thu, 08/01/2019 - 11:47am Snoopydawg has got the
takedown covered , so I won't duplicate it.
Instead I'd like to show you how TOP has gone into a full-throated
whine party over it.
On Wednesday night, that meant that Gabbard got to go after Kamala Harris on her actions as
attorney general, using loaded phrases and selected statements to paint Harris as someone who
was ready to throw pot-smokers behind bars for eternity and personally throw the execution
switch for death row inmates after hiding evidence of their innocence.
There's no doubt that Harris will face more kicks about her AG role during this campaign,
and she certainly expected to receive some blows. But Gabbard knew she could square off with
Harris in the certainty that no one, but no one, came into the Wednesday night debate
thinking, "I need to prepare some talking points against Tulsi Gabbard." And even if she had,
CNN gave Harris little time to muster her thoughts before calling in more witnesses to
bolster Gabbard's attacks.
It wasn't just the tools on GOS that Tulsi knocked off balance, it was Harris
herself . Even CNN noticed.
Worse than that -- for Harris -- is the fact that it became crystal clear in the aftermath of
the debate that Gabbard had gotten under her skin. In a post-debate interview, CNN's Anderson
Cooper asked Harris about the moment with Gabbard.
"This is going to sound immodest, but obviously I'm a top-tier candidate and so I did expect
that I'd be on the stage and take some hits tonight," Harris said. "When people are at 0 or
1% or whatever she might be at, so I did expect to take some hits tonight."
Woof.
First of all, if you are running for president and you hear the words, "This is going to
sound immodest" come out of your mouth, it may be best to recalibrate what you are going to
say.
Second, what Harris is actually saying is, basically, this: The dork took a shot at the most
popular kid in school. Big whoop.
That is not a good look. For any candidate. Ever. (And, yes, politics is a LOT like high
school.)
That's gonna leave a mark.
But never fear, because there is a reason for Harris getting taken down by Gabbard -
Russia .
The #KamalaHarrisDestroyed hashtag had disappeared from the list of trending U.S. terms by
9:30 a.m. Thursday.
Harris's spokesman, Ian Sams, responded to the hashtag, noting that at least some of the
accounts promoting it appeared to be bots.
"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting
the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat," he said.
Reporters writing their stories with eyes on the modern-day assignment desk of Twitter,
read this:
"The Russian propaganda machine that tried to influence the 2016 election is now promoting
the presidential aspirations of a controversial Hawaii Democrat" https://t.co/2kpKQqW3Ir
Damn! Putin was on the debate stage and no one noticed?
That has got to be the weakest response in recent history.
Here's the thing, the Harris campaign is already guilty of
crying wolf over Russia.
Harris has already been caught misrepresenting alleged Russian propaganda activity. She
claimed in a radio interview on July 12 that she had been subjected to Russian bot attacks on
social media sites like Twitter.
But CNN debunked the claim days later, reporting that Twitter saw no evidence that Russian
bots were targeting Harris.
Williamson (D)(1): "Marianne Williamson isn't funny. She's scary." [
Vox ]. "In her book A Return to Love, Williamson wrote that "sickness is an illusion and
does not exist," and that "cancer and AIDS and other physical illnesses are physical
manifestations of a psychic scream.'"
Who gives a monkeys? The real issue is that the selfish, disorientated and cowardly way the
Dems are conducting this race is handing Trump a winning platform for 2020.
After long hard thinking I have come to the sad conclusion that Trump is right and that he is
indeed a genius. He has achieved what he had set out to do. He has polarised the standard
bearer for democracy in the world. He has enriched himself and his family. He has broken
American society, possibly irreversibly. He has brought about change in the worlds economies.
He has also managed to set the debate and the stage to win in 2020. Now some may say he has
been an awful president, but looking at his strategy he has been highly successful. He may
not be what we want but he has certainly been better at feeling the pulse of America and
deciding which medicine to give. A truly evil genius indeed.
Sanders and Warren are the only two with some kind of personality. The others look like they
were created by lobbyists and corporate donors in a lab on a computer like Kelly Lebrock from
Weird Science.
The point about taxes going up is a red herring and a straw man argument. If you get
insurance through your employer, you pay anywhere from $300/month to $1200/month for yourself
and family. Through a Medicare for all plan, that payment would disappear. Yes, you'd pay
more in taxes to cover your health insurance, but it would likely be lower than private
insurance, a net gain, with better coverage, no deductible or co-pays. Even if it was the
same, it's still a wash. You're eliminating an expense for a tax. Plus, you're not paying for
some executive's perks and exorbitant salary.
Personally, I'd feel better paying $50,000-$75,000/year to a government administrator than
$10M-$20M/year + perks to a CEO.
Obama was simply being honest there. By any standard, Obama, both Clinton's, Gore (except for
climate change) and Biden are at best moderate Republicans. Each would qualify as being to
the right of Richard Nixon (leaving aside the issue of integrity).
In the case of Bill Clinton, Americans had not got woken to the fact that, while a little
less by Democrats, the middle class was nontheless being screwed by both parties. Obama's
rhetoric was enough cover to fool the public into thinking he would fight for real change.
Both Gore and especially Hillary showed what the public now thinks of "moderates". Bernie
Sanders and/or Elizabeth Warren are the only chances to beat Trump in 2020.
Reparations for slavery, the elimination of private insurance, free health care for anyone
who overstays a visa or walks over from Mexico, and a crystal lady.
We are in trouble. My nightmare of a Trump re-election is more and more likely.
Warren and Sanders clearly demonstrated that a party wanting to win should nominate one of
them.
They enthralled the audience, and showed they possess a vision for the future that every
other Democratic candidate claims to eventually want, when there's time, maybe, perhaps if
they get a majority someday.
Clearly Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were the clear winners of the night! They shamed
the listless other candidates, none of whom exhibited a similar energy, excitement &
vision for the future of the country. Despite a definite veneer of displeasure by your
account, both the audience at the event, and those watching at home felt the excitement of
progressive proposals won the day.
When Sanders declared he's in favor of free healthcare and free education for illegal
immigrants there was -at best - muted criticism from the other candidates.
Most Americans are likely outraged by this suggestion and this will play in Trump's
favor.
It's obvious that John Delaney is simply a plant by Big Business (which has both the centrist
Democrats and all of Republicans in its pocket) to troll and derail the candidacy of
progressives Sanders and Warren. His sole function is to throw a monkey wrench in their path
and be a "nattering nabob of negativism" (to quote Agnew) regarding their policies. That's
all he does all day and all night, and the centrist-loving moderators and journalists love
giving him infinite time to do his damage
The answer is obvious: if you want your best shot at 86-ing the orange pestilence, then it
has to be Warren/Sanders or Sanders/Warren. You're not supposed to signal your vice-president
until after you've got the nomination, I know, but surely having Trump as president has
shredded all previous norms? Go now, right now, and say that it'll be you two. You can even
keep it open and say that you don't know who'll head the ticket but it will be Warren and
Sanders. That would crush all opposition and keep churning interesting as a guessing game.
Maybe Warren should head the ticket. I know that Sanders is very sharp and he plays
basketball but if he was president then he'd be asking for a second term and to get sworn in
when he's 83 and being in one's eighties might be too much of a psychological barrier. My
suggestion, though, would be it's Sanders/Warren but on the promise that Sanders will step
aside during his first term, after two years and one day (meaning that Warren could serve out
the rest of the term and still then run for two more terms under her own steam).
That would guarantee the first female president and so quieten down the phoney-baloney
identity politics drones; better, it would mean that the US would get an excellent leader in
Elizabeth Warren, no matter her bodily organs; it would pull together the Crooked H.
adherents and get them on side, if they truly care about getting female in there and if it
doesn't it will expose them as the phonies they are. And it would keep matters on policy,
when Trump is weak, rather than personalities, which is the territory on which Trump wants to
fight.
Delaney is not a moderate, he is a poorly paid actor for the ruling class. He had a miserable
debate performance, like his peers in the second tier set of candidates. That any of the
press is attempting to rehabilitate his performance is a sign of extreme bias, not an
accurate portrayal of the car crash that transpired last night for his campaign.
Post debate analysis is breathtaking in it's unanimity: everyone in the establishment press
is doing what they can to ignore the fact that Sanders and Warren knocked it out of the park.
Contrary to the mandatory company line, this was not a debate between moderates and
progressives; this was a debate between people who want to do something and those who have
been hired to stall progress, and it has never been so apparent as it was in this lively
debate.
I think the corporate media knows this, which is why they are desperately spinning this in
any other way but that Warren and Sanders were the most viable and competent candidates on
the stage.
Without question, their performance killed the candidacy of every other person on the
stage.
Thanks for a serious response (most of the others were just reactions founded on confirmation
bias)
You make a good point. Even the conservatives here are on that socialist spectrum in that
there is extensive state intervention (NHS, welfare, care, regulation etc). That intervention
is to stay irrespective of some of the scare stories for the simple reason no one will get
elected on a platform of doing away with it.
In basic terms terms the key difference between "right" and "left" is how to best pay for
that state intervention. Incentives and a degree of market freedom versus a state controlled
economy and more radical distribution.
So yes the term socialist is often used to scare people by the right - just as the left
use "tories" to scare people ["24 hours to save the NHS" anyone?].
There is a reason why centrism has largely prevailed in the west. Its evolved in a Darwin
like way as being the best balance for peoples views and expectations. I suspect radical
change - left or right - will end up as a major disappointment
Sanders and Warren harp on about medicare for all being "free health care".
Let me make one thing clear: Medicare is not healthcare. It is health insurance.
Medicare administrators never touch a patient, they push paperwork around and oversee
payment for services rendered by medical professionals. Throwing a third of a billion people
onto a system that currently administers care for a hundred million is a recipe for disaster,
especially if providers, unable to make a profit, decide to get out of the business. We
already have a shortage of doctors and nurses and care facilities in many parts of the
country, this is certain to make the problem worse.
What do the candidates propose to do about funding for advanced care if all people are
entitled to free organ transplants? There are new cancer therapies, taylor-made for each
patient, which show astonishing promise, but cost half a million dollars per patient. Medical
care already eats up a sixth of our economy, want to double that? Remember, we also have to
tackle climate change at the same time.
Much of Europe has socialized medicine and most European countries permit private
insurance, usually as a supplement to the public system. Private patients may receive better,
or at least more luxurious, care, but they also take a load off the public system. If the
democrats really wanted to make life better for those on the bottom of the income spectrum,
they might consider government financing of existing urgent care facilities which are popping
up all over the place (there are four in my town of 35,000). Imagine being able to walk in to
a "doc-in-a-box", pay $20 and get diagnosed for your flu, high blood pressure, sutures for a
cut, or an X-ray for that twisted/possibly broke ankle. Currently, many such patients go to
ERs where they receive treatment at many times the $90 walk-in cost of the average urgent
care shop.
Consider delivering minor care at schools. Why do I have to take my kids to a doctor to
get the immunizations required to attend school or sports physicals. The kids are at school,
give 'em their shots and exams there. That way there will be less weaseling out.
This wouldn't be the all encompassing solution that Sanders and Warren are dreaming of,
but it would represent a solid start and might intercept unwell patients before they become
acute or chronic cases.
By the way, Mr Sanders, stop waving your arms about. The WSJ has a photo of you on its
online edition that has you looking like an ape in a cage.
Health care in the US is the most bloated, wasteful and needlessly complex issue facing US
citizens today. As Bernie says it should be a human right for each citizen of the wealthiest
country on earth. Americans need to understand what a socialized health system is, indeed,
they need to understand what socialism is, they conflate it with communism, no one seems to
want to explain the difference which would go a long way to gaining wide spread acceptance.
Education is another monumental waste of resources. Far too many kids go to college who are
not suited to academic endeavor, many take more than four years to graduate an undergraduate
degree if they graduate at all, that is not to say they should not be provided a vocational
option if they wish. A healthy and educated workforce makes social, economic, and political
sense.
"Many Americans love the quality of healthcare they get."
They may love it for now but as drug prices climb, co pays climb and heaven help us ACA
gets repealed then what? At least the dems, particularly the "progressives" are pulling out
of the business as usual model.
Lots of folks decried FDR's New Deal, even hated it - until it put a paycheck in their
hand. They could yell all they wanted about government programs but their children
appreciated not starving.
Neither Warren or Sanders is advocating 'outlawing' private healthcare. That is a
disingenuous term. They are offering what is common to all western democracies, universal
healthcare. Obamacare is a gift to the insurance industry and not a platform for anything
other than increased profit by the insurance industry. It was taken from a plan by the
Heritage Foundation. It is not a legacy worth preserving, Medicare for all is the alternative
and a very good one. Rich people can keep their expensive plans and continue to
pay-out-the-ass, which they can easily afford.
All the blather by the conservative corporate Democrats posing as moderates is, of course,
self-serving and the nonsense about concerns for union healthcare plans is absurd. I was a
Union member, a chief steward, sat on the bargaining committee and was a representative to
the national: universal healthcare or Medicare for all is an excellent idea, as Mr. Sanders
asserts it would allow wage increases ans eliminate the biggest obstacle in contract
negotiations which is the cost of health insurance. The cost of which continually was
increasing by double digits, along with increases in co-pays. In fact, the increased costs
forced the abandonment of what was a superior insurance plan to one that was inferior.
Delaney, is the former CEO of CapitalSource, essentially a loan-sharking operation (a
testament by Forbes), involved in foreclosure scams. HealthCare Financial Partners is another
Delaney entity worth examining for its less than ethical practices, which in the business
world where Delaney dwells, is an unspoken word or determinant.
Delaney bundled together $800,000 for HRC, which bought him the endorsement of Bill Clinton
when Delaney ran for higher office. He is conservative and wedded to the profit motive and
could care less about ordinary citizens. The current businessman inhabiting the presidency is
more than a cautionary tale, which applies to Delaney. He is a conservative Clintonite and
embraces the rather malleable ethics of the Clintons, essentially amoral.
Honestly, only the very dimmest of dimwits would categorize ELIMINATING the $400/month
average middle class families pay for Health Insurance Premiums and replacing it with a
$250/Month Average payment to the government as 'raising taxes' on those people. If you doubt
that, ask yourself why the largest corporations AREN'T screaming about 'raised taxes' if we
go to Medicare for All.... it's because they can do the math, and they know that eliminating
the $750/month average that THEY pay in Premium contributions PER EMPLOYEE will benefit them
much more than the accompanying 'tax increase for M4A...
When the OVERALL COST of the system goes down around 15% (Private Insurance 'overhead'
increases costs 20%+, Medicare is just under 6%), EVERYONE saves in the long run....
You're wrong. A Neocon will bridge the divide between what we have now (Full on Crazy Town
Heading for WW3) and what a Biden/Klobuchar could lead to: Eg - a Warren or a Beto.
Gives people time to realize "hey. this cheaper health care and no student fees and
$15 dollar minimum wage aint so bad!!!" <face palm>
Biden's key advantage is his appeal to the affluent white middle class secret Trump
supporters who came out in droves.
A Biden/Klobuchar ticket could be the strongest "right wing" combination for the Dems.
As an overall observation and the way these debates are promoted and run, how depressing they
are as a commentary on America. It's turned into a sporting, showbiz event, each candidate
given one pesky minute to try and get something across.
Short doses for America's short attention span. Let's just be done with it and combine the
f****** election with an episode of The Bachelor or f****** Kardashians. It makes me sick.
Before a "Medicare for All" (M4A) bill got near a vote there would be massive negative
advertising against it. Don't you remember when we were working on getting the ACA passed how
the "Tea Party" was formed -- with plenty of $$ from those opposed to any changes in health
care provisioning & financing -- & they went into insane rages & attacks? We got
the T-Party Republicans out of it who still bedevil us today.
The NHS was born out of WWII when Britain had to provide hospitals & clinics all
around the country because so many people were pushed out of London & into the boonies.
More building occurred centrally to care for the military & vets so there were government
owned facilities everywhere.
Here in the US the veteran's Medical facilities are totally separate & jealously held
so & if Bernie wants to fold them into his scheme he'll have to go over or through the
bodies of all the Vets in America who feel they've earned their care.
A third of all the people in Medicare have *chosen to use a privatized version* which
while it limits choice of providers has some added goodies like health clubs. They will fight
change as will people with retirement programs that they "earned."
Your last statement actually is astute: "I genuinely believe that unless the slate is
completely wiped clean in the short to medium term you'll never have Medicare for all work,
last, or garner public support in the way of the NHS, say."
That's true. Truly you can't get there from here. Britain had no system provisioning
health care for people in general. They had an almost blank slate. They didn't have to take
away something of value from millions of people. That is what Obama knew. You can add on, you
can work on underlying problems, you can augment and improve coverage but you can't trash the
whole system that so many people rely on.
We need universal coverage for all that want it. There will always be some left out. (Can
you mention Trumps & other ultra rich taking part in any insurance for the peasantry).
Medicare which has been in existence for 50 years (with much tinkering along the way) covers
just 95% of seniors; 5% are completely left out. If you use that as an analogy we would find
5% of 330 million or about 16 million won't be covered AT BEST.
As much as I have stated how badly I want Trump impeached, I honestly think Biden would be
worse for America and the world, than Trump. Biden thinks we can win a war with Russia. That
is insane. No sane person wants nuclear holocaust. However Biden thinks these neoliberal
propensities can continue without consequence.
Tulsi understands that you can't keep poking Russia with a stick. If you recall, HRC
wanted to set up a no fly zone over Syria while Russia was flying combat missions in Syria.
That is the type of neoliberal bullshit that can lead to nuclear holocaust. If you have the
time watch this old
video
If you took the time to watch the video, you should be able to see how the CIA will resume
its effort under Biden and Biden's vision is clear from this article he wrote
just last year .
The far left wants too much form Tulsi. You can't fight on two fronts when attacking the the neocon foreign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following, between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days. ..."
I should always trust my instincts. Attending an event hosted by the Adelsons was disturbing enough, but I trusted people here
instead and brushed off my suspicions.
Israel is the litmus test issue in American politics for a lot of good reasons. It may or may not be the worst regime in the
world. There are a lot of bad ones competing for that title, many of whom we support. But Israel is the candidate we not only
support but sponsor and champion to the point where it is at times very very hard to tell who is leading and who is following,
between Israel and the US. This seems to have a lot to do with the end-times preoccupations that seem to have been at the heart
of what passes for American spirituality since the earliest colonial days.
Gabbard has now broken a lot of hopes. She has jumped the shark spectacularly, shamelessly craving the support of the 'Israel
Lobby'. Her claims to be against the regime change wars when these wars are relentlessly pushed by the Israel Lobby she is now
shamelessly courting?!!!
I suppose we can hope that Tulsi takes a flying leap back over the shark, say by visiting Gaza the way she recently visited
Puerto Rico. If she doesn't now make a huge point of it, in words and actions, that she will NOT be yet another tool of the Israel
Lobby, the neocons, the neolibs, etc., then she must be opposed as the turncoat shill she now seems to be.
No use wasting breath on Gabbard. Trump vs. Biden in 2020 with Trump taking the Midwest and the electoral college like 2016 is
unavoidable. If undermining Gabbard is your deal, I'd wait until 2024.
I took a lot of flak when I pointed out the simple truth that Gabbard is not against war and not against US/NATO imperialism
but simply against "regime change wars" that USA failed to win.
Trump was also against dumb wars and his imperialist detractors called him an isolationist - but that was merely a neat
way to burnish his populist credentials. Trump has acted much like his imperialist predecessors who hedge their peace talk with
exceptionalist morality that requires utmost strength in a "dangerous world". And these faux democratic leaders are all-too-willing
to lead the propaganda effort when called upon to support Deep State objectives.
Gabbard reminds me that the leaders of every nation should be watching re-runs of Mister Roger's Neighborhood and apply its lessons
to the abstract and Alpha-male dominated world of international relations.
I'm only half-joking. In a world of technological parity, real-time communication, and rapid travel the importance of being
a good neighbor has never been more important. At the minimum, that means doing no harm and, at the max, doing nice things with
no expectations.
Alas, we're stuck with countries building walls, using prosperity as a weapon, and thinking that power never waxes and wanes.
Shame that human wisdom hasn't kept up with material progress.
I had an uneasy interest/hope in/for Gabbard. No more after she sold herself to Israeli interests.
Lets face it, nobody worth his/her salt can get close to the Presidency without being backed by one or more factions of the
elite. The unrepresented bottom 90% (non military/vet) simply has no representation, and more than half are too stupid to know
it.
Change for the better will never happen under the present system. The US and the world will continue falling into the abyss.
One day soon the people find out what that means. Thats when the gloves come off. Nowhere to hide then. Serve your masters well
or be disappeared.
Jason @42 is right. Gabbard was never going to make it anyway. She's there because fake democratic choice is the establishment's
way of cementing their control.
As in:
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Tulsi (faux anti-war choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Bernie (faux anti-wealth inequality choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Kamala (faux civil rights choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Biden (faux anti-Trump choice)
- STFU, you shoulda voted for Warren (faux business regulation)
Gabbard: One can either give up participating (definitely an option) or look for the best alternative to doing nothing. As
pointed out by others there is a power structure in America, which cannot be opposed in totality.
On the other hand, politicians are famous for not keeping their promises. There is the possibility of not keeping promises
to Adelson as well. One person can only do so much, even the President. So, we have to keep supporting alternatives, if there
is any chance at all to change direction. Outside forces are definitely going to help here ... Russia and China are busy building
a new 'World Order' which will be very good for America, when we finally give up the Empire.
Environmental fanatics: The two essential factors in preserving Earth's ecosystem are: 1) limit to human population ... I believe
this is happening and human population will reach a peak and begin to decline I think best estimates are ~ 2050 at 10 billion,
2) widespread, near total replacement of fossil energy use by nuclear power, which can easily be made to have virtually zero environmental
impact, while allowing a high standard of living for Earth's entire population.
Jodi Schneider
Senior International Editor
Gabbard says she will "
end these endless regime-change wars
" and use the "trillions of dollars we have
been wasting on these wars and these weapons" on domestic spending.
Photographer: Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
They're trying to get rid of Harris and Biden. I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Harris was
always going to get drowned by her own record as California's AG. And Biden... meh.
One of them. Warren eviscerating Delaney was another. Or her saying that Democrats are not
the Republicans, wanting to take healthcare away... Then, there was Buttigieg saying that no
matter what they do, the Republicans would call them socialists anyway, so who cares.
...whether the Democrats will end up moving too far to the left to be able to defeat
Trump in 2020...
reflects a poorly conceived (false) dichotomy about what "the left" is. When he says "the
left" what does he even mean?
There's the socialist left , which seeks to provide good working conditions and
pay, and better wealth distributions among the populace. This could be a huge boon to any
group suffering under the current economic system - including groups which Trump appealed to
in the last election but has utterly failed to do anything for.
There's the identity politics left which Hillary and the Neo-liberals (and the
Republicans, actually) embrace as a form of marketing strategy and use to promote free-market
ideology.
There's the "Democrat Party" (DNC) left which really stands for little more than
party rhetoric any more and vehemently supports Neo-liberalism.
And there's the environmentalist left which sees Global Climate destabilization as
the #1 issue facing the planet (a position loathed by the Neo-liberals and
identitarians).
There are also combinations and permutations of all these "lefts".
So when Kabaservice says he fears the Democrats moving too far to the left, he's
conflating all sorts of things, murkily hiding his intents behind his ill-defined
terminology.
There are over 20 candidates. They need to tread carefully. Kamala Harris discovered that
roasting Establishment candidate Biden early on didn't help her in the end.
The weirdos/corporate-shrills in the media are all slamming Sanders for his grumpiness and
'shouting'. I mean, the man is angry that people are dying because the Govt isn't looking
after them. How's that a minus against Sanders's personality??? Everyone should be mad as
hell. I'm a big fan of Warren but no-one can dispute that Sanders is a good man.
Delaney - the multi millionaire - looked like he had been entrusted by CNN (and probably the
DNC) to be the first of many attack dogs against Sanders and Warren. He was probably meant to
appear the voice of reason, speaking rational politics to make make them seem like
extremists, but he came across as dumb and sounded like a spokesperson for the very vested
interests that will be threatened most by Sanders´ and Warren´s plans. And that
gormless face will surely be the subject of memes for years to come!
I think I read somewhere that 87% of US elections are won by the candidate with the most
money. And since most money comes from the millionaires and their lobbyists the DNC
establishment clearly would rather work for those with most, than for those in most need. A
bit like the Blairite nest within Corbyn´s Labour Party. And what John Delaney was
saying was exactly why ordinary people are so disillusioned with regular politicians -
especially those of the so-called ´left´- and why they become so easily taken-in
by populists like Trump.
When the right get in they always do stuff for their paymasters. Big stuff. They steal
public funds through tax cuts for the rich and the corporations. They repeal protections for
workers, and allow Big Oil to destroy the environment. They bloat the budget for the military
industrial complex and allow the US Military machine to be used as a private army for the
corporations´insatiable resource grab. And they let Wall Street do what it wants.
When the so called parties of the left get in - be they Democrats, Labour, SPD or whoever
-they usually do diddly squat. Because deals have usually been made not to shake anything up.
Not even to correct the injustices enacted by their predecessors. I saw a stat about US
government tax revenues that showed how 50 years ago 33% came from companies and only about
10% came from incomes; today those numbers are reversed. It´s no wonder millions are
becoming desperate for change.
I´m sure the DNC and its paymasters will no doubt try to learn something from the
debate, to better prep Joe Biden when he steps into the ring, probably against Sanders OR
Warren. I can´t see him going up against both of them. But also to better rig future
debates against Sanders and Warren, perhaps to try to divide them. Though, to be fair to CNN,
they did a pretty good job. But it clearly failed.
What will be interesting will be watching how the adult-in-room MSM switches from
incessant Trump bashing to doing everything it can to stop Sanders and Warren. I fear that it
will get dirty, and relentless, and both will be attacked, labelled and misrepresented. But
if a moderate candidate - like Honest Joe Biden - is jerrymandered into position up
against Trump in 2020 then I fear that we are all fucked.
Warren: "We beat it by being the party of big structural change." The issue is whether
"regulation" is big enough and structural enough.
Sanders: "To stand with the working class* of American that for the last 45 years has been
decimated." Then the Canada bus trip. "We need a mass political movement. Take on the greed
and the corruption of the ruling class of this country." Plugs website.
Sanders was better; working the bus trip in was good.
NOTE *
Guardian paraphrase : "Bernie Sanders pledged to stand by the US middle class , recounting his recent trip to Canada to
emphasize the high price of insulin in America." Lol.
The allergy to the phrase "working class" is not accidental. They want as many Americans
as possible thinking they're just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
As someone who has spent most of my life in the working class, made it to the middle, got
knocked down again, and made my way back up to the middle again, there is most certainly a
difference.
When was the last time (if ever) that someone said the words "ruling class" in a
presidential debate? (I assume that Eugene Debs was never invited to any presidential
debate.)
Even that Bernie said "working class" won points with me. Typical of the Guardian to change
it to "middle class".
Williamson was impressive.
I liked that Warren showed fire and guts. Her policies would be a real change for the better,
especially if pushed farther. My real question about her is whether she would stand up to the
other side and fight to win.
For me, the biggest difference between Bernie and Warren is that I am starting to hope that
Warren would really fight, but I know Bernie would.
I like Bernie better, but I like Warren too, and I *DO* trust her to fight.
The big tell was when she went to Washington as a Senator and Larry Summers said don't
criticize us in public if you want to be part of the club, and she not only ignored that but
told on him publicly!
Two actually GOOD people! They were my dream team last night.
I agree. I'm highly skeptical of Warren delivering anything (especially a victory), and I
don't really trust her to try very hard to implement her plans. Watching her in this debate
opened a thin crack in my icy wall of distrust. I hope she proves me wrong.
Eh . Warren for all her sociopolitical baggage is a completely different animal to the
Blue Dog Corporatist DNC fundie or the Free Market Conservative slash Goat picked me to
administrate reality for everyone dilemma.
But yeah feel [tm] free [tm] to play curricular firing squad and then wonder why ones head
is sore from the effects of banging on an sacrilegious edifice .
I think a photo finish by Sanders and Warren, Buttigieg in the running followed by
Klobuchar, Beto fading, the centrists losing big, Williamson a dark horse coming up on the
outside.
By one key metric -- Google interest -- Marianne Willamson was the dominant figure of the debate. and that's tells a lot about
debate aorgnizers which are not interested in real political debase. Just interested in the debate as a political show. They
are too interested in promoted identity politics to devide the electorate, to allow discussion of really important for the
nation question such as rampant militarism.
Notable quotes:
"... A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for." ..."
"... Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party, judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of government policy to solve problems in society. ..."
"... One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype. ..."
A lot of liberals will love her for her quip, "I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of
running to the president of the United States to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for."
Of course, she's celebrating one of the big problems in our political system -- no presidential
candidate wants to acknowledge the limits of the power of the office, the presence of the opposition party,
judicial review, the inherent difficulties of enacting sweeping changes through legislation, or the limit of
government policy to solve problems in society.
One of the reasons Americans are so cynical is that they've seen plenty of politicians come and go, with
almost every one of them promising the moon and very few living up to the hype.
Advertisement
Warren shamelessly insisted that the government could pay for quality health care for every American -- and
illegal immigrants, too! -- just by raising taxes on billionaires and big corporations. Warren made clear
tonight that she's not going to let a little thing like fiscal reality get in between her and the nomination.
... ... ...
Tonight was another night where you could easily forget Amy Klobuchar was on stage. Back when Klobuchar's campaign was in the
nascent stage, people wondered how "Minnesota nice" would play on a national debate stage. We can now declare it boring,
predictable, and forgettable.
During the hot takes, Axelrod, of Sanders on #MedicareForAll. Basically, this is hard,
Obama wanted a public option and couldn't do it. Then:
He [Sanders] was there, he knows that what he's talking about won't happen any time
soon.
First, Obama was never serious about the public option (itself an unserious
bait-and-switch operation by liberals). He cut a deal with Big Pharma to drop it in exchange
for some now forgotten price breaks -- and kept it secret, so his deluded followers could
pretend it was still on the table.
Second, Sanders extracted several billion dollars for community health centers as his
price for supporting the bill. That was the benefit of Sanders being "there,"
unmentioned by Axelrod. He wasn't a passive observer, he improved the bill.
Third, Sanders does not know #MedicareForAll will "not happen anytime soon."
Axelrod cannot accept Sanders's theory of change, partly because it was destroy his personal
business model, partly because the professional base of the Democrats opposes expanding the
base to working class voters tooth and nail.
Fourth, Axelrod just outright said Sanders is a liar. Hopefully, the campaign calls him
out for that.
This is the David Yepsen School of Reporting. Yepsen was a DM Register political analyst
whose stock question formula was:
"[People whose names I won't mention] say [some horrible thing for which there is no proof
and so legitimate media has been ignoring it] and what is your response to that?"
Yepsen single-handedly laundered countless specious rightwing attacks on Democrats in Iowa
by inserting rumors into interviews and even debate questions, and when the candidates
responded, the rumors became legit "news" stories. He then became the Dean of Iowa Reporters
which meant that every four years, the national press corps kissed his ass for Iowa Caucus
stories.
From my Antipodean seat, I always thought that it a weakness on Bernie's part that he
never says that he stands for traditional American values. Stuff like being able to give your
opinion, the right to vote and have it counted, not to be harassed by a militarized police,
having an opportunity to get a decent paying job and be protected by a union, being able to
earn enough to have a home, to seek education without being subjected to a lifetime of debt
enslavement for your choice. Stuff like that.
Not so much a Norman Rockwell version of America but making America a land of opportunity for
all and not just a wealthy minority. That would grab a lot of people's attention. Maybe he
should come out and say; "Hey, wages in this country have not gone up in forty years. So just
where exactly did all those trillions of dollars go that should have gone into your pockets
over all those years?" Put his opposition on the spot trying to defend the indefensible.
But I wonder if the very important work of educating the public via a reframing of
fundamental concepts is the same work as getting elected and actually leading the country.
Bernie on occasion explains that what he means by socialism is close to FDR's vision, but
that's not how the vast majority of the electorate understands the term. It's unlikely that
there is enough time before the 2020 election to change the typical voter's default
definitions for that and related words.
Map/territory confusion is the root of idolatry. Getting stuck on the word comes off as
stubbornness, or worse. AOC, for example, is much looser when pressed with the typical
neoliberal talking points and quickly shifts to the underlying policies and values.
There are aspects to the M4A disagreements among the Democratic candidates that seem to
revolve around a similar confusion, that between the destination and the path.
... My idea of a "Unity Candidate" is that it will be Hillary again. Hillary channeling
Sisyphus; "Roll away the stone!"
Got another DCCC begging letter today. The title of it was "2019 Official Democratic Unity
Survey."
The fix is in already.
I place no value in this, no matter how well Bernie does. It is theater, and if Bernie
does well, he does well at theater. Maybe it matters, it shouldn't, but it is a horrible
forum to focus on policy and the fact that CNN can host this debate is infuriating. I would
love just one debate to be hosted by the DSA, or at least an actually leftist media outlet.
You know, pretending that the Democrats are on the left and could take questions from
leftists on policy. I know it would never happen, but imagine how the questions would be
framed if it was. Biden would be toast, as he would have no real defense of his horrific
record in office. As it is, some overpaid hack will ask questions framed in a misleading way
and will not give enough time to the candidate to flesh out an answer, especially if the
issue is complex. If the USSR had elections and one party member vs another could take power
if enough people voted in what was clearly a rigged process, would it be radically different
than this? They might have had Pravda moderating it, we have CNN. Is there a huge difference
there too?
You are completely correct. CNN wants to pit the Dems against each other and run the clock
out, drain as much substance possible from the arguments. Delaney and Frackenlooper (along w/
Klobuchar) also have a 100% corporate orientation. "Pravda" redux, you nailed it.
I think that's the story of the debate so far; centrists smacked down. Warren and Sanders
have both had the best lines (besides, I would urge, the best policy).
Adding, Warren, unlike Harris, did not betray Sanders on #MedicareForAll. That speaks well
of her.
"This stage perfectly captures the conflict in our politics today: Scions of wealth and
power teaming up to face down the few true progressives this nation has -- they are fighting
their hardest against progress, we need to hit back ten times harder."
I just got this beg from AOC (who, btw, turns 35 on October 13, 2024). We'll probably hear
about it tomorrow night:
That's why we're proud to announce the Climate Equity Act, a new bill that Alexandria
will be introducing in the Fall with Kamala Harris, that would ensure that our work to combat
the climate crisis is centered on social, racial, and economic justice for all.
Absolutely, Kamala Harris is bad news. At this moment she is actively cosponsoring an
immigration bill to further outsourcing of US professional jobs to the Indian slave
traders.
I saw a Harris poster a few cycles back where Harris ran as an [x] Indian [x] woman, not a
[x] black [x] woman; I should dig it out. Trump will eat her for breakfast.
This story was in my Reuters feed this morning. Don't think much of the plan – it's
basically a hypothetical piece of legislation which would be dependent on an improbable future
one – but strictly based on the amusing wording of the headline Reuters used: "Harris,
Ocasio-Cortez float plan to lift low-income communities in climate plans".
Beware of Mayor Pete. I just saw a clip of him that reinforced my opinion that he's a
smart guy. He does have the one potentially unfavorable demographic attribute, but it's 2019
and a lot of us have moved beyond that. I would pay money to see his first state visit to
Saudi Arabia, and his husband stretching forth his hand to shake with Mohammed bin Bonesaw.
Whatcha gonna do, Mohammed? Allah is watching! Is homosexuality contagious? [If it were,
there would probably be a pickup subculture on this blog]. There's a good lad!
"... Only four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid black support. ..."
"... Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran, a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship, a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor from Youngstown. ..."
"... That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent our military veterans' sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time. ..."
"... Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an excerpt from NPR . ..."
"... The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind. ..."
"... Foreign policy does not elect American presidents. I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance that her course would lead to the White House. ..."
It was already one of the most memorable moments of the Democratic presidential debates in this young election cycle. "Leaders
as disparate as President Obama and President Trump have both said they want to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan but it isn't
over for America," observed moderator Rachel Maddow. "Why isn't it over? Why can't presidents of very different parties and very
different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?"
Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio responded with talking points that could have been ripped out of a George W. Bush speech circa
2004. "[T]he lesson that I've learned over the years is that you have to stay engaged in these situations," he said, later adding,
"Whether we're talking about Central America, whether we're talking about Iran, whether we're talking about Afghanistan, we have
got to be completely engaged."
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii was having none of it. "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who
were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged?" she asked a sputtering Ryan. "As a soldier, I will tell you that
answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan." Gabbard noted that she had joined the military to fight
those who attacked us on 9/11, not to nation-build indefinitely in Afghanistan, and pointed out the perfidy of Saudi Arabia.
Some likened Gabbard's rebuke of Ryan to the famous 2007 exchange
between Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani
. Except Paul, then a relatively unknown congressman from Texas, was speaking truth to power against "America's Mayor" and the national
GOP frontrunner. Gabbard is polling at 0.8 percent in the national RealClearPolitics average, and was challenging someone at 0.3
percent.
Ryan's asterisk candidacy is unsurprising. But Gabbard has been perhaps the most interesting Democrat running for president and
Wednesday night could be her last stand. She gets to share the stage with frontrunner Joe Biden, like Hillary Clinton a vote for
the Iraq war. There is no guarantee she will get another opportunity: the eligibility criteria for subsequent debates is more stringent
and she has yet to qualify.
The huge Democratic field has been a bust. Of the more than 20 declared presidential candidates, only seven are polling at 2 percent
or more in the national averages. Two more -- Senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar -- are polling at least that well in Iowa.
Only
four candidates are consistently polling in the double digits: Biden, who recovered from his early debate stumbles and remains comfortably
in the lead; Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has nevertheless mostly failed to recapture his 2016 magic; Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts, who seems ascendant; and Senator Kamala Harris of California, potentially the main threat to Biden's rock-solid
black support.
Low-polling candidates have still managed to have an impact. Some, like former secretary of housing and urban development Julian
Castro, have helped coax contenders likelier to win the nomination to the left on immigration. We've thus seen Democrats raise their
hands in support of decriminalizing illegal border crossings in the midst of a migrant crisis not entirely of the Trump administration's
making, expanding Medicare to cover everyone even at the expense of private health insurance, and ensuring that "everyone" includes
illegal immigrants. Transgender abortions, also at taxpayer expense, have come up too.
Gabbard has so far been unable to penetrate this madness despite being young (she's 38), attractive, telegenic, a military veteran,
a woman of color, and an articulate, passionate opponent of the regime change wars that have brought our country so much pain. While
reliably progressive, she has occasionally reached across the political divide on issues like religious liberty and Big Tech censorship,
a potent combination that could prove more responsive to Trump voters' concerns than what we've heard from her neocon lite interlocutor
from Youngstown.
"None of this seems to matter in a Democratic Party that cares more about wokeness than war. In fact, Gabbard's conservative fans
-- The View brought up Ann Coulter -- are often held against her, as is her failure to go all in on Trump-Russia. Ninety-five
Democrats stand ready to impeach Trump over mean tweets with nary a peep over the near-bombing of Iran or the active thwarting of
Congress's will on Yemen.
That's not to say that no one else running is sound on foreign policy -- Bernie has realist advisers and it took real courage
for Warren to back Trump's abortive withdrawals from Afghanistan and Syria -- and it required a Democratic House to advance the bipartisan
Yemen resolution. But none of them are basing their campaigns on it in the same way Gabbard has. Nor do any of them better represent
our military veterans'
sharp turn against forever war, arguably the most important public opinion trend of our time.
Liberals remain skeptical of Gabbard's turn away from social conservatism (which admittedly went far beyond sincerely opposing
gay marriage while Barack Obama was merely pretending to do so), which she attributes to "aloha." In meeting with Bashar al-Assad,
she hurt her credibility as a foe of the Syria intervention, failing to realize that doves are held to a higher standard on these
matters than hawks
.
A saner Democratic Party might realize the chances are far greater that their nominee will be a covert hawk rather than a secret
right-winger. Only time will tell if vestiges of that party still exist.
I generally like Tulsi, but she's a mixed bag for Democrats and an easy mark for her Beltway opponents. She needs more time, but
could be a very effective member of a Democrat's cabinet.
Unfortunately foreign policy and the forever war are not an issue that resonates with voters on either side. Here is an
excerpt from NPR .
"That is one finding from the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, which shows that Americans have limited confidence in its
public schools, courts, organized labor and banks -- and even less confidence in big business, the presidency, the political
parties and the media.
.....
The only institution that Americans have overwhelming faith in is the military -- 87 percent say they have a great deal or
quite a lot of confidence in the military. That is a striking change from the 1970s during and after the Vietnam War."
A military that has been a consistent loser for decades. How depressing!
I was ready to replace Mike Pompeo with Tulsi Gabbard the day after the first debate. It would be very unfortunate if she got
bumped out. I live in California (an open primary state), which means I would have voted for her in the primary.
Anyone who wants to keep as much focus on foreign policy issues as possible during the Democratic Party primary campaigns should
contribute to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign. It looks like she needs another 20,000 unique contributors in order to qualify for the
third debate in September. Even contributing a dollar or two is sufficient.
Fortunately, she is yet so young. She has many years before her, and, when the old Democratic Party dies, much like its old Republican
counterpart did in 2016, Tulsi and people like her will be able to take over.
Also, covert hawks are either critically endangered or extinct in the wild. They're all open now in both parties.
Tulsi will be the leading progressive / conservative on the stage this evening, looking forward to seeing how she handles being
asked to criticize Bernie. (I'm a Tulsi fan.)
Btw, a saner American Conservative would realize a big field almost always looks like this. Can you name the 20 or so who ran
as Republicans a few years ago?
The most important public opinion of our time is not the military realizing that forever war is bad, it's that climate change
is occurring now. It is the only issue that will matter to our grandchildren and we haven't begun to deal with it. We need to
get serious about this. "A stitch in time saves 9" comes to mind.
What you seem to be missing about the Democratic Party is that the rift between progressives (extremists asking for higher
wages for those who work, etc.) and establishment types (let's fix the ACA) is ultimately more significant than the upcoming Presidential
election.
This is why I tell anyone who askes that I don't have a favorite for the Democratic Presidential nominee yet, but I know exactly
who I want for VP. That person is whoever comes in second. If HRC had chosen Bernie for VP, she would be President today and no
Republican Congress would have dared to impeach her for fear of seating the first Democratic Socialist President in America's
history.
After multiple *change* elections that have failed to deliver, change will once again be on the ballot in 2020. This time,
for the sake of our Nation and our world, let's hope it's real change this time. Tulsi would certainly be part of that, maybe
not as a nominee, but in the Cabinet.
Foreign policy does not elect American presidents.
I like her, and support her, and think she's made valuable points. I hope it is heard. However, there was never any chance
that her course would lead to the White House.
Maybe she can get a senior post and shape policy on our endless wars. Or maybe she'll have a louder voice in Congress. However,
the best she could do with this is influence.
"... I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren! ..."
"... Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity. ..."
"... Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering. ..."
"... Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate! ..."
"... Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary were all part of the same administration. ..."
I like Elizabeth Warren, I would vote for her, . Not fond of some of her foreign policy positions, and I don't like how worked
up Trump gets her. Forget about Trump, lets here what you plan on doing with the presidency E. Warren!
In the primaries I will support Gabbard, I believe she is as real of an anti-war candidate as there is, not perfect, but it
is all relative.
Sanders would get my vote, too, although I do fear he is a bit of a "sheep-dog" but I'd give him a shot.
If not one of those candidates, oddly, I'll vote for Trump. Biden and Harris are both IMO DNC monsters like Clinton who will
get us into nuclear war due to a combination of excessive hubris and flat out neocon/neolib stupidity.
I see a repeat of the 2016 election on the horizon, with the DNC doubling down on idiocy and losing in a similar fashion. They
haven't learnt a thing from 2016 and think hyperventilating while screaming Trump, Trump, Trump is going to win the election.
Warren's okay but it's hard to get past her support for Hillary in 2016 and not for Sanders whose policies reflect hers. So
for me, Sanders is still the best, Warren 2nd. However, Trump will destroy him with Socialist scaremongering.
My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute, will
vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump.
My feeling is that there will be war in Trump's second term. Trump will be much bolder and more fascist after getting another
mandate and having nothing to lose. Trump will be a war President having invested more than any other President on military hardware
and itching to show it off. He hasn't fired his hawks for a reason. He will be more full of himself and his own importance in
history. His Zionist financiers will get their money's worth in spades. His agenda will be more hostile on Iran and China and
he'll finish what he started in Venezuela. He will lose the detente with NK, and after the election, he will no longer give friendly
lip service to Russia especially on Syria and Venezuela and will expect Russia to go along with what he has planned for Iran.
Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed him
if he decides not to run for a second term. He will return to the JCPOA. I don't like Biden's ingratiation with Zionists, but
the reality is that Biden and Trump will be the choices, so hold your nose, because it's Biden or war and further regime change
ambitions with Trump and maybe even a manipulated Trump 3rd term using war as the excuse to prolong his mandate!
"My bet is that the nominee will be Biden, because Biden can beat Trump in the election and Democrats, at the last minute,
will vote out of fear of running someone who might lose to Trump....."
Biden is Hillary without the feminist support. No way that he could beat Trump.
"Biden is older and will not want war (with any country) complicating his Presidency, and may choose a VP ready to succeed
him if he decides not to run for a second term. .."
Biden has no conception of giving up office. As to war he will be as ready to start wars as he was when he and Obama and Hillary
were all part of the same administration.
There is only one Democrat, among the announced candidates, who can beat Trump and his name is Sanders.
The purpose of the "Clintonized" Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent to neoliberal rule in an orderly fashion. The
militarization of US economy and society means that by joining the war coalition, the Democratic party doesn't have to win any presidential
elections to remain in power. Because military-industrial complex rules the country.
Yes Clinton neoliberals want to stay in control and derail Sanders, much like they did in 2016. Biden and Harris are Clinton faction
Trojan horses to accomplish that. But times changed and they might have to agree on Warren inread of Biden of Harris.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their priorities). ..."
"... So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have. ..."
"... I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt and hamstring any legislation that he proposes ..."
"... electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin. ..."
"... The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that doesn't make it impossible. ..."
"... Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you; they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go. ..."
"... In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan. ..."
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street – at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession perhaps or maybe even worse. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
"... By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort to 'money.' In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead. ..."
"... Could that be why "our" three-letter agencies have been stocking up on that substance for awhile, now? ..."
"... " The purpose of the Democratic Party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion." ..."
"... Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the election to maintain standing with big biz donors. ..."
"... Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America. ..."
"... actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else. ..."
"... the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power at the expense of the party and the country. ..."
"... The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations, social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy and for Main Street businesses. ..."
"... The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street businesses forced to compete with monopolies. ..."
That 2020 existential battle, of course, is always cast as between the Democrats and the Republicans.
But there's another existential battle going on, one that will occur before the main event -- the battle for control of the Democratic
Party. In the long run, that battle may turn out to be more important than the one that immediately follows it.
... ... ...
Before mainstream Democrats can begin the "existential battle" with the forces of Trump and Republicanism, they have to win the
existential battle against the force that wants to force change on their own party.
They're engaged in that battle today, and it seems almost all of the "liberal media," sensing the existential nature of the threat,
is helping them win it. Katie Halper, in a second perceptive piece on the media's obvious anti-Sanders bias, "
MSNBC's Anti-Sanders
Bias Is Getting Truly Ridiculous ," writes: "When MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah (
7/21/19 ) said that Bernie Sanders 'made [her] skin crawl,'
though she 'can't even identify for you what exactly it is,' she was just expressing more overtly the
anti-Sanders bias that pervades the network."
... ... ...
MSNBC is clearly acting as a messaging arm of the Democratic Party mainstream in its battle with progressives in general and Sanders
in particular, and Zerlina Maxwell, who's been variously employed by that mainstream, from her work with Clinton to her work on MSNBC,
is an agent in that effort.
Let me repeat what Matt Taibbi wrote: " [Sanders'] election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic Party, forcing
everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector. "
Agreed. Trump fought the swamp, and the swamp won. Trump campaigned on ending our stupid pointless wars and spending that
money on ourselves – and it looked at first like he might actually deliver (how RACIST of the man!) but not to worry, he is now
surrounded by uber hawks and the defense industry dollars are continuing to flow. Which the Democrats are fine with.
Trump campaigned on enforcing the laws against illegal immigration and limiting legal immigration, but he's now pretty much
given up, the southern border is open full "Camp of the Saints" style and he's pushing for more legal 'guest' workers to satisfy
the corporate demands for cheap labor – and the Democrats are for this (though Sanders started to object back in 2015 before he
was beaten down).
Trump campaigned on a populist platform, but once elected the only thing he really pushed for was a big juicy tax cut for
himself and his billionaire buddies – which the Democrats are fine with (how come they can easily block attempts to stop the flow
of cheap labor across the southern border, but not block massive giveaway tax cuts to the super rich? Because they have their
priorities).
Soon I expect that Trump will propose massive regressive tax increases on the working class – which of course the Democrats
will be fine with ('to save the planet').
So yeah, Trump is governing a lot like Hilary Clinton would have.
And elections are pretty much pointless. Even if Sanders does win, he'll get beaten down faster even than Trump was.
I think people have a hard time with real inflection points. Most of life uses more short-term linear decision making. But
at inflection points we have multiple possibilities that turn into rather surprising turns of events, such as Brexit and Trump.
We still have people saying in the UK – "but they wouldn't do that!" The hell "they" won't. Norms are thrown out of the window
and people start realising how wide the options are. This is not positive or negative. Just change or transformation.
That is my philosophical way of agreeing with you! It is easy to point at the hostility of the mainstream media and DNC as
there being no way for Sanders to win. After all in 2004, look what the media and DNC did to Howard Dean. But people weren't dying
then like they are now. The "Great Recession" wasn't on anyone's radar. People felt rich, like everything would be fine. We are
not in that situation – the facts on the ground are so wildly different that the DNC and mainstream media will find it hard to
stay in control.
I think it's much more likely that a Sanders victory would see the Clintonistas digging even further into the underbelly
of the Democratic Party. There they would covertly and overtly sabotage Sanders, brief against him in the press and weaken, corrupt
and hamstring any legislation that he proposes.
If Sanders should win against Trump expect the establishment to go into full revolt. Capital strike, mass layoffs, federal
reserve hiking interest rates to induce a recession, a rotating cast of Democrats siding with Republicans to block legislation,
press comparing him to worse than Carter before he even takes office and vilifying him all day every day.
I wouldn't be shocked to see Israel and the Saudis generate a crisis in, for example, Iran so Sanders either bends the knee
to the neocons or gets to be portrayed as a cowardly failure for abandoning our 'allies' for the rest of his term.
You've just convinced me that the American Experiment is doomed. No one else but Sanders can pull America out of its long slow
death spiral and your litany of the tactics of subversion of his presidency is persuasive that even in the event of his electoral
victory, there will be no changing of the national direction.
I'm reading a series of essays by Morris Berman in his book "Are We There Yet". A lot of critics complain that he is too much
the pessimist, but he presents some good arguments, dark though they may be, that the American Experiment was doomed from the
start due to the inherent flaw of Every Man For Himself and its "get mine and the hell with everybody else" attitude that has
been a part of the experiment from the beginning.
He is absolutely right about one thing, we are a country strongly based on hustling for money as much or more than anything
else, and both Trump and the Clintons are classic examples of this, and why the country often gets the leaders it deserves.
That's why I believe that we need people like Sanders and Gabbard in the Oval Office. It is also why I believe that should
either end up even getting close, Nax is correct. Those with power in this country will not accept the results and will do whatever
is necessary to subvert them, and the Voter will buy that subversion hook, line, and sinker.
No. The point is that electing Sanders can not be the endgame, only the beginning. I think Nax is completely right that
a Sanders win would bring on the full wrath of all its opponents. Then the real battle would begin.
The notion that real change could happen in this country by winning an election or two is naive in the extreme. But that
doesn't make it impossible.
Lots of people hired by the Clintons, Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Cuomo, etc. will have to be defenestrated. Lose their public
sector jobs, if not outright charged with crimes. No one must be left in a position to hurt you after the election. Anyone on
the "other side" must lose all power or ability to damage you, except those too weak. These people can be turned and used by you;
they can be kept in line with fear. But all the leaders must go.
In order for Sanders to survive the onslaught that will surely come, he must have a jobs program ready to go on day one
of his administration- and competent people committed to his cause ready to cary out the plan.
The high ground is being able to express a new vision for the common good, 24/7, and do something to bring it about. You win
even if you suffer losses.
Without that, life in the USA will become very disruptive to say the least.
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
Pretty bad optics on MSNBC's part being unable to do simple numbers and I can fully believe that their motto starts with the
words "This is who we are". Jimmy Dore has put out a few videos on how bad MSNBC has been towards Bernie and Progressives lately
so it is becoming pretty blatant. Just spitballing a loose theory here but perhaps the Democrats have decided on a "poisoned chalice"
strategy and do want not to win in 2020.
After 2008 the whole economy should have had a major re-set but Obama spent tens of trillions of dollars saving Wall Street
– at the expense of Main Street – so that nothing got resolved about the problems that caused the crash in the first place. Trump's
policies are doubling down on these problems so there is going to be a major disruption coming down the track. A major recession
perhaps or maybe even worse.
Point is that perhaps the Democrats have calculated that it would be best for them to leave the Republicans in power to own
this crash which will help them long term. And this explains why most of those democrat candidates look like they have fallen
out of a clown car. The ones capable of going head to head with Trump are sidelined while their weakest candidates are pushed
forward – people like Biden and Harris. Just a theory mind.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
By owning the means of production, the Oligarchs will be able to produce the machinery of oppression without the resort
to 'money.'
In revolutionary times, the most valuable commodity would be flying lead.
If the nation wishes true deliverance, not just from Trump and Republicans, but from the painful state that got Trump elected
in the first place, it will first have to believe in a savior.
No, no, no, no, no. No oooshy religion, which is part of what got us into this mess. Cities on a hill. The Exceptional Nation(tm).
Obligatory burbling of Amazing Grace. Assumptions that everyone is a Methodist. And after Deliverance, the U S of A will be magically
re-virginated (for the umpteenth time), pure and worthy of Manifest Destiny once again.
If you want to be saved, stick to your own church. Stop dragging it into the public sphere. This absurd and sloppy religious
language is part of the problem. At the very least it is kitsch. At its worst it leads us to bomb Muslim nations and engage in
"Crusades."
Other than that, the article makes some important points. In a year or so, there will be a lot of comments here on whether
or not to vote for the pre-failed Democratic candidate, once the Party dumps Bernie Sanders. There is no requirement of voting
for the Democrats, unless you truly do believe that they will bring the Deliverance (and untarnish your tarnished virtue). Vote
your conscience. Not who Nate Silver indicates.
Yes, this election is starting to remind me of 2004. High-up Dems, believing they're playing the long game, sacrifice the
election to maintain standing with big biz donors. The leading issue of the day (Iraq/GWOT/Patriot Act) was erased from mainstream
US politics and has been since. Don't for a minute think they won't do a similar thing now. Big donors don't particularly fear
Trump, nor a 6-3 conservative supreme court, nor a Bolton state dept, nor a racist DHS/ICE – those are not money issues for them.
Sadly, when Sanders speaks of a "revolution", and when he is referred to as a revolutionary, while at the same time accepting
that the Democratic Party is a Party of the top 10%, puts into context just how low the bar is for a political revolution in America.
The candidate who would fight and would govern for the 90% of Americans is a revolutionary.
The fact that it can be said as a given that neither major Party is being run specifically to serve the vast majority of our
country is itself an admission for that the class war begun by Reagan has been won, in more of a silent coup, and the rich have
control of our nation.
Sadly, actual democracy is an impediment to those who wield power in today's America, and in that respect the class war
continues to be waged, primarily through divisive social issues to divert our attention from the looting being done by and for
the rich and the decline in opportunity and economic security for everyone else.
Sanders is considered a revolutionary merely for stating the obvious, stating the truth. That is what makes him dangerous to
those that run the Democratic Party, and more broadly those who run this nation.
Sanders would do better to cast himself not as a revolutionary, but as a person of the people, with the belief that good government
does not favor the wants of the richest over the needs of our country. That is what makes him a threat. To the rich unseen who
hold power, to the Republican Party, and to some Democrats.
I agree with the thesis here, and confess to being puzzled by comments on LGM (for example) politics threads of the ilk "I'm
with Warren but am good with Buttigieg too," or "I'm with Sanders but am good with Harris, too," etc.
I love reading Taibbi, but in
his article , that quote, " Sanders is the revolutionary. His election would mean a complete overhaul of the Democratic
Party, forcing everyone who ever worked for a Clinton to look toward the private sector ," should be the lede, and its buried
2/3 of the way down.
This primary season is about how the Democratic Party consultant class, I call them leeches, is fighting for its power
at the expense of the party and the country.
Yves writes: it is unfortunate that this struggle is being personified, as in too often treated by the media and political
operatives as being about Sanders.
I agree. Sanders represents the continuing New Deal-type policies. The DLC-type New Democrats (corporatists) have been
working to destroy New Deal Democrats and policies as a force in the party. The New Deal Democrats brought in bank regulations,
social security, medicare, the voting rights act, restraint on financial predation, and various economic protections for the little-guy
and for Main Street businesses.
The DLC Dems have brought deregulation of the banks and financial sector, an attempt to cut social security, expansion
of prisons, tax cuts for corporations and the billionaires, the return of monopoly power, and the economic squeeze on Main Street
businesses forced to compete with monopolies.
The MSM won't talk about any of the programmatic differences between the two sides. The MSM won't recognize the New Deal style
Democratic voters even exist; the New Deal wing voters are quickly labeled 'deplorable' instead voters with competing economic
policies to the current economic policies.
So, we're left with the MSM focusing on personalities to avoid talking about the real policy differences, imo.
When Bernie talks about a revolution, he explains how it must be from the grassroots, from the bottom up. If he manages to
get elected, his supporters have to make sure they get behind the politicians who also support him and, if they don't, get rid
of them.
Without continuing mass protests, nothing is going to happen. Other countries have figured this out but Americans remain clueless.
Warren's plan would overhaul the process by which the U.S. proposes, writes, finalizes and
enforces trade deals while imposing strict standards for any nation seeking or currently in a
free trade deal with the U.S.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a Medium post outlining the
extensive trade proposal, Warren said her approach to trade is centered on using the United
States' immense leverage to protect domestic industries and workers.
Warren argued U.S trade policy has ceded too much power to international corporations,
squandering the country's ability to defend its manufacturers, farmers and laborers.
"As President, I won't hand America's leverage to big corporations to use for their own
narrow purposes," Warren wrote. "We will engage in international trade -- but on our terms and
only when it benefits American families."
Trump has imposed more than $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, foreign steel and
aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines since taking office in 2017. The president has
used import taxes as leverage in trade talks and inducement for companies to produce goods in
the U.S., but manufacturing job gains and activity have faded throughout the year.
U.S. farmers and ranchers have also lost billions of dollars in foreign sales due to
retaliatory tariffs imposed on American agricultural goods.
Warren acknowledged that while tariffs "are an important tool, they are not by themselves a
long-term solution to our failed trade agenda and must be part of a broader strategy that this
Administration clearly lacks."
Warren said she instead would pursue deals and renegotiate current agreement to "force other
countries to raise the bar on everything from labor and environmental standards to
anti-corruption rules to access to medicine to tax enforcement."
To do so, Warren would expand the ability of Congress and noncorporate advocates to see and
shape trade deals as their being negotiated, not after they have been submitted to lawmakers
for approval
Warren proposed staffing trade advisory panels with a majority of representatives from labor
and environmental and consumer advocacy groups. She also called for special advisory panels for
consumers, rural areas and each region of the country, "so that critical voices are at the
table during negotiations."
Under Warren's plan, trade negotiators would be required to submit drafts of pending
agreements to Congress and submit them for public comment through the same process used by
federal regulators to propose and finalize rules.
Warren's plan also raises the bar for entry into a trade deal with the U.S. and seizes more
power for the federal government to enforce agreements.
Warren proposed a list of nine standards required of any country seeking a U.S. trade deal
including several international tax, climate and human rights treaties. She noted that the U.S.
"shamefully" does not comply with some of these standards, but would do so under her
presidency.
The plan also excludes any nation on the Treasury Department's currency manipulation
monitoring list from a potential U.S. trade deal. As of May, that list includes China, Germany,
Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.
Nations in trade deals with the U.S. would also be required to support subsidies for green
energy, follow U.S. food inspection standards, pay a fee on goods produced using
"carbon-intensive" processes and agree to stricter anti-trust standards.
"... Then there are the primaries, in which each party selects a party candidate for you to vote for. All your vote does is ratify their selection they have made for you. Case in point, was the 2016 election where the Democratic party threw Bernie Sanders under the Bus in favor of Hillary Clinton, denying you the right to vote for any other candidate other than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... America has a very corrupted system of elections. It really isn't fair in the least. Even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has criticized the United States for its ballot access laws. So, don't go away thinking you live in a democracy in the U.S.,. Far from it! ..."
"... Public release of taxes is political ********. These hacks sit down years in and advance and create their taxes for public consumption. They all make millions anyway from "book deals" and "speeches"- their preferred method of cleaning up corrupt cash. ..."
On Tuesday, Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill requiring President Trump to either
release his tax returns or he won't appear on the ballot in the state.
Under SB 27, called the "Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act," any
candidate running for president or governor in California must file copies of their tax returns
from the previous five years to the California secretary of State, or their names will be
stricken from the ballot,
the Hill reports.
There is really nothing unconstitutional about it. As a matter of fact, the constitution
doesn't say anything about states disallowing candidates on ballots, nor does it say anything
about qualifications, other than a presidential candidate must be 35 years of age or older,
and a U.S. citizen. Otherwise, any idiot can run for president.
Besides, there has been times before when candidates were denied a place on the ballots.
In 1860, Abraham Lincoln did not show up on most of the southern states ballots, but when he
got elected, the southern voters were scratching their heads, wondering how he won, when he
was not listed on their ballots.
Then you have the notorious "Ballot Access Laws in a lot of states, which literally puts
up roadblocks for any third party candidates to run in the elections. Any wonder why you only
have a 2 party system?
Then there are the primaries, in which each party selects a party candidate for you to
vote for. All your vote does is ratify their selection they have made for you. Case in point,
was the 2016 election where the Democratic party threw Bernie Sanders under the Bus in favor
of Hillary Clinton, denying you the right to vote for any other candidate other than Hillary
Clinton.
America has a very corrupted system of elections. It really isn't fair in the least. Even
the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has criticized the United
States for its ballot access laws. So, don't go away thinking you live in a democracy in the
U.S.,. Far from it!
Public release of taxes is political ********. These hacks sit down years in and advance
and create their taxes for public consumption. They all make millions anyway from "book
deals" and "speeches"- their preferred method of cleaning up corrupt cash.
Money rule in the USA politics. And that was true for a very long time. Candidate who is
hates by big business has tremendous disadvantages even if he/she has all the popular support.
Party apparatus will try to sabotage every their move.
Notable quotes:
"... Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New Deal. ..."
"... Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods. ..."
"... in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then. ..."
"... In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative. ..."
"... I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous" in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation. ..."
"... "McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon" ..."
"... The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley and labor bosses like Meany. ..."
As soon as McGovern was nominated, party leaders began systematically slurring and
belittling him, while the trade union chieftains refused to endorse him on the pretense
that this mild Mr. Pliant was a being wild and dangerous.
A congressional investigation of Watergate was put off for several months to deprive
McGovern's candidacy of its benefits. As an indiscreet Chicago ward heeler predicted in the
fall of 1972, McGovern is "gonna lose because we're gonna make sure he's gonna lose" So
deftly did party leaders "cut the top of the ticket" that while Richard Nixon won in a
"landslide," the Democrats gained two Senate seats.
Not comparable. McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon, even before his party
undermined him.
Nixon emphasized the strong economy and his success in foreign affairs, while McGovern ran
on a platform calling for an immediate end to the Vietnam War, and the institution of a
guaranteed minimum income. Nixon maintained a large and consistent lead in polling.
Nixon: "a radical socialist" or "an unrealistic leftist"! Wow. That says all that needs
be said about the slide to the right in our politics and it happened in large part because of
inertia and self-satisfaction among the Democrats; they were the majority party after all while
the right beginning with Bill Buckley and the National Review and their think tanks and their
economists and their money began and continued the counter-revolution against FDR and the New
Deal.
This is not news to the politically aware. It could be a starting point for a rebirth of a
real democratic party as opposed to whatever shambles along in the tattered garments of the
old.
Take a hypothetical. Biden wins, the House stays Democratic narrowly, the Senate is
evenly divided. What exactly is going to change other than the rhetoric. I would not expect
Biden to continue the racist and xenophobic pronouncements of Trump, but the finance weenies
would still be in charge domestically, the Israelis and the donors would be running foreign
policy and any and all billionaires would continue to be treated as demigods.
The status quo is destroying the country. The corporoids, the professionals, the suave
sophisticated urbanites do not notice and would not care. The USA needs revolutionary change
just to discover that it really has a soul. Then the hard work of generations could begin.
And in 1972, the working class was solidly behind the status quo, now, almost fifty
years later, the working class has seen the end of the road coming up and is starting to ask
the pointed questions they were incapable of even contemplating then.
In 1972, it seemed only derelicts died of drug overdoses, and hard-hats were throwing
things at hippies, now those people who were so defensive about the American dream, are
unemployed and increasingly questioning whether there's an alternative.
Witness the peaceful 'confrontation' that met Trumps aborted campaign rally in Chicago in
2016, in 1972 there would have been riot police and blood in the streets.
In 2016 the anti-Trump protestors and Trump supporters stood on opposite sides of the street
with a scant force of cops, sans riot gear between them and there was virtually no
violence.
I turned 21 in 1968. The violence in the streets was coming from the police not the
protesters. The local sheriff department in my locale (Isla Vista; UCSB) was deemed "riotous"
in its performance during anti-war protests by a subsequent grand jury investigation.
I do agree that the current general population (working class) now sees itself as the
"protesters".
"McGovern never had a lead in the polls over Nixon"
Very true, but it's important to remember that up until Wallace was wounded by Bremer in
May, another three-way race with Wallace was anticipated. Polling in early May (and this is
from memory) had Nixon and McGovern within the margin of error in a three-way race. There was a
realistic possibility that things would have ended up in the House as they almost did in
'68.
The Establishment Dems hated McGovern for several reasons. While his anti-war stance
enraged the Dem neocons like the Scooper, his commission's reforms that put the most women and
minorities ever in the convention hall gave some serious heartburn to party bosses like Daley
and labor bosses like Meany.
Very shortly after the convention, I went before my border state's Dixiecrat-flavored Dem
county committee to plead for their support in the general. We got nowhere. McGovern's campaign
in my county consisted of some of us young folks and a few dissidents who opened some
storefronts and did some canvassing. The party regulars probably all voted for Nixon.
"... Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways: ..."
"... i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power; ..."
"... (ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;" ..."
"... (iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders; ..."
"... iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its business party duopoly. ..."
"... It is not broken. It is fixed. Against us. ..."
"... The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts. ..."
"... By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity" and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background. ..."
"... When this political theatre in the US finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard core imperialists who's time has reached its end. ..."
"... This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry ..."
Mainstream Dems are performing their role very well. Most likely I am preaching to the choir. But anyways, here is a review
of Lance Selfa's book "Democrats: a critical history" by Paul Street :
Besides preventing social movements from undertaking independent political activity to their left, the Democrats have
been adept at killing social movements altogether. They have done – and continue to do – this in four key ways:
i) inducing "progressive" movement activists (e.g. Medea Benjamin of Code Pink and the leaders of Moveon.org and United
for Peace and Justice today) to focus scarce resources on electing and defending capitalist politicians who are certain to
betray peaceful- and populist-sounding campaign promises upon the attainment of power;
(ii) pressuring activists to "rein in their movements, thereby undercutting the potential for struggle from below;"
(iii) using material and social (status) incentives to buy off social movement leaders;
iv) feeding a pervasive sense of futility regarding activity against the dominant social and political order, with its
business party duopoly.
The militarization of US economy and society underscores your scenario. By being part of the war coalition, the Democratic
party, as now constituted, doesn't have to win any presidential elections. The purpose of the Democratic party is to diffuse public
dissent in an orderly fashion. This allows the war machine to grind on and the politicians are paid handsomely for their efforts.
By joining the war coalition, the Democrats only have leverage over Republicans if the majority of citizens get "uppity"
and start demanding social concessions. Democrats put down the revolt by subterfuge, which is less costly and allows the fiction
of American Democracy and freedom to persist for a while longer. Republicans, while preferring more overt methods of repressing
the working class, allow the fiction to continue because their support for authoritarian principles can stay hidden in the background.
I have little faith in my fellow citizens as the majority are too brainwashed to see the danger of this political theatre.
Most ignore politics, while those that do show an interest exercise that effort mainly by supporting whatever faction they belong.
Larger issues and connections between current events remain a mystery to them as a result.
Military defeat seems the only means to break this cycle. Democrats, being the fake peaceniks that they are, will be more than
happy to defer to their more authoritarian Republican counterparts when dealing with issues concerning war and peace. Look no
further than Tulsi Gabbard's treatment in the party. The question is really should the country continue down this Imperialist
path.
In one sense, economic recession will be the least of our problems in the future. When this political theatre in the US
finally reaches its end date, what lies behind the curtain will surely shock most of the population and I have little faith that
the citizenry are prepared to deal with the consequences. A society of feckless consumers is little prepared to deal with hard
core imperialists who's time has reached its end.
This wrath of frustrated Imperialists will be turned upon the citizenry.
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
Gabbard is more controlled opposition. Remember, she voted for the anti-BDS resolution,
more sanctions and is anti-2nd Amendment. Don't be fooled by her shtick.
She says she is against forever wars yet she voted to pass the monstrosity that is the new
defense bill. She is also a friend to Israhell as she voted for anti BDS.
I don't listen to what politicians say but what they do that falls in line with the most
important elements of empire.
"... But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said. ..."
"... Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not just those offered by politicians. ..."
"... But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive ..."
"... With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020 and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years), over following few years. ..."
Elizabeth Warren became a household name thanks to her prescient warning of what became a global financial crisis.
Now she's staking her credentials on another forecast of fiscal trauma ahead. The Democratic presidential candidate published an
online essay this week saying that a rise in consumer and corporate debt is imperilling the longest expansion in US history.
"Whether
it's this year or next year, the odds of another economic downturn are high - and growing," Warren wrote.
Her prediction could help
her win over primary voters by tapping into anxieties about middle-class economic stability despite broad gains over the past decade.
But Warren's opponents could seize on her warning to undermine her credibility should a crash fail to materialise before next year's
election, and some economists sympathetic to her agenda say that - for the moment - her conclusion of a looming recession is overblown.
Recessions are notoriously difficult to forecast. Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending, yet it was roughly
five years later when the US housing market fully collapsed.
And although her dire forecast echoed in style some warnings made by
Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, Warren hasn't aligned with him in portraying her potential election to the White
House as the only way to avert disaster. "I went through this back in the years before the 2008 crash, and no one wanted to listen.
So, here we are again," Warren said on Capitol Hill last week. "I'm trying to point out where the warning signs are. I hope
our regulators and Congress listen, make changes, and that the economy strengthens."
Even economists who like her prescription are skeptical about her diagnosis. Warren rooted her concerns about
the economy in a Federal Reserve report that found a 6.8 per cent increase in household debt over the past decade, allowing the Massachusetts
senator to write that American families are "taking on more debt than ever before." But that figure is not adjusted for inflation,
nor is it adjusted for population growth - and the number of US households has risen by 9.5 per cent during the same period, meaning
that Fed data also shows debt levels have fallen on a per capita basis.
"I don't see a huge bubble on the other side of household
debt that is going to savage people's assets," said Josh Bivens, director of research at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. At
the moment, families can afford their debt because of low interest rates, and that minimises the risks to the economy. American households
are devoting less than 10 per cent of their disposable income to debt service, down from roughly 13 per cent in 2008, according to
the Fed. This doesn't mean that Warren is wrong to conclude that families are burdened by student debt and childcare costs, just
that data suggests the debt produced by those expenses is unlikely to cause a downturn.
Part of Warren's forecast hinges on a spike
in interest rates that seems unlikely as most benchmark rates have declined since November. Warren has assembled a litany of proposals
aimed at bringing down household debt, through student loan forgiveness and affordable childcare availability as well as a housing
plan designed to lower rent costs. She touted her policy agenda - which has propelled her higher in the polls - as ways to avert
her predicted crash.
Warren's warning of a downturn is a somewhat unique maneuver for a presidential candidate. Past White House hopefuls have waited
for the downturns to start before capitalising on them. Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992, for example, on a post-recession
message summed up by then-adviser James Carville's edict to focus on "the economy, stupid."
Warren also warned this week that an increase in corporate borrowing could crush the economy.
But Dean Baker, the co-founder of the liberal Centre for Economic and Policy Research, said that the increase in corporate debt
has corresponded with higher profits and manageably low interest rates. "The idea that you're going to have this massive cascade
of defaults - it's very hard to see," Baker said.
While the US economy may not be entering into a recession, many economic forecasters say growth is still slowing because of global
and demographic pressures. Evidence of this has already caused Fed officials to signal that they plan to cut interest rates at their
meeting next week. Trump has repeatedly called for the Fed to make even steeper cuts to improve his economic track record.
Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Centre for American Progress, said that most predictions about recessions were wrong, not
just those offered by politicians.
But he interpreted Warren's essay as a broader warning about how Trump's efforts to support growth by curbing regulations and
attacking government institutions might eventually be destructive. "It's hard to say what a debt-driven problem would look like until
it happens," Madowitz said.
"I think it's also reasonable to elevate concern at the moment given how politicised Trump has made apolitical economic institutions
like the Fed. That's not a free lunch. It creates real risks, so it's more important than usual to think about what happens if things
go bump in the night."
AP Mick 8 hours ago
I really have no idea about economics - seriously the mechanics of world financing, where every country seems
to in debt baffles me. But if you look at the last 40 years or so - my adult life - there seems to be a stock market crash about
each 10 years and a recession in the USA about each 10 years. From memory, stock markets in 1987, 1997, 2008 (I suppose also dot
com stuff in around 1999/2000 as well). Recessions in the US in early 90's, early 2000's, 2009 into 2010's.
With my total lack of understanding of world economics I predict a stock market crash sometime between May 2020 and October 2020
and a recession, including Australia (worse than the unofficial one we have really been in here in Australia for the last 10 years),
over following few years.
I wonder how my predictions will stand up to the experts. Gillespie 8 hours ago No facts seem to be the hallmark of your post.
"Warren first warned in 2003 about subprime mortgage lending" shshus 10 hours ago The incoming economic meltdown in a insanely indebted
global ponzi scheme is a no brainer. Despite Trump's usual bombast, the US economy is hardly growing and manufacturing is already
in recession. The lunatic policies of central banks to offer free money at almost zero interest rates has caused a greed based credit
frenzy that is simply unsustainable. The coming economic collapse will be far worse as the trade wars between US and China and rest
of the world will simply compound the problem. Australia is particularly vulnerable in both economic and strategic terms. Time to
batten the hatches, rather than pile on more consumer debt.
"... Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters. ..."
"... This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law. ..."
"... On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information control system is both welcome and needed. ..."
"... Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized if she criticizes the empire. ..."
"... You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military Industrial Complex & The Empire. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI)
is suing Google
. It's about time someone did. It's one thing to for conservatives and libertarians to be outraged by their treatment
by the tech giant, it's another for them to go after a female Democrat.
Since Trump's election the campaign to curtail free speech has went into overdrive and we are now far beyond Orwell's dystopian
vision in 1984 in terms of technological infrastructure.
Google makes Big Brother look like George Carlin's the Hippy Dippy Weather Man with the "hippy dippy weather, man." The drive
to stamp out all forms of political division has only one thing animating it, protecting the drive of the elites I call The Davos
Crowd to erect a transnational superstate to herd humanity to their vision of sustainability.
Gabbard is the only person running for the Democratic nomination worth any amount of my time. Her fundamental criticisms of the
U.S. warfare state are spot on. She's sincere about this. It's costing her stature within her own party.
She's a committed anti-imperialist. She's also young, inexperienced and a little bit naive. But that, to me, is part of her charm.
It means she is still malleable. She's smart enough to be outraged about where we are headed and young enough to be flexible about
what the solutions are to stop it from happening.
So, as such, she's the perfect champion for the defenders of free speech and critics of the U.S. empire. A young, attractive,
intelligent woman of mixed-race heritage with a service record who stands athwart the mainstream on the most important issue in politics
today: the U.S. empire.
The entire time I was growing up the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of U.S. politics. That, like so
many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense.
The true third rail of U.S. politics is empire.
Any candidate that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it's quislings in the media, the corporations
who profit from it and the party machines of both the GOP and the DNC. That is Gabbard's crime. And it's the only crime that matters.
For that crime Google acted to blunt interest in her campaign in the critical hours after the first democratic debate. So, Gabbard,
rightly, sued them.
The two main points of her lawsuit are:
1) suspending her Google Ad account for six hours while search traffic for her was spiking and
2) Gmail disproportionately junked her campaign emails.
This represents an intervention into her ability to speak to voters and, as such, is a violation of not only her First Amendment
rights but also, more critically, campaign finance law.
Whether this lawsuit goes anywhere or not is beside the point. Google will ignore it until they can't and then settle with her
before discovery. Gabbard doing this is good PR for her as it sets her on the right side of an incredibly important issue, censorship
and technological bias/de-platforming of political outsiders.
It's also good because if she does pursue this principally, it will lead to potential discovery of Google's internal practices,
lending the DoJ a hand in pursuing all the big tech firms for electioneering.
On a day when it became clear to the world that Robert Mueller led an investigation to affect the outcome of the 2018 mid-term
elections (and beyond) while attempting to overthrow an elected President, Gabbard attacking the one of the main pillars of the information
control system is both welcome and needed.
Her filing this lawsuit is making it clear that even a fairly conventional Democrat on most all other issues is to be marginalized
if she criticizes the empire.
As libertarians and conservatives it is irrelevant if she is conventional in other areas. It doesn't matter that she's been to
a CFR meeting or two or that she's anti-gun. She's not going to be president.
This is not about our virtue-signaling about the purity of essence of our political figures. They are tools to our ends. And on
now two incredibly important issues leading up to the 2020 election Tulsi Gabbard is on the right side of them.
She is someone we can and should reach out to and support while she makes these issues the centerpiece of her campaign. Her timing
is even more excellent than what I've already stated.
Filing this lawsuit is a pre-emptive strike at Google now that she's qualified for the next two Democratic debates. And it may
assist her in breaking out of the bottom tier of the Democratic field, Ron Paul style if she gets her opportunity.
Shedding light on Google's anti-free speech practices is a fundamental good, one we should celebrate. Dare I say, it's double
plus good.
* * *
Join
my Patreon
and
install Brave
if you both hate big tech censorship and the empire in equal
measure.
You can disagree with Tulsi on many things but she is absolutely
right and the only one who gets the real problem.Military
Industrial Complex & The Empire.
If you won't kill this problem
you can virtue signal about your left and right opinions about
your perfect candidate as much as you want without getting
anything done ( Trump). Purism won't help you. It only gets you
distracted and controlled by the elites.
The point of this article is that Gabbard is taking on GOOGLE,
for screwing with her account. See Google demonitizes, deboosts,
deplatforms people without them even knowing it, and diddles their
search algorythms NOT ONLY against conservatives, but for
independent democrats like Gabbard. THAT'S THE POINT, not who or
what Gabbard stands for. The dem party did the same to Gabbard
during the 2016 election, cut her off from financing, because she
supported Bernie Sanders.
This is the sort of **** things dim's do, and progressive
companies like Fakebook, Twatter and Goolag. Now Gabbard may not
have views that we can support, but if she is taking on GOOLAG,
than we should stand like a wall behind her. This is a big threat
to 1st amendment rights.
Good point, chunga. She is already being given the Ron Paul
treatment by MSM (they either slam her as basically a naive
fool, or just ignore her), so no way does she rise to the top
of the **** pile of Blue Team candidates. Would make a good
run as an independent, and maybe wake some people up.
Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY)
told
Luke Rudkowski of "
We
Are Change
," a libertarian media organization, that Democratic presidential candidate
Tulsi Gabbard has just signed on as a co-sponsor of Audit the Fed bill, officially known as
H.R.24
The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2019
.
The bill
authorizes the General Accountability Office to perform a full audit of the
Fed's conduct of monetary policy,
including the Fed's mysterious dealings with Wall
Street, central banks and governments.
During the interview, Massie said the latest development in attempting to audit the Federal
Reserve is that Gabbard signed on as co-sponsor.
He believes the topic will "get some
airtime" in the upcoming presidential debates.
He said there are four Democratic co-sponsors and 80 Republican co-sponsors for the
bill;
it was recently passed in the House of Representatives as it heads to the Senate.
Massie said:
"We have passed it in the House but have never passed it in the Senate. Because of a lot of
these people in the House of Representatives who vote for it and support it in the House go to
the Senate and decide it's not such a good idea."
Rudkowski then tells Massie about interesting parallels between some presidential candidates
(Gabbard and Bernie Sanders), who have an anti-interventionists view along with being critical of
the Federal Reserve.
Massie responds by saying,
"Well if you're just trying to sorta tie the anti-war people to
the Federal Reserve. I think the closest connection is
the Federal Reserve enables the
endless Wars that are being funded by controlling the value of our currency and without the massive
borrowing and printing of money and controlling of interest rates - we wouldn't be able to sustain
a permanent state of war.
"
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WQEbGkzy6Sk
Last week, Ron Paul recently wrote that Massie needs to
"expedite passage of their Audit
the Fed legislation should the Federal Reserve decide to disobey the will of its creator – Congress
– by involving itself in real-time payments.
After all, their bipartisan legislation came
just seven votes shy of passing not long ago. With the Fed extending its wings even further and the
president finally making good on his promise to push the bill through, it should be all but certain
of arriving on his Oval Office desk for signing."
With the US infected by a global industrial slowdown, and in President Trump's view a Federal
Reserve-caused economic downturn, support for auditing the Fed will continue to increase among
Americans across all political ideologies.
It's not just Republicans who demand the audit,
but now Gabbard and even Sanders (Democrats).
Auditing the Fed is the first step in changing monetary policy that has created a
debt-and-bubble-based economy; promoted the welfare-warfare state; created the most massive wealth
inequality crisis in history; led to an affordable housing crisis; transferred all the wealth to
the top 1% of America, and could lead to the collapse of the American empire if not corrected in
the next several years.
"... Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris claimed that the furor surrounding San Francisco 49ers star Colin Kaepernick's protest was artificially generated by Russia. "Remember bend the knee and Colin Kaepernick?" she said on influential New York-based radio show The Breakfast Club , "it actually was not a thing. The Russian bots started taking that over." ..."
"... "They test out a couple of things to see what can get the American public going at each other, pointing fingers at each other," the California senator said. "Guess what gains the most heat? Race." Harris did not mention whether she believed Russians were responsible for ensuring Kaepernick did not get another job in the NFL again. ..."
Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris claimed that the furor surrounding
San
Francisco 49ers star Colin Kaepernick's protest was artificially generated by Russia.
"Remember bend the knee and Colin Kaepernick?" she said on influential New York-based radio show
The Breakfast Club , "it actually was not a thing. The Russian bots started taking
that over."
"They test out a couple of things to see what can get the American public going at each
other, pointing fingers at each other," the California senator said. "Guess what gains the
most heat? Race." Harris did not mention whether she believed Russians were responsible for
ensuring Kaepernick did not get another job in the NFL again.
Her comments surprised many, as however many Russian Twitter bots may have retweeted the
story, their influence surely pales in comparison to that of the mainstream media or the
President himself in stoking the fire of the controversy. There are 278 articles on
CNN
when searching for "Kaepernick protest" since 2016, 364 in the
New York Times and nearly 800 on
Fox News. Meanwhile, at an Alabama rally, President Trump
called
for his dismissal. "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody
disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he's
fired. He's fired!'" Mr Trump said. "You know, some owner is going to do that. He's going to
say, 'That guy that disrespects our flag, he's fired.' And that owner, they don't know it
[but] they'll be the most popular person in this country." Thus, that certain Russian bots
added their weight to the outrage may technically be correct, it is a matter of emphasis.
... ... ...
The Value of Blaming Russia
For mainstream, corporate Democrats like Harris, Russia is a useful excuse as to why they
lost to the most unpopular presidential candidate in history. If it was largely Putin's
fault, there is no need for self-reflection, to address campaign flaws, and certainly not to
cede ground to a left-wing insurgency speared by Bernie Sanders. Instead they can present a
rosy picture of America free from strife and not have to tackle so many of the problems they
helped create. As Hillary Clinton said, "America is already great".
... ... ...
Alan MacLeod is a member of the Glasgow University Media Group. His latest book, Bad
News From Venezuela: 20 Years of Fake News and Misreporting, was published by Routledge in
April.
"... The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to see. ..."
"... After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises Cummings full control. ..."
"... The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority. ..."
"... [..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ, who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are inclined to vote to leave. ..."
"... [..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them. ..."
"... And now Cummings is back to finish the job. ..."
"... They were sending targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly? ..."
It's a development that has long been evident in continental Europe, and that has now arrived on the shores of the US and UK.
It is the somewhat slow but very certain dissolution of long-existing political parties, organizations and groups. That's what I
was seeing during the Robert Mueller clown horror show on Wednesday.
Mueller was not just the Democratic Party's last hope, he was their identity. He was the anti-Trump. Well, he no longer is, he
is not fit to play that role anymore. And there is nobody to take it over who is not going to be highly contested by at least some
parts of the party. In other words: it's falling apart.
And that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's a natural process, parties change as conditions do and if they don't do it fast enough
they disappear. Look at the candidates the Dems have. Can anyone imagine the party, post-Mueller, uniting behind Joe Biden or Bernie
Sanders or Kamala Harris? And then for one of them to beat Donald Trump in 2020? I was just watching a little clip from Sean Hannity,
doing what Trump did last week, which is going after the Squad. Who he said are anti-Israel socialists and, most importantly, the
de facto leaders of the party, not Nancy Pelosi. That is a follow-up consequence of Mueller's tragic defeat, the right can now go
on the chase. The Squad is the face of the Dems because Trump and Hannity have made them that.
The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people
in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard to
see. The Dems have no Trump. They do have a DNC that will stifle any candidate they don't like (Bernie!), though. Just think
what they would have done if Trump had run as a Democrat (crazy, but not that crazy).
The UK's issues are remarkably similar to those of the US. Only, in their case, the socialists have already taken over the left-wing
party (if you can call the Dems left-wing). This has led to absolute stagnation. Tony Blair had moved Labour so far to the right
(which he and his Blairites call center, because it sounds so much better), that injecting Jeremy Corbyn as leader was just too fast
and furious.
So they labeled Corbyn an anti-semite, the most successful and equally empty smear campaign since Julian Assange was called a
rapist. Corbyn never adequately responded, so he couldn't profile himself and now the Blairites are again calling on him to leave.
Oh, and he never gave a direct answer to the question of Brexit yes or no either. Pity. Corbyn's support among the people is massive,
but not in the party.
Which is why it's now up to Boris Johnson to 'deliver the will of the people'. And apparently the first thing the people want
is 20,000 more policemen. Which were fired by the very party he at the time represented first as first mayor of London and then foreign
minister, for goodness sake. His very own Tories closed 600 police stations since 2010 and will have to re-open many now.
Some survey must have told him it polled well. Just like polling was an essential part of pushing through Brexit. There's a very
revealing TV movie that came out 6 months ago called Brexit: The Uncivil War, that makes this very clear. The extent to which campaigns
these days rely on data gathering and voter targeting will take a while yet to be understood, but they're a future that is already
here. Wikipedia in its description of the film puts it quite well:
After the opening credits, [Dominic] Cummings rejects an offer in 2015 by UKIP MP Douglas Carswell and political strategist
Matthew Elliott to lead the Vote Leave campaign due to his contempt for "Westminster politics", but accepts when Carswell promises
Cummings full control.
The next sequences show Cummings outlining the core strategy on a whiteboard of narrow disciplined messaging delivered
via algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools . Cummings rejects an approach by Nigel Farage and Arron Banks of Leave.EU
to merge their campaigns, as his data shows Farage is an obstacle to winning an overall majority.
[..] In a eureka moment, Cummings refines the core message to "Take Back Control", thus positioning Vote Leave as the historical
status quo, and Remain as the "change" option . Cummings meets and hires Canadian Zack Massingham, co-founder of AggregateIQ,
who offers to build a database using social media tools of [3 million] voters who are not on the UK electoral register but are
inclined to vote to leave.
[..] In the final stages, high-profile senior Tory MPs Michael Gove and Boris Johnson join the Vote Leave campaign emphasising
the need to "Take Back Control", while Penny Mordaunt is shown on BBC raising concerns over the accession of Turkey. Gove and
Johnson are shown as having some reticence over specific Vote Leave claims (e.g. £350 million for NHS, and 70 million potential
Turkish emigrants) but are seen to overcome them.
Dominic Cummings, played in the movie by Benedict Cumberbatch, is an independent political adviser who belongs to no party. But
guess what? He was the first adviser Boris Johnson hired after his nomination Wednesday. Cummings didn't want Nigel Farage as the
face of Brexit, because he polled poorly. He wanted Boris, because his numbers were better. Not because he didn't think Boris was
a bumbling fool, he did.
And now Cummings is back to finish the job. Far as I can see, that can only mean one thing: elections, and soon (it's
what Cummings does). A no-deal Brexit was voted down, in the same Parliament Boris Johnson now faces, 3 times, or was it 4? There
is going to be a lot of opposition. Boris wants Brexit on October 31, and has practically bet his career on it. But there is going
to be a lot of opposition.
He can't have elections before September, because of the summer recess. So perhaps end of September?! But he has Dominic Cummings
and his "algorithmic database-driven micro-targeting tools" . Without which Brexit would never have been voted in. So if
you don't want Brexit, you better come prepared.
Cummings and his techies weren't -just- sending out mass mails or that kind of stuff. That's already arcane. They were sending
targeted personalized messages to individual voters, by the millions. Algorithms. AI. Tailor made. If you're the opposition, and
you don't have those tools, then what do you have exactly?
Already thought before it all happened that it was funny that Boris Johnson's ascension and Robert Mueller's downfall were scheduled
for the same day. There must be a pattern somewhere.
You can find the movie at HBO or Channel 4, I'm sure. Try
this link for Channel
4. Seeing that movie, and thinking about the implications of the technology, the whole notion of Russian meddling becomes arcane
as well. We just have no idea.
The Demoncrats have one candidate who could beat Trump, namely Tulsi Gabbard. I disagree with her economics and her 2nd amendment
stance, but enough Chump voters who based their vote on his promise to stop the continuous war on everyone, would switch to Tulsi
if she were nominated, particularly if the Chump plays his Zio directive and starts a war with Iran which will not go well for
anybody. But Tulsi will never have a fair shot at the nominations as the MIC Google has demon-strated in her law suit. **** the
election. The people and their opinions are not a factor. **** the left right hatred division while the Owners just laugh from
the shadows at us for being so easily manipulated.
The upcoming Horowitz and Durham reports on their respective probes into "meddling into the meddling" will target many people
in the Democratic Party, US intelligence services, and the media. In that order. Can the Dems survive such a thing? It's hard
to see.
Can criminals survive a functioning DOJ working under the Law?
In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing
presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase
Clinton's chances of winning.
Trump is using Hillary's Pied Piper strategy against AoC and the Squid.
Elevate the radical leftists...they'll be seen as the face of the Democrat party...then 2020 is a sure Trump win.
Not that I care...I never consented to being governed by anyone.
For decades, the Democratic party has been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of liberals and labor -- two groups with nothing
in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.
For decades, the Republican party has also been a joke: a weakly bound coalition of religious fundamentalists and fiscal conservatives
-- two groups with nothing in common, and a fair degree of hate for each other.
In European politics, they call a shovel a shovel and work by coalition government. You have smaller parties which actually
represent interest groups, although none are large enough for power themselves. They form and break coalitions -- some long lasting,
some flittering around from election to election -- in order to form a majority ad hoc. It isn't a bad system, and the voters
don't have to hold their noses so much at the polls.
(edit: all this squabbling between "the squad" and the Pelosi leadership makes much more sense when viewed as friction between
the labor and liberal halves of the dems.)
The exaggeration of white privilege has become a cornerstone of progressivism. It's also one
of the ways Democrats risk losing the 2020 presidential race, as it leads inexorably to the
devaluation of voters needed to clinch the Electoral College.
The problem with a race-based, victim-washed vision of 2019 America is that being white is
not enough, and never has been. I was a diplomat for 24 years, about as privileged a job on
paper as you can get. But inside the State Department, being white was only a start. The real
criteria was "pale, male, and Yale." Being white (the pale part) was great, but only if you
were also a man; women were stuck in less desirable jobs (girls are nurses; boys are doctors).
No surprise, then, that the State Department has been sued over the years by its women and
black diplomats.
But white and male got you only to the door. The "good" jobs required the right background,
preferably via an Ivy. A sort of proud graduate of The Ohio State University, my privilege only
went so far. I couldn't fake it. They knew each other. Their fathers knew each other. They had
money -- well, parents with money. We Big Ten alums never got our class action together and so
muddled mostly at the middle levels.
The idea that white was enough was always laughable. America did not welcome our immigrant
grandpas; it shunted them into slums and paid them as little as possible to work for male,
pale, and Yale owners. Check how many Irish died digging the canals around New Orleans. Read
how immigrant children were overworked in factories for decades. The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act used
phrenology to exclude Italians. It was so horrendously racist that Hitler praised it in Mein Kampf . In 2019, so much as
mentioning the Irish triggers someone with purple hair and a neck tattoo in Elvish to shout
that slavery was worse. It was. But applying a rank order to suffering ignores the reason that
ideology will drag down the Democratic party in 2020: it is about more than race. What
progressives call white privilege is mostly status-wealth privilege, with a lot of unrelated
things chucked in to fill out the racist manifesto -- basically everything bad that happens to
black people, from airplane seating scrums to what color the director of the next superhero
movie is.
The candidates then either dismiss what they call white angst as a Fox News narrative or
condemn it as supremacy, Nazism, and fascism, words that have lost all meaning. Dems crow about
changing demographics that will turn America into a non-majority-white nation, and celebrate
the end of privilege as the country depletes its stock of Caucasians. They fail to see that the
salient statistic of America is not that the 61 percent who are white is falling, but that a
tiny group, the
top 0.1 percent of households, now hold the same amount of wealth as the bottom 90
percent.
Every white voter in every swing state feels the pull of that. They're afraid of losing
their place -- not to black people, but to the economy. And every one of those voters knows
that the solutions Democrats propose will not help them (they are also unlikely to fix racism,
but that's another matter). Mayor Pete Buttigieg's
Douglass Plan provides billions for black businesses and colleges and aims to reduce the
prison population by half. Biden wants to provide former felons with
housing . Kamala Harris has a $100 billion plan for black
homeownership . Everyone on MSNBC favors
reparations .
Nothing excuses the at times dangerous behavior of Donald Trump and some of his supporters.
Yet declaring all Trump supporters to be racist is far too crude an understanding. Many feel
they are under
attack by progressives who fail to see their own economic vulnerabilities. Instead of
Barack Obama (Columbia '83, Harvard '91) talking about hope and change for everyone, they hear
today's Dems dedicating themselves to over-correcting racial wrongs, punishing those in the
present for historical sins. Resentment builds as they're scolded over what little more they
have than others.
Democratic very-hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand failed to sell this penitent version of white
privilege right at the ground zero for economic inequality -- Youngstown, Ohio. Youngstown was
archetypal postwar America, a Midwest city built around a now-dead steel industry. It was
racially mixed, not only statistically (49 percent white, 44
percent black), but in reality. The now-gone union jobs paid living wages to whites and blacks
and allowed people to buy homes on each others' streets. Workers' privilege. The receding tide
grounded all boats.
Gillibrand was asked
at a campaign stop there: "This is an area that, across all demographics, has been depressed
because of the loss of industry and the opioid crisis. What do you have to say to people in
this area about so-called white privilege?"
Her answer, praised by CNN as "powerful," was a wandering narrative about how, while white
privilege didn't spare the questioner unemployment, the loss of her house, her son to opioids,
and her soul itself at the hands of rapacious inequality, the black folk in Youngstown had it
worse -- 'cause the supremacist cops would bust a black kid for weed while a white kid would
walk away. It was the perfect answer for a progressive media hit. It was the worst possible
answer if a candidate actually wanted to win some of those Ohio votes. Gillibrand stumbled on
to say she that she understood families in the community were suffering, "but that's not what
this conversation is about."
Her answer was thin soup to women who'd lost sons to drugs. Opioids now rank just below
suicide as a cause of
death in America (as if the two are unconnected). Many more die from opioids than police
violence. Ohio has the second highest
opioids death count in the U.S. And how much time will that issue get at the next Democratic
debate?
Gillibrand, standing in as the poster child for progressives, likely knows nothing about
1977's
Black Monday in Youngstown, when 5,000 steelworkers were laid off, or of the 50,000 who
lost their jobs after that. The town never recovered, trauma that helped put Ronald Reagan and
then Trump in the White House. She doesn't see what they saw. The problem is not black and
white; it is up and down.
The people of Youngstown understand this in their bones, and, to the endless amazement of
progressive media ,
support Trump even when he is ineffective in helping them, because at least he understands.
He would never tell them that their economic problems pale in comparison to racism. Gillibrand,
on the other hand, went to Youngstown specifically to communicate that she doesn't care -- her
eye is on another audience.
It is time to admit that racism is not the core problem, the one Pete Buttigieg
claims "threatens to unravel the American project." It is in 2019 an exaggeration driving a
key Democratic strategy: betting the White House on unreliable voters (since the 1980s, blacks
have turned out in higher numbers
than whites, percentage-wise, only for the Obama elections) against a body of whites they
devalue.
This is a risky strategy. It alienates too many while challenging others (older Americans of
all races historically turn out at 30 to 40 percent higher rates
than the youngest voters) to vote for the party that now gleefully denounces Thomas Jefferson
as a slaver, and throws its own vice president emeritus and frontrunner under the racism bus.
Voters, meanwhile, wonder when the reparations for their lost jobs and homes will come.
The Dems can't reassess because to discuss racism in any but the Party's own terms is more
racism. Dissenters are racists, or at least noncompetitive. Mayor Pete, who in January
said , "Trump got elected because, in his twisted way, he pointed out the huge troubles in
our economy and our democracy," now leads the charge with racism. Argument is ended with "Oh,
so says a white person." Whitesplaining! It's like saying only doctors who have cancer
are allowed to treat tumors.
In Wall Street terms, Democrats are "shorting" white voters. A short means betting against
something, devaluing it. If you are short on Microsoft, you make investments that will go up if
Microsoft goes down. Dems think white voters have little value, and are betting against them
with exaggerated claims of supremacy. Along the way, they assume all "people of color" will
fall into place, believing that what resonates with young urban blacks will also click with
their older rural relatives in swing states, as well as with Latinos who trace their roots from
Barcelona to Havana to Juarez, and Asians too (why not?), simply because, in Democratic
lexicon, any color trumps white -- no shades of nuance needed.
If that sounds simplistic, never mind inaccurate, and a bad idea, you may want to consider
shorting the Dems for 2020.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan.
The reason the democrat left’s “identity politics” is doomed to failure
is that it disdains, excludes and insults the intelligence of anyone who simply chooses to
identify as “American”
Obsessive Democratic Division Disorder. Instead of focusing on Unity and Accord, instead of
seeing the US of A as one big melting pot filled with the same hopes & dreams,
Democrats have obsessed on dividing the nation into every conceivable sub-category of
humanity along lines of political correctness for the impossible idea of cobbling a
majority voting block from minority classes that are already protected under Title IX,
Family Leave Act, Equal Protection, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, ADA, and a host of
other federal and state equally laws.
Hillary, The Inevitable One, failed miserably with Basket of Deplorables voting for
Trump. As it turns out a majority of Americans appreciate the US of A, and understand that
just because they have American Pride and believe in America, does not mean they should be
labeled a racist.
So long as the Democrats Obsess on Dividing the nation falsing accusing anyone not on
their Crazy Socialist Train racist, sexist, homophobic, white-privileged or Russian
Collusion Conspirators -- the Dems will continue to go down in flames.
"Gillibrand, on the other hand, went to Youngstown specifically to communicate that she
doesn’t care—her eye is on another audience."
McCain did the same thing in my town's high school auditorium during his run for
President. He came to tell us there was no hope, that no jobs were coming back, and our
community had no future. He lost here.
50 years ago, I started an entry level job in financial services. Most of my time was spent
meeting with low income prospective customers, many of whom had incomes about the same as
my entry level salary, or higher. It only took me a short time to realize that I had more
in common with the low income minority group customers that I was meeting with than with
the managers and executives who ran the company. It was never about race. It’s always
about income and wealth and opportunity. The Democrats want to deny opportunity to everyone
who is, by their definition, white. It’s already a fact of life for young white
people trying to lift themselves out of poverty. Even young people of color recognize the
injustice in the Democratic Party policies.
I dont think its as much skin color as it is the age demographic. If you're 50 and up,
despite your race, you were raised in a fairly harmonious age when people knew racism still
existed, but the average person did not practice it. It was reserved for the 10% fringe
(KKK) of society.
This article is spot-on in declaring the practice of punishing the present-day citizens for
historical sins will never gain much momentum, even among the black community. They
acknowledge they have never been slaves as much as their whit counterparts have ever owned
slaves.
Whatever your color, we all want a steady economy. That's a winning message.
The House passed legislation Wednesday in a 264-169 vote aimed at helping stabilize
multiemployer pension plans in hopes of mitigating the looming pension crisis.
Twenty-nine Republicans — nine of whom co-sponsored the legislation —
joined Democrats in voting for the measure.
Here's the hypocrisy I can't stand around here: Zionist Trump is doing the bidding of the
Zionist cabal meddling in Venezuela and headed for war with Iran, not to mention all his
other destructive policies, and he lined and lines his pockets scrooing everyone on the way
up and people here are worried that such a pig at the trough might somehow be the victim of
an injustice???
This is a man, who among his lesser offences cheated on his wife while she was pregnant
AND then let his lawyer cover it up so he wouldn't take the fall for illegal campaign
violations.
So it begs the question: why do you care so much about the corrupt bastard who should be
behind bars with his fall guys?
Democrats (as in Democrat party), not candidates, try to defeat Trump on his personality and
his business practices. They do not want to discuss policies. Actually, Trump does not want
to discuss policies, feeding the news cycles with click bait.
If people are utterly disgusted with Trump. they may just stay at home or vote Democrat,
never mind the policy.
There is another chance. Trump has staked his reelection on claiming to be responsible for
the - good - economy.
Bets are that after going up for a long time (and this started under Obama) the economy will
go down.
Elizabeth Warren has
already bet on it .
The green economy is the next industrial wave (after that capitalism has to stop if
ecosystems are meant to survive, it is probably too late for that already).
Democrats have the recipe for that.
Even if Trump gets a second run, his policies are not sustainable, not demographically, not
economically. Lack of health care/overprized health care, lack of education is a disadvantage
not an advantage of the American system. Democrats are wise to have a long term
perspective.
But can the Dems be serious? They've got to be drinking the Kool-Aid. We have Kamala Harris,
a colored woman who is in favor of busing. This means sending white children forty-five minutes
each way to violent fifth-rate schools where they will be bullied without mercy and come away
hating blacks. She thinks parents will put her racial enthusiasms over the welfare of their
kids. Not gonna happen, Kamala gal.
Kamala says we need more integration. Why? What good is it? Who is going to vote for it? Do
not people avoid it like hemorrhagic tuberculosis when they have a choice?
The entire screwy list of adolescent canditatorial hamsters favors reparations for, oh god,
slavery. We will never hear the end of slavery. Like the liver of Prometheus, slavery is a
resource never depleted.
Reparations of course means forcing whites who never owned slaves to give money to blacks
who never were slaves. Granted, this will get the Democrats the votes of American Africans,
which they had anyway.
I can hear it in Detroit: "Reparations? Yowee! Hoo-ah!! More free stuff!" Just like looting
a Walgreen's but you don't have to run even a couple of blocks.
In the "debates," these political dribs and drabs and leftovers avoided topics of importance
such as the wars, the Pentagon's maximum-flab budget, the national debt, our domestic banditry
such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa, immigration, and black crime. The latter spreads like
gangrene in a suppurated wound. Almost weekly we read of businesses gang-robbed by "teens,"
which we all know what are.
(Meerriam-Webster–"Teen: a black between the ages of sixteen and twenty-eight caught
on surveillance cameras sacking a business owned by shties.")
Now, reparations will fly in Flint. Who can doubtit? The water is poisonous, people don't
have jobs, and now they have to pay American Africans who hate them for something Flint didn't
do to them.
Trump must be paying the Democratic lineup to do this. Nothing else can explain it.
And all of the same political retards favor open borders. This is what got Trump elected in
the first place, so they are going to do it again. What could make more sense? If you
pound your thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, the smart thing is to pound it again. That will
make it feel better. They seem to be in a race to see who can be least electable. They all look
to be winners.
Meanwhile Trump, who should be an easy target, revs up his fans with carney-barker harangues
appealing to the limbic third-grader so prevalent in the psyches of the mid-country. You have
to hand it to the guy: He has charisma. Make America Great Again! Never mind that he is
presiding over the greatest decline America has ever seen. Build the wall! Build the wall!
Yeeee-hah! This sort of thing appeals to those whose minds might be described as uncluttered
and, hey, a vote is a vote.
He hasn't built the Wall, is unlikely to, has deported almost nobody, and jobs are still
leaving America. With Trump, though, it's the giddy mood of the thing, the sense that the
President is one of us, against those rich New York bastards and snotty anchorwomen who have
screwed us. Which of course they have.
Curiously, the press rabble in Washington pride themselves as being on the Left. Say
what ? Howzat again? The Left used to be the party of the working man, the party
supporting unionization, often at risk of bodily harm.They were against wars. Working men got
killed in them for the benefit of the arms industry.
Today's alleged Left is the party of white coastal upper middle classes against the working
class, whom they name deplorables. The racial minorities, with whom the elites strictly avoid
associating, serve as voting fodder.
Can you imagine Saul Alinsky arguing for integrated bathrooms so as to be inclusive?
So we have Biden and Bernie, intensely exciting as wallpaper paste, suited more to Madame
Tussaud's than the White House. Elizabeth Warren, who presumably will wear feathers and say
woo-woo-woo and wave her DNA report saying that she is 1/1024 wild Indian. Maybe she will carry
a tomahawk.
What gave us these? Saturation mutagenesis? The Russians put something in the water?
Well, there was Tulsi Gabbard, who will get my vote.(This doubtless will prove
decisive.) She was the only entry in the lineup of stale-bread Democrats who mentioned the
wars. She is against. Nobody else noticed the voracious Five-Sided Black Hole on the Potomac
that devours the nation's substance.
This matters, or ought to. The military boodle is the only available pile of moolah to pay
for Free Stuff. Or infrastructure. Or decent medical care. But it also sustains the military,
the biggest scam of corporate America. The media will have to sideline Tulsi.
Meanwhile at the top, in the Great Double-Wide on Pennsylvania Avenue, we have Trump
himself, crass as a truss ad, and John Bolton, who seems to be an actual mutant. Maybe his
father sat on a radium watch. Throw in Pompeo, a vicious Christian who looks like an ad for
bacon fat. This is what the turnips of the Democratic freak show, each more boring than all the
others combined, all rushing to out-weird the others, will give us again in 2020.
Actually, I hope Trump isn't impeached. He may be all that stands between the Republic (I am
being nostalgic) and war with Iran. The only people who want war are Bolton, the Jewish
lobbies, and Israel. Everybody else wants to sell Iran stuff and buy stuff from it.
Anyway, Pence is a loon who thinks he is about to be vacuumed up by the Rapture and I guess
drink beer with God. Without Trump, who may be too confused for a war, Bolton would nuke
Tehran.
To date, the last chapter in this comic book has been the sad story of the British
ambassador. He got caught telling his government that Trump was incompetent, flaky, unreliable,
and egotistical. This of course is what all ambassadors must be telling headquarters. What do
you expect them to write of a president who has invented three hitherto unknown
countries–Nambia, Nepple, and Button–and tweets of the "Prince of Whales"? Tweeting
is what birds do. Europe must look on with equal parts horror and amusement.
But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats? They appear set
to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political equivalent of Rupaul and then,
having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how he got elected. Only in America.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Fred. The reason why the multiculturalism fiasco was
invented was so the US can continue with their old reactionary right wing ways – out of
nostalgia – of course. If the idea wasn't catastrophic – it would be brilliant
– and it is. Because who would suspect such a thing, the country with immigrant policy
so carefree like there is no tomorrow – and the way the things look, there might not be
one-and yet the country who invented it is exactly that – reactionary right wing.
Regardless who is in power – democrats or republicans – who are there just for
the amusement of the great unwashed, US is stuck in their old ways. The dead giveaway that
they are reactionary right wing country are their wars – which are exclusively fought
against anyone who shows even a hint of socialism.
And yet – they are "socialist" themselves, or at least they are trying to sell
themselves to the world as being "left wing". See, that's clever, the good old capitalists
know that humanity ALWAYS evolves to the left – throughout history this has been
proven. Feudalism was more left wing than slavery, capitalism is more left wing than
feudalism, and whatever comes next, will have to be more left wing still.
Having no heart to follow that direction, the US decided to fake a left and continue with
their right wing ways. What bothers me the most is that they think they are smart. And the
fake left that they took will destroy them more thoroughly than if they took a real left.
@phil In the 1950's,
the labor force participation rate of men (percent of working age men with a job) was around
86%. Today that number is about 69%. Lowest rate in history. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001
Before any of you takes seriously the next Most Important Election Ever, consider this
prediction by another columnist here at The Unz Review:
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, June 12, 2016.
National politics are the Establishment's way to channel, geld, and harmlessly blow off
dissent. If you want things to change, stop voting and encourage others to do so. If nothing
else, at least take a different crayon, something other than Red or Blue.
This is actually a pretty reasonable column from Fredrigo Reedriguez -- except perhaps for
this part:
and jobs are still leaving America.
Of course jobs will always leave America -- the question is: Has there been net job growth
under Trump (not that he should get sole credit for that), especially in manufacturing
(decimated in previous decades), and if these gains are sustainable -- I don't think anyone
can really answer the latter question -- also import is altering trade policy to stem future
job loss -- it's less clear Trump has made significant progress there.
In President Trump's first two years in office, factory job growth accelerated, Some of
the 465,000 factory jobs that the country created in 2017 and 2018 are in the most
economically beleaguered counties that voted for Mr. Trump in 2016.
"But how can he lose against such a sorry gaggle of embarrassing Democrats?"
Exactly; just like they did the first time around by running the least electable democrat
they could find, Hillary Clinton (and even then having to take obvious steps to undermine her
campaign), in accordance with the long-standing plan.
"They appear set to nominate some creature of the remote fringes, the political
equivalent of Rupaul and then, having elected Trump again, they will wonder at length how
he got elected. Only in America."
Well I don't think they'll "wonder" about their own calculated plan, i.e., to portray
orange clown's "opposition" as wanting to eat babies, open the borders, put white people in
concentration camps, pay reparations, do away with the concept of gender, teach sexual
perversion in schools, trash the 2nd amendment, etc., etc., etc thus only the apparently
somewhat less evil orange clown can save us.
Corporate Democrats are shark suckers attached to the bottoms of Oligarchs. To keep feeding
they must blame someone else not the White Shark. Russians are a natural enemy for the
five-eyes intelligence community and corrupt politicians. Media propaganda can't keep up with
the spooks crazy operations; restarting the Cold War, the Steele Dossier, Brexit, Salisbury
Poisonings, Trade Sanctions, or pirating oil tankers. One or all will inevitably kill the
host.
Techno_Fog and thread seem to
agree Mueller perjured himself and ought to get the Flynn treatment.
Margaret Kimberley on
Russiagate's legs and at least one responsible for keeping it alive:
"Robert Mueller testifies today but Russiagate will live on as long as cynical democrats
like Kamala Harris want it to. She is the worst, as she uses black people and denies our
history in an effort to promote the lie."
"It turned out that Mr. Mueller's team had no evidence that the Russian government was
involved with the Facebook pranks. This annoyed Judge Friedrich, who ordered Mr. Mueller and
his lawyers to desist making public statements about Concord and IRA's alleged "sweeping and
systemic" collusion with Russia, and threatened legal sanctions if they did."
"... The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line? ..."
They're going to do it, I tell you: The whole touchy-feely do-gooding ratpack of Microaggression worriers, reparations freaks,
weird sexual curiosities, race hustlers, bat.-Antifa psychos, and egalitarian enstupidators of universities. They are going to elect
Trump. Again.
Washington, where I shortly will be for a bit, is crazy. It has not the slightest, wan, etiolated idea of what is going on in
America. The Democrats are fielding as candidates a roster of middle-school clowns and unflavored tapioca. Are they secretly in Trump's
pay? Like Clinton with her "Deplorables" suicide line?
That bill alone makes Warren a viable candidate again, despite all her previous blunders. She is a courageous woman, that
Warren. And she might wipe the floor with the completely subservant to Israel lobby Trump. Who betrayed his electorate
in all major promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Not only would Warren's legislation prohibit some of the most destructive private equity activities, but it would end their ability to act as traditional asset managers, taking fees and incurring close to no risk if their investments go belly up. The bill takes the explicit and radical view that: ..."
"... Private funds should have a stake in the outcome of their investments, enjoying returns if those investments are successful but ab-1sorbing losses if those investments fail. ..."
"... Critics will say that Warren's bill has no chance of passing, which is currently true but misses the point. ..."
"... firms would share responsibility for the liabilities of companies under their control, including debt, legal judgments, and pension obligations to "better align the incentives of private equity firms and the companies they own." The bill, if enacted, would end the tax subsidy for excessive leverage and closes the carried interest loophole. ..."
"... The bill also seeks to ban dividends to investors for two years after a firm is acquired. Worker pay would be prioritized in the bankruptcy process, with guidelines intended to ensure affected employees are more likely to receive severance pay and pensions. It would also clarify gift cards are consumer deposits, ensuring their priority in bankruptcy proceedings. If enacted, private equity managers will be required to disclose fees, returns, and political expenditures. ..."
"... This is a bold set of proposals that targets abuses that hurt workers and investors. Most readers may not appreciate the significance of the two-year restriction on dividends. One return-goosing strategy that often leaves companies crippled or bankrupt in its wake is the "dividend recap" in which the acquired company takes on yet more debt for the purpose of paying a special dividend to its investors. Another strategy that Appelbaum and Batt have discussed at length is the "op co/prop co." Here the new owners take real estate owned by the company, sell it to a new entity with the former owner leasing it. The leases are typically set high so as to allow for the "prop co" to be sold at a richer price. This strategy is often a direct contributor to the death of businesses, since ones that own their real estate usually do so because they are in cyclical industries, and not having lease payments enables the to ride out bad times. The proceeds of sale of the real estate is usually dividended out to the investors, hence the dividend restriction would also pour cold water on this approach. ..."
"... However, there is precedent in private equity for recognizing joint and several liability of an investment fund for the obligations of its portfolio companies. In a case that winded its way through the federal courts until last year ( Sun Capital Partners III, LP v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund ), the federal court held that Sun Capital Partners III was liable under ERISA, the federal pension law, for the unfunded pension obligations of Scott Brass, a portfolio company of that fund. The court's key finding was that Sun Capital played an active management role in Scott Brass and that its claim of passive investor status therefore should not be respected. ..."
"... Needless to say, private equity firms have worked hard to minimize their exposure to the Sun Capital decision, for example by avoiding purchasing companies with defined benefit pension plans. The Warren bill, however, is so broad in the sweep of liability it imposes that PE firms would be unlikely to be able to structure around it. It is hard to imagine the investors in private equity funds accepting liability for what could be enormous sums of unfunded pension liabilities ultimately flowing onto them. Either they would have to set up shell companies to fund their PE investments that could absorb the potential liability, or they would have to give up on the asset class. Either way, it would mean big changes to the industry and potentially a major contraction of it. ..."
"... I am surprised that Warren sought to make private equity funds responsible for the portfolio company debts by "joint and several liability". You can get to economically pretty much the same end by requiring the general partner and potentially also key employees to guarantee the debt and by preventing them from assigning or buying insurance to protect the guarantor from being liable. There is ample precedent for that for entrepreneurs. Small business corporate credit cards and nearly all small business loans require a personal guarantee. ..."
"... Warren's bill also has strong pro-investor provisions. It takes on the biggest feature of the ongoing investor scamming, which is the failure of PE managers to disclose to the investors all of the fees they receive from portfolio companies. The solution proposed by the bill to this problem is exceedingly straightforward, basically proclaiming, "Oh yeah, now you will have to disclose that." The bill also abolishes the ability of private equity managers to claim long term capital gains treatment on the 20 percent of fund profits that they receive, which is unrelated to the return on any capital that the private equity managers may happen to invest in a fund. ..."
"... We need a reparations movement for all those workers harmed by private equity. Seriously. ..."
"... It's so nice to see someone taking steps to protect the rights and compensation of the people actually doing the work at the companies and putting their interests first in case of bankruptcy. That those who worked hardest to make the company succeed were somehow the ones who took it in the shorts the worst has always struck me as a glaring inequity bordering on cruelty. ..."
Elizabeth Warren's
Stop Wall Street Looting Act , which is co-sponsored by Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Mark Pocan and Pramila Jayapal, seeks to
fundamentally alter the way private equity firms operate. While the likely impetus for Warren's bill was the spate of private-equity-induced
retail bankruptcies, with Toys 'R' Us particularly prominent, the bill addresses all the areas targeted by critics of private equity:
how it hurts workers and investors and short-changes the tax man, thus burdening taxpayers generally.
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an
Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth
Porter •
July 23, 2019
While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an
Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal
while the British acted legally.
The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British
ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence
indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted
that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."
But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.
The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions.
This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions
against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships
through international straits.
The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May
as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.
Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on
sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The
EU Council regulation in question
specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business
entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."
The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait
of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A
maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has
no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued
a regulation to provide what it would claim
as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there
were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.
The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar
Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement
by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any
mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.
There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually
impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims
territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas
the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of
the middle of the Strait.
But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace
1 was in the shipping lane heading east
toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the
coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this
live view of typical ship traffic
through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters
at any time before it was boarded.
But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally
seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the
United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union,
establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation
for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage
of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.
These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing,
and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering
states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns
and thus a violation of the treaty.
The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration
to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.
The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the
decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it
was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he
nor the British wished to reveal.
BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears
the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British
seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge
reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."
Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on
the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.
Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration
reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance.
This decision was accompanied by
political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian
state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.
That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities.
The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions,
warned those
entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a
self-insured Iranian tanker.
But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern
tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System
data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority
delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National
Security Council issued an alert
claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities
of some regimes led by terrorist groups."
The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.
The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with
that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit
a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary
American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.
Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim
that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author
of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are
falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork).
However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN
sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say
US lapdog).
Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped
there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales
aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did.
Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was
even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might
come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing
into the cargo hold.
The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention
the ones who broke international law.
Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its
face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe
the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the
bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's
objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".
The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens
is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a
Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.
Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN
treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific
countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special
about the EU, because it is an acronym?
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international
waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign
minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/30...
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us
a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump
Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will
not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the
Brits not also want war?
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to
get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a
hat.
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to
support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him.
So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time
now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.
The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so
new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those
contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is
coming faster than you think.
"[Kamala] Harris is everything the US empire's unelected power establishment wants in a
politician: charismatic, commanding, and completely unprincipled. In that sense she's like
Obama, only better.
Trump supporters like to claim that the president is fighting the establishment, citing the
open revulsion that so many noxious establishment figures have for him. But the establishment
doesn't hate Trump because he opposes them; he doesn't oppose existing power structures in any
meaningful way at all. The reason the heads of those power structures despise Trump is solely
because he sucks at narrative management and puts an ugly face on the ugly things that
America's permanent government is constantly doing. He's bad at managing their assets.
Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of this. She'd be able to obliterate noncompliant
nations and dead-end the left for eight years, and look good while doing it. She's got the
skills to become president, and she'll have the establishment backing as well."
The key problem for Trump is reaction of China and Russia... If Russia supports Iran the USA attack onIran might well be the
second Vietnam and KSA will probably seize to exit.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom-line is this -- if Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia and China. ..."
"... The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front. ..."
"... it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine. ..."
"... There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. ..."
"... The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK. ..."
"... As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double? ..."
"... I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check. Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not. ..."
"... "Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party." ..."
"... Yes. A demented obsession that is not in US interests. Is it really in Saudi and Israeli interests when they may be hurt too? ..."
"... The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off. ..."
"... Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump? ..."
"... The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region. ..."
"... If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway. ..."
"... The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S. ..."
"... Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid dog. ..."
Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of doing what the "Never Trumpers" could not--destroy his Presidency and make re-election
impossible. It all boils down to whether or not he decides to launch military strikes on Iran. The bottom-line is this -- if
Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate
beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia
and China.
The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to
portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media
echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to
employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take
action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front.
The media is busy pushing the lie that Iran launched an unprovoked "attack" on a British flagged ship. They ignore the British
action two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker heading to Syria. Britain justifies its action as just
keeping the sanction regime in place. But it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some
members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits
what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine.
There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not
dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed
into a corner, will do so.
I see at least four possible scenarios for this current situation. If you can think of others please add in the comments section.
"two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker"
Via Associated Press:
Royal Marines took part in the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Gibraltar, a British overseas territory off the southern
coast of Spain. Officials there initially said the July 4 seizure happened on orders from the U.S." .......
It gets even better than on orders from the U.S.
"Britain has said it would release the vessel, which was carrying more than 2 million barrels of Iranian crude, if Iran could
prove it was not breaching EU sanctions"
We are supposed to believe that Syria is importing oil on ships which sail through the Straights of Gibraltar rather than getting
oil from, say, Russia! or going from Iran (it is Iranian oil, so they say) through the Suez Canal? What did they
do, sail around the continent of Africa to stage this?
So the brilliant minds at GCHQ that brought us Christopher Steele and the dossier have decided that they really, really, need
to get rid of the Orange Man and they don't care how many Iranian or American lives it takes. I wonder just how many people the
man not in the news, Jeffrey Epstein, had the dirty goods on and just which government was behind his operation.
The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean
port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK.
Thanks for the comment. I did a bit more research. It seems strange to me that Iran would use a ship to large for the canal
to make such a shipment to Syria, if indeed that was where it was heading.
Larry, your intel about the JCS not advising caution is most disheartening. I wouldn't be surprised if the warmongers surrounding
Trump are also telling him that his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists. That may not be far off.
Sure those who support Trump for his professed aversion to adventurism will be appalled at war with Iran, but his more rabid base
may follow him anywhere. Trump has no ideological need for war, but he does have a psychological need for adoration. That's not
a good situation.
"...his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists.."
TTG
I have seen private surveys commissioned by a deep pocketed hedge fund of working class folks in the mid-west & the south.
When the consequences of a military confrontation with Iran are described the overwhelming majority oppose it.
Larry is spot on. Trump will lose his re-election bid if he kowtows to Bibi & MbS. The short-term financial & economic effects
would crush his base and the half-life of jingoism after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, & Syria will be rather short. Trump will be
blamed by the "right" for cocking up teaching Iran a lesson and demonized by the "left "for getting us into another ME quagmire.
How does one wake POTUS Trump to the reality that his NEOCONS and Israel Firsters in his Cabinet will destroy his Presidency if
he doesn't jettison them out the door.
There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US, and I think the calculus might be to use the exact thing
Israelis want most (war with Iran) to do that. I think the resurrection of the Epstein case is also part of that effort. Thus,
war with Iran is inevitable.
"There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US"
Is it an organized effort? Where do I sign up?
Rick Wiles heads TruNews, a Christian evangelical network. He's been outspoken in his criticism of zionism, calls out Christian
zionists, and deplores that "the US has been taken over by zionists." To be sure, ADL has labeled Wiles an "antisemite." If TruNews
survives, it may be part of game-changing.
"From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources [is that] no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution."
We should probably ignore the notion that the Joint Chiefs are bullish about a war with Iran -- the situation in the area is
terrible for us and the Joint Chiefs know it.
For example, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan have military understandings with Iran and the former is now installing advanced S-400
Russian missiles to defend itself from us. Furthermore, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbajian and Armenia will not allow
transit of war materiel or aircraft en-route to Iran. So how does the US project anything into that country?
Then again, US Central Command is located in Iran friendly Quatar, which merely hosts us and could require us to leave. How
come? Wouldn't you know it, Quatar is developing a massive gas reserve with Iran in the Gulf, is now very, very friendly with
big-brother Turkey and presently negotiating with Russia for S-400 missiles -- clearly against us.
Well, what about our Navy?
Alas, recent improvements in missiles have rendered our deep water Navy a liability -- not that the narrow Persian Gulf / Sea
of Oman is deep in any case. (President Trump learned about our Navy's vulnerability to missile attack last year as the Pentagon
quickly pulled our three carrier group force from Korea and parked those impressive ships on the south coast of Australia! )
Then there is Iran's near east client / ally Hezbollah, which has made clear that any bombing of Iran, a huge country, would
trigger heavy missile attack on postage-stamp Israel.
The Neocons may have managed to silence public Pentagon doubts, but President Trump is clearly attempting to avoid military
adventures. "No, the Iran downed drone was old and not that expensive." "The UK captured an Iranian tanker and the Iranians have
reciprocated. The two should sit down and work the situation out."
I believe that Iran is going to want to avoid war if they can. Their program of adding precision guidance to Hezbollah missiles
in Lebanon means that the longer they postpone war, the better for them. If they get to a point where they have 10,000 precision
guided missiles in Lebanon then the next Israel-Lebanon war will force Israel into a humiliating defeat.
Eighty percent of Israel's water comes from water desalination plants - and then there are electricity generation plants, sewage
treatment plants, and numerous other infrastructure targets that can be hit. Israeli civilians are soft and will cry uncle as
soon as their air conditioning cuts out.
Why not, then, have the Americans initiate the deed now... destroy Iran and Lebanon, and then, with France, the UK, Germany,
Canada et al. spend billions to rebuild Israel, with the Palestinians being sent to Jordan (if not worse).
Israel has gambled on a broader war several times in the past, and they believe (despite the fiasco in Lebanon) that each was
a win.
When did this group, leading the charge overseas in D.C. for the past 20 years, once get it right, as far as assumptions and expectations
of military necessities or outcomes? I am beginning to think this creating a greater danger out of a lesser mess is a feature,
not a defect. If so, why? To what end? Or is the policy process that broken?
Saddam ain't around any more, neither is Muammar Gaddafi. The neocons take those as great victories since the sacred state
of Israel is safe from those two.
imo a war with iran is theatre and will not take place.
should iran be attacked imo you can kiss the UAE goodbye as well as most if not all of the Saudi oil infrastructre along the
gulf. i would also expect a massive direct bombardment of israeli cities and other important targets from hezbollah starting with
the massive ammonia storage system in haifa whose destruction would annihilate that entire region. all of useful israel is in
the middle to upper third of the country closest to lebanon and easy reach for all of hezbollahs missiles.
the persian gulf upon the start of the war becomes the hotel california for any warship within. none would likely escape. and
the coup de gra for iran is whether they have the ballistic missile reach and or can gain access to russian long range bombers
fitted with kalibr or better cruise missiles able to smash diego garcia absolutely critical american relaestate in the indian
ocean.
trump imo is not crazy and can read a map as well as anyone with help from his REAL pentagon military professionals.
we have not even gotten to what happens to all those oil and interest rate derivatives far out of the money right now in somewhat
normal times. if war starts they go from notional to real fast and the western financial system implodes even with a force majeure
declaration
An Iran war would indeed most probably kill off Trump's chance of re-election. The almost inevitable spike in the price of oil
which it would bring about would have two implications:
1/ ROTW xUS manufacturing is already in recession, with services close to joining it in many countries. The US is clearly slowing
down and appears headed on the same course. The global economy is in no shape to withstand even a relatively short-lived surge
in oil prices.
2/ There is no knowing what lurks out there in the oil derivatives market, but the banking system - particularly the European
banking system - is far too fragile to sustain another bout of counterparty risk aversion along the lines of 2007/08. (And amongst
the trillions of gross derivatives exposure, one has to wonder just how many US and other banks are sitting across from Deutsche
Bank oil positions and happily netting off the counterparty risk.)
Regretably, from my side of the Atlantic the US looks like a traditional imperial power, addicted to war and conquest and with
a significant proportion of the population fetishizing (probably not a real verb) all things military. Whether Trump can be truly
damaged by extending the 'forever war' to Iran depends very much on how it goes - and I doubt he has the knowledge required to
think through all the plausible scenarios. We can be a lot more confident that carrying the blame for an unnecessary recession
into the election campaign has a solid chance of sinking him.
Just what good has the past two decades of "war and conquest" done for America, whether flyover country, Jussie Smollett's
"Maga Country" section of Chicago or the homeless encampments of Seattle, LA or Portland?
As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the
middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran.
Bolton is heading to Japan to "mediate" the
current economic disagreements between Japan and S. Korea.
Pompeo is declaring that the Iranian Ballistic Missile program is suddenly on the table. It would appear that the whole Iranian
atomic bomb thing was smoke and mirrors and hasbara.
There is a deal available, preparation for making the deal will involve political kabuki, grand posturing, the beating of drums
without rhythm and the flooding of the Old American Infotainment outlets with much wailing and whining about "the only democracy
in the MENA."
A deal will eventuate that allows both the USA and Iran to move on, about a week before the 2020 presidential election. Or
maybe not.
I have a question for those of you well versed with Iranian military capability. What are the capabilities of Iranian ballistic
missiles in terms of range, precision and payload lethality?
As Col. Lang has noted in the transition to war, before the US
Navy gets its ducks in a row, that is the window of opportunity that Iran has to strike back. What damage could they inflict on
oil & gas infrastructure including LNG, port & pipelines across UAE, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the
manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer
Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double?
As Larry notes "..President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when
it comes to employing military force.." , but I believe he has good political instincts and as his Reality TV/Twitter presidency
shows he has an excellent sense of how it plays both in the MSM and social media. He must know that while the "shock & awe" and
"boom-boom" videos may give him an instant boost the stock market that he has rested his presidency on may not soar but in fact
plummet. And he can't blame Jay Powell for that.
He must also instinctually know that November 2020 is a year away and a lot can go wrong as it is economically and in financial
markets since he's been harping at the Fed to lower rates in supposedly the best economy evah. Uncertainty spikes volatility and
the credit markets are already stressed particularly in offshore eurodollar funding which is an order of magnitude larger than
mortgage credit markets were in 2007.
Maybe Rand Paul is his counter to the ziocon fifth column? I don't think he's that foolish to pull the trigger on Iran and
sink his presidency when the Deep State & NeverTrumpers are out for his blood. He must know he'll lose immunity from legal jeopardy
when he's no longer POTUS.
As Col. Lang has repeatedly observed, the decisions to go to war do not necessarily follow economic, nor domestic political logic.
It is therefore better to speculate on the players state of mind rather than looking at the aforesaid rational drivers like economics
and votes.
I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check.
Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not.
Israeli wants Iran destroyed and their ability to pressure US Presidents to do their bidding all the way back to President
Truman is 100% success. Trump so cravenly promotes the Zionist interest that I see no reason he will not pursue regime change
in Iran to its logical conclusion.
The plan is ultimately Greater Israeli and the leaders of Iran are well aware of this.
Many comments say that Israeli will be badly damaged by any regional war. Why do you believe Israeli is just going to take
the blows? Analysis is not advocacy as Col. Lang says.
My fear is the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are introduced into the Middle East.
"Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea
how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party."
Option 1 - Diplomatic solution: The UK will do what it must do, ie what the US allows it to do. The GB Imperial project is no
more and the UK is riding along somewhere in the wake of the Imperial City. Whatever influence it exerts on power there is by
flattery or deception (Steele dossier.) Trump slapped the UK Ambassador out of Washington as if he were a fly. Moreover, the UK
alone carries no stick to wield against Iran. Iran is no Falklands.
Options 2 thru 4 - some degree of military attack on Iran:
as you point out, the return on investment for any kind of attack on Iran is highly unpredictable. It depends entirely on how
Iran chooses to respond and whether it decides to roll the dice, go all in, and endure the onslaught, and inflict what damage
it can where it can, which it very well may. Does anyone in Washington have an intel based fix on Iran's intentions when attacked?
I doubt it.
Not a single intervention in the last 18 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya resulted in the anticipated outcome. Do they
have rear view mirrors in Washington?
My weakly held expectation, especially now with the passing of a few days, is that Washington will decide to temporize and
tell the UK to accept the humiliation, in effect kicking the can down the road. Everyone will know it is only doing what it has
been told to do.
Of course they will announce more face saving sanctions. The Donald will hope that he will be able to gut it out to 2020 without
having to make a decision that could blow him up, and likely would - but who knows? Iran will hope to gut it out to 2020 and in
the interim pray to God that some Democrat floats back down to earth with some issues, like the Donald once espoused, that will
be used to beat the Donald and send him and his family back to the upper East Side.
With the escalation game fully in play, it's going to be a close call.
I find it a bit hard to believe that leaders like Dunford, Selva, Milley, Richardson, and the others on the Joint Chiefs are
not advising caution. Milley, the next Chairman, for sure has advised caution at his recent Senate hearing. Dunford has only pushed
for an international coalition Task Force to guard ships transiting the Strait. Selva and Richardson appear to be more worried
about China.
Let us all hope that your knowledgeable sources are wrong.
The real danger is if Fred Fleitz gets to be DNI. If that happens be prepared for another scam like the Office of Special Plans
a la Wolfowicz and Feith. Probably Bolton and/or PomPom already have one hiding in the basement ready to go.
Iran's FM Zarif made a peaceful impression during Fareed Zakaria's interview. But all the headlines focus on his one statement:
"Start a war with Iran and we will end it" . Although those were NOT his words, what he said was "We will never start
a war,...But we will defend ourselves, and anybody who starts a war with Iran will not be the one who ends it."
The question is whether he speaks for the hardliners.
You forgot to mention what will happen to the world economy if the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all shipping by Iranian missiles
an mines. Stock marks would collapse and a deep recession if not depression would ensue quickly.
The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of
Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is
a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies
would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off.
Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump
campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions
on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous
administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump?
Iran is also not entirely innocent in the affairs of the Middle East. Israel believes with some evidence that Iran is building
forward bases in Syria - an unacceptable condition for Israel considering the thousands of missiles owned by Hezbollah and the
ballistic missile testing by Iran. Iran is also supplying weapons directly to Hezbollah (as they always have). In addition, Iran
is supplying weapons and (likely) ballistic missile technology to the Houthis. The Houthis have used ballistic missiles to attack
the Saudis. Yemen is on the border of Saudi Arabia - and a (Shia) Houthi government is unacceptable to the Saudis. The Trump administration
tore up the nuclear agreement because of the destabilizing political agenda of Iran (to US interests).
Trump campaigned on a more isolationist foreign policy so option 1 is still the most likely possibility for the moment (IMO).
The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started
fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local
security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region.
Your third paragraph is a stretch. Iran's actions that you describe are realistic (in the strategic sense of the word) responses
to Israel's overt hostility, overwhelming superiority in air power and its possession of scores of nuclear weapons.
I'm wondering if in case of war, Iran would need to "close the Gulf" at all.
If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading
docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway.
The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will
hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though
the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their
prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports
but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S.
Insurance on oil vessels will become almost impossible to get. The U.S will have to indemnify ship owners and I suspect
many will not trust the U.S. to come through with the money for claims. Trump has a history of this and thus many ships will stay
in port.
A war with Iran will not be won or lost militarily, but economically. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq and has 3 times the
population and I simply do not think we can successfully occupy the country. That being the case, I don't think the U.S can permanently
prevent sabatoge in the Staits - meaning an oil induced recession will linger world wide for many years.
UNO: increased false flag incident instigated by the anglo-zionist
DUE:Increased takfiri movements in Idlib and provocatiev
attacks InnAleppo ,Hama Dara and Dier Ezurr as the Syrian Arab Army is consolidating around Northern Hama and Around Idlib .
TRE: More tanker siezures by the Nato cohorts and portraying Iran as breachoing the JCPCOA treaty. Nevr mentioning the breach
of contract from the western alliance from Pax-Americana and its Western European vassals
Quattro Russia and China will be either utilised as middle men or further labelled as agressors and Iranian?Syrian?Yemeni apologist.
Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid
dog.
Trump attacked Hillary during 2016 elections campaign using change of Bill connection with Epstein. This was too dangerous move
if he himself was implicated.
Notable quotes:
"... Why would intelligence services want to make an intelligence op out of someone so sleasy and easily compromised? ..."
"... The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war. ..."
"... Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth? ..."
"... "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," ..."
"... does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive positions). ..."
"... But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event. ..."
"... From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever (I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys. ..."
"... AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative. ..."
"... As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion. ..."
"... "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets. ..."
"... Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense (DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it requires new technical solutions to address it. ..."
"... "Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. ..."
"... Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks studied. ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s 2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. ..."
Interesting post in that it raises many of the key issues and how they may fit together.
Generally agrees with my initial (or maybe secondary) impression that this is result of Trump triggering backmail clause by
failing to act as required by those running the show.
But, I have I think a better theory more fits the situation. Acosta (the human "sh*t-grenade) was hired because he knew stuff
and knew people who knew stuff. Trump was being blackmailed with Epstein affair - dems/cia/etc... It almost work, he almost attacked
Iran, was led to believe it could be done in a way that would not lead to war - likely by you-know-who.
He balked and called their "bluff". They were not bluffing. Problem for them is that Trump can maybe weather the sh*t-storm
they can bring - comey/brennan/clapper/et al... For now, I am inclined to side with Trump.
I don't know why but in spite of his lack of polish, he's brought some crude and interesting results.
Epstein was just a young "dirty old man". Trump is innocent - can anybody point to any incident where Trump committed a real felony,
not some breach of landlord regulations, For all the accusations of him being the capo di tutti capi, nothing has really stuck,
so he gives the impression of being a criminal but really isn't but it's good theatre. So my guess is that Trump told Barr to
go to it and bring Epstein in and bang him up for life. Reasons:
Trump was getting bored with Acosta
Epstein may drag down others - the Clintons being prime candiadates
This is a poke in the eye for Obama
Trump looks good when Epstein does the time he deserves
Meanwhile the anti-#resistance investigations role on and implicate Hillary for making false statements and Obama for trying
to fix the 2016 election.
Trump'll romp home in 2020. If Adelson, etc. tries to push another Republican candidate, Trump'll run as an independent and probably
still win. Trump now has his main "problems" by the balls.
'Appalled' does not suffice any longer. All this shit is more than a mentally healthy Human Being can bear - and in that fact
lies also a motive to bombard the population 24/7 with shit like that. Therefore it appears that this, too is part of an orchestrated
effort to rile up people against each other and destroy whatever peace still exists.
You could call it 'distraction' from insurmountable problems created by this specific sub-species of Homo Sapiens. But I am
not commenting about that.
I am as pissed as a decent person can get without losing its temper. But I am utterly disgusted that this childfucker Epstein
has soiled the name of one of my favorite Human Beings in history:
Brian Epstein - the one person that gave Humanity The Beatles.
I can not emphasize enough how effed up this is. There must be a court order to rename him into Jeffrey Childfucker, in order
to protect the name of one of the greatest music managers ever.
But I do concede to the fact, that this kind of damage might as well limited to people who know who The Beatles were.
The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business
is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war.
Today's CJR media feed focuses on Acosta and the 2007 plea deal without mentioning either Bush or Obama. Focus is still on Trump.
Of course Acosta is now a member of the Trump administration. But Trump was not in charge with this particular POS went down.
Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes
me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth?
"I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone,"
does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for
information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive
positions).
They don't care about the fall out any longer, so this now is allowed to blow up.
"The left is going wild thinking that this will "get Trump" but quite the opposite is happening. . .
Now this story will run into 2020 largely damaging democrats into the 2020 election. Trump's DOJ is running the operation."
That is my perception, although I am not a qualified observer.
But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he
is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event.
From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever
(I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult
women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such
as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys.
To me the big question is why Dersh was part of the FOIA action to unseal the docs. If just appearing in a photo with Epstein
is enough for "the left" to try to hang Trump, the Dersh is in a lot more image trouble, with him name on the plane manifest.
Is Trump's name on the plane log? I don't think so. So, imagewise Dersh is going to take a big hit. And, by defending Trump
last summer as he did, he has now associated himself with both Trump and Epstein. Trump comes out clean. Dersh comes out Derty.
PS. Why is so much blacked out on the plane logs that have been published?
the Macow sounds "about right" to me, but only "about." I can very well imagine that Dersh is taking orders from the JSP, but
if he rode the Lolita Expres, he is in trouble.
AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to
become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative.
As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think
that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion.
O @110 sez: "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets.
You bet equally on both wrestlers in the ring? You don't make much profit that way. Much better to arrange who wins ahead of
time with the competitors and the referee and then just bet on the one everyone agrees to make the winner.
Sure, Trump was in on the fix, so even if he won the power elites still win, but that is true for all of the other contestants
in the primaries as well, with the possible exception of Sanders. The problem is that the power elites have very specific plans,
and those plans depended upon their tool in the White House being Clinton, not Trump. It isn't that Trump would be their enemy
or anything silly like that, but rather that a Trump victory would not resonate; would not synergize with the megatrends they
were manufacturing within the population.
On the contrary, the Trump victory introduced a societal forcing function that is 180° out of sync with the larger narrative
the power elites were trying to create. Trump was chosen to be the loser in the 2016 elections because his defeat would have had
the opposite effect, damping trends in society that the power elites wanted quashed and reinforcing the ones that they wanted
amplified. Hundreds of $billions in entertainment-base narrative generation that have been fed to the public since 2016, and had
been in the production pipeline from years prior, were supposed to be reflected in the real world by the victory of the first
woman president. Instead that media is being fed to the public while the top office in the world is occupied by an unrepentant
pussy grabber. The messaging is diametrically opposed and interferes with itself rather than reinforcing itself.
Sure, Trump is still the tool of the power elites, but he is not the tool they were planning on.
"I am trying to link Wexner with the Bronfman's (Seagrams Liquor Family) via a source other than the Mega Group (which may
not be credible, IDK)."
The existence of the Mega Group was revealed in the Wall Street Journal in 1998 under the headline 'Titans of Industry Join
Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy'. According to the Journal , it was founded in 1991 by Wexler and Charles Bronfman.
Membership included Edgar Bronfman, the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Charles Bronfman, Edgar's brother and a top
executive of the family's flagship Seagrams Corp.; Leslie Wexler of Limited, Inc.; Charles Schusterman, chairman of Samson Investment
Co. of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Harvey "Bud" Meyerhoff, Baltimore real estate magnate; Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corp.; Max Fisher,
the Detroit oil magnate and Republican Party powerhouse; bagel magnate Max Lender; Leonard Abramson, the founder of U.S. Healthcare;
and hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt.
One of its so-called 'philanthropic' projects entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003," was leaked
to Electronic Intifada.
"...when they met in the Edgar Bronfman mansion in Manhattan. The head of the World Jewish Congress hosted a meeting of
the fifty richest and most powerful Jews of the US and Canada. There was no press coverage, no limelight, just a few lines
in the newspapers. The gathered multibillionaires discussed the ways to achieve Jewish unity, and strengthen the Jewish identity
of American Jews, tersely reported Shlomo Shamir for Haaretz. They also agreed to launch a PR program under the Orwellian codename
of 'Truth' with the purpose of influencing American public opinion regarding Israeli policies.
The megabucks call themselves 'Mega group'. This name appeared in the media a couple of years ago, as a name for the secret
Israeli mole in the upper reaches of the US establishment. It came up in an overheard phone conversation, later denied by the
Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. The newshounds and spook watchers got it wrong. 'Mega' was not an agent, Mega was the boss."
Defense Department Computer Network Among Top Sharers of Child Pornography
Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense
(DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it
requires new technical solutions to address it.
"Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to
an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
So far, authorities have only looked into about 20 percent of these cases. But already, they've found "several" individuals
"using their government devices to download or share said pornographic material."
Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks
nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks
studied.
To prevent such widespread abuse going forward, the "End National Defense Network Abuse Act" would "crack down on this activity
by upgrading the training and technical capacity of military criminal investigative organizations to confront the misuse of DoD
computers, facilities, and equipment," according to a press release. It would also arrange for DOD authorities to work more closely
with civilian law enforcement on these cases.
"The notion that the Department of Defense's network and Pentagon-issued computers may be used to view, create, or circulate
such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and one we must fight head on," said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D -- Va.), who co-sponsored
the bill with Rep. Mark Meadows (R -- N.C.).
A companion bill in the senate has been introduced by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R -- Alaska) and Brian Schatz (D -- Hawaii).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s
2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St.
Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
"... "I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein." ..."
"... Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators. ..."
"... His legal team? Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. ..."
"... The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who may have molested them." ..."
LOLITA EXPRESS...ORGY ISLAND...ELITE PEDOPHILE RING ?-2006
* George W Bush President: January 20, 2001 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General USA: Feb. 3, 2005–Sept. 17, 2007
* Michael Bernard Mukasey, AG. USA: Nov. 9, 2007 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Eric Holder, A G. USA: Feb. 3, 2009 – April 27, 2015
* Loretta Lynch, Attorney General USA: April 27, 2015 – Present
* Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana
* Epstein's Attorneys: Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.
+ "He (Epstein) is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations."
+ Bill Clinton...26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express"
Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll out of bed, and start trading.
+ Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually
service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.
+ Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen -- have been repeatedly accused in court filings
of acting as pimps. Oxford-educated Maxwell, recently seen dining with Clinton at Nello's on Madison Avenue. Manhattan-London
G. Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell.
+ A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex
slaves'
+ Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
+ Clinton invited her (pimp) to Chelsea's wedding
+ According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey
Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein's secluded
island in the Caribbean.
+ 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 said were sexually abused by Epstein, Palm Beach Police and FBI
+ 35 female minors sexually abused, Epstein settled lawsuits from more than 30 "Jane Doe" victims since 2008; the youngest
alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.
..............................Source: FBI & Federal Prosecutors
+ flights on Epstein's planes 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz (FOX NEWS, Harvard Law), former Treasury Secretary and Harvard
president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.
+ In the most recent court documents, filed on December 30, Roberts further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful
men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister,
and other world leaders." Roberts said Epstein trafficked children to politicians, Wall Streeters and A- listers to curry favor,
advance his business, and for political influence.
The FIX
2015 Doc Release by Judge:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz in a Sept. 19, 2007, email. "I will include our
standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight
for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge ... maybe we can set a time to meet, if
you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present
or 'on call' as well."
"I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six
others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time
of their activity with Mr. Epstein."
In a December 2007 letter, the prosecutor acknowledges some notifications of alleged victims but says they were sent after
the U.S. Attorney's Office signed the plea deal and halted for most of the women at the request of Epstein's lawyers.
"Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement,"
Villafana wrote, again to Lefkowitz. "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."
On Sept. 24, 2007, in a deal shrouded in secrecy that left alleged victims shocked at its leniency,
Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement
to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's
Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators.
"In 2006 the FBI counted at least 40 underage girls who had been molested by Epstein. Authorities searched his Florida mansion
and found two computers containing child *********** and homemade video and photographs from cameras hidden in bedroom walls which
had been used to film sex acts. The case was airtight for many counts of sexual crimes but Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer
and the Justice Department stepped in and offered Epstein a plea deal. In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida court to one
count of soliciting underage girls for sex. His punishment was 13 months of "8 hour nights only" at a halfway house. No other
charges about raping underage girls nor running an underage sex trafficking ring were mentioned in the plea. His legal team?
Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz.
The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators
in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who
may have molested them."
Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest
private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey
on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. Vicky Ward explores Epstein's investment career, his
ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past.
Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery
So how do termite grouping patterns fare as an investment strategy? Again, facts are hard to come by. A working day for Epstein
starts at 5 a.m., when he gets up and scours the world markets on his Bloomberg screen -- each of his houses, in New York, St.
Thomas, Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as the 727, is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll
The Donald Trump Administration is looking more and more like George W. Bush's
Administration: a dumb clueless idiot surrounded by neocons.
Remember Donald Rumsfeld , Karl Rove, Condoleezza Rice, John Bolton , George Tenet, Henry
Paulson, Paul Wolfowitz , and **** Cheney from the George W Bush Administration?
Tell me Trumptards, what's so "different this time" about Donald Trump hiring Bolton,
Pompeo, Mattis/Shanahan/Esper, Haley, Haspel and Mnuchin?
"... For starters, BT executives routinely pocketed unclaimed customer cash in what prosecutors described as a vast slush fund. In 1999 the bank pleaded guilty to three felony charges and agreed to pay $63 million as part of a settlement with state and federal authorities. ..."
"... BT was a pioneer in derivatives trading, at least until 1994 when clients Procter & Gamble and Gibson Greetings sued the bank for misleading them on those deals. To repair customer relations, the bank hired investment banker Jerome Powell , now chairman of the Federal Reserve. ..."
"... BT's specialty was making loans to businesses other banks shunned and was the only major New York lender to stick with Donald Trump in the 1990s. Banks like Chase and Citibank had abandoned the real estate developer after he defaulted on loans backed by personal guarantees. Deutsche Bank remains the lone big bank to do business with Trump today, according to the president's personal financial disclosures. ..."
Bloomberg News In the spring of 1998, the consolidation wave in banking hit tsunami levels.
On April 7, 1998, Citicorp said it would join with Travelers Group to create a "financial
supermarket." Exactly one week later Banc One agreed to merge with First Chicago NBD to form
Bank One, and on the same day Bank of America and NationsBank agreed to partner up.
None of those deals worked out exactly as planned. Citigroup was saddled with numerous
scandals and management missteps before becoming last decade's poster-child for banking run
amok. Bank One was a basket-case until Jamie Dimon straightened out the institution and sold it
to JPMorgan Chase.
But arguably the worst merger struck that year was Deutsche Bank's $10 billion acquisition
of Bankers Trust.
On Wednesday, the giant German bank's hard-hit stock took another blow when the Wall
Street Journal reported that federal regulators have deemed its U.S. operations to be in
"troubled condition."
There's no doubt Deutsche Bank bought itself plenty of trouble in buying BT, Wall Street's
bad-boy institution.
For starters, BT executives routinely pocketed unclaimed customer cash in what prosecutors
described as a vast slush fund. In 1999 the bank pleaded guilty to three felony charges and
agreed to pay $63 million as part of a settlement with state and federal authorities.
BT was a pioneer in derivatives trading, at least until 1994 when clients Procter &
Gamble and Gibson Greetings sued the bank for misleading them on those deals. To repair
customer relations, the bank hired investment banker
Jerome Powell , now chairman of the Federal Reserve.
BT's specialty was making loans to businesses other banks shunned and was the only major New
York lender to stick with Donald Trump in the 1990s. Banks like Chase and Citibank had
abandoned the real estate developer after he defaulted on loans backed by personal guarantees.
Deutsche Bank remains the lone big bank to do business with Trump today, according to the
president's personal financial disclosures.
In 2015, Deutsche Bank wrote its BT assets down to zero as part of a $6.6 billion
balance-sheet purge. But the stink of this long-ago merger still lingers.
That Time Warren Cheered Trump. Well, this was disappointing... Elizabeth Warren stands up
and applauds Trump's promise that "America will never be a socialist country." https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=416898935744430
Add his violations of personal space of women and children and he's a perfect
candidate for a RICO prosecution, not POTUS.
Oh, well, Warren's on deck; and, if she goes down (no pun intended), there are the unsweet
sixteen or so more. Anybody but Bernie, Tulsi or Gravel is no doubt the hope of the
establishment, including the PTB of the Democratic Party.
Is Bernie perfect? God, no. None of them are, including Tulsi. Are Bernie and Tulsi evil? I
don't think so. I think, at worst, Bernie is doing what he thinks he must in order to represent
the people of Vermont and, if he can win, the people of the other forty-nine states, too.
I will not vote for anyone who I believe to be evil, but I will vote for Bernie or Tulsi in
the Democratic primary. If nothing else, that will mean one more vote against the rest of the
pack...
On early June,
Politico
published an
article
which actually unfolded, in plain
sight, the plans of the corporate branch of the Democratic party to stop Bernie Sanders.
As we
wrote
back then:
This is an amazingly straight admission by the establishment apparatus, concerning a
certain strategy as part of the whole anti-Sanders operation. And it is also clear that
Elizabeth Warren is establishment's key player around this strategy.
Perhaps it's not accidental that this article was published right after Elizabeth Warren
signaled to the establishment that she will 'play by the rules' at least on some issues,
through her
neocon-style
statement
on Julian Assange.
Only a couple of weeks later,
Politico
revealed Warren's upgraded role in the
anti-Sanders operation. According to a new
article
, "
Centrists who once said the
senator would lead the party to ruin are coming around to her as an alternative to Bernie
Sanders.
" It seems almost certain that Elizabeth Warren 'passed the exams' and gave
her credentials to the establishment. Consequently, corporate democrats (or liberals,
neoliberals, centrists - call them whatever you like), decided that she is the most
suitable for this special mission.
The article actually identifies the completion of Warren's mutation towards the
establishment positions of the Democratic party, that is, status quo neoliberalism. But
also, her mission to grab votes from the progressive vote tank in order to split the
progressive vote, and therefore, to restrict the power of Bernie Sanders and minimize his
chances to win the Democratic nomination. For example:
"
It's a sign of how the ideological lanes of the 2020 primary have blurred and
overlapped and of the steady progress Warren is making as a candidate. But it's also a
statement on Bernie Sanders, Warren's top rival for progressive votes.
"
and
"
Establishment and moderate Democrats haven't necessarily been won over to Warren's
camp yet -- many still point to former Vice President Joe Biden as their preferred
candidate. But the tensions that once marked Warren's relationship with moderate Democrats
have begun to dissipate as she methodically lays out her agenda and shows a folksier, more
accessible side that wasn't always apparent in her role as a blue-state senator and
progressive icon.
"
The article contains some statements from establishment think tanks, full of typical
neoliberal euphemisms, showing that, indeed, Warren passed 'establishment's tests', and
therefore, the establishment apparatus can trust her.
But all these, weren't 'big news' for many progressives out there. They realized Warren's
role in the whole story quite early. Perhaps the biggest surprise was Bernie's response
(at last) through a tweet, who seems that he can't tolerate another round of sinister
strategies and dirty wars against him.
Bernie wrote:
The cat is out of the bag. The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is
publicly "anybody but Bernie." They know our progressive agenda of Medicare for All,
breaking up big banks, taking on drug companies and raising wages is the real threat to
the billionaire class.
This is the official declaration of war against corporate Democrats by the
progressives. The neoliberal centrists can't hide anymore and voters should realize that
they have nothing to offer. No matter what tricks they will try this time, no matter what
words they will use. Nothing will change if they manage to maintain power in the
Democratic party by beating Bernie again.
Now it's clear. The outcome of this civil war inside the party will determine whether it
will remain in the hands of corporations, or, return (through Bernie) to its traditional
'owners': the American working class.
It was about time. Perhaps Bernie should have done it earlier, but better late than never
...
Sen. Kamala Harris
(D-Calif.) is coming under pressure to define her policy proposals from rivals raising
questions about where she stands on "Medicare for All" and other key issues.
Allies for former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), both of whom are
seeking to beat back a challenge from Harris's surging campaign, are calling Harris's past
remarks into question, saying she has obfuscated her positions in an effort to endear herself
to the liberal base.
"I think her statements, campaign are smoke and mirrors," said Dick Harpootlian, a Biden
campaign surrogate and the former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. "As the
campaign wears on and as she's pressed to prove details, I think she's going to find herself
realizing this isn't a campaign for attorney general of California. This is a presidential
campaign, and what you say has to be verifiable, and so far it has not been."
"... We see a similar trend of elitism when examining the current crop of Democratic candidates vying for the party's presidential nomination. Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden rank as three of the four wealthiest candidates ( O'Rourke at $9.9 million, and Harris and Biden each at $4 million in net worth), and they are well to the right in their economic policies compared to more progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Finally, Joe Biden is an arch neoliberal, as demonstrated by his tenure in office as Vice President during an Obama presidency that saw much by way of promises for progressive reform, accompanied by a pro-Wall Street agenda that produced growing inequality. Biden, revealingly, has promised wealthy Americans that "nothing" of any significance "would change" regarding their position of privilege, should he be elected. ..."
"... Sociologist Rachel Sherman documents how the top one percent of earners construct notions of "hard work" and "worthiness" to justify their extreme wealth in an era of growing inequality. ..."
"... Carnes documents the substantive differences between U.S. political leaders with prior white-collar and blue-collar professional backgrounds, and how these differences impact their voting toward progressive-left economic policy proposals. ..."
"... We would do well to heed Carnes' warning about the dangers of elite capture of government in a time of rising inequality, which has occurred amidst rising family stress and work hours, stagnating incomes, and constant cost of living increases for essential goods like health care and education beyond the inflation rate. When Americans find themselves falling further and further behind in the "land of opportunity," electing more elites to the highest office of the land is likely to exacerbate inequality and strengthen the democratic deficit between what the masses expect from government and the policies that it actually produces. ..."
"... the top four candidates as of mid-2019 split between establishment neoliberals on the one hand, and New Dealer-style liberal-progressive reformers on the other ..."
"... Should a neoliberal candidate win the 2020 nomination, there is little reason to expect a reverse in the status quo-elitism of the Democratic Party. ..."
The Democratic primary season is upon us, and the party's candidate list is a useful
starting point for assessing the impact of affluence on American politics. Classic works by
sociologists of decades past, including C.
Wright Mills and G. William
Domhoff , posited that U.S. political institutions were captured by elite economic actors,
who seek to enhance their own material positions at the expense of the many.
It's no accident that affluence is tied to political elitism. Donald Trump is the wealthiest
U.S. President in modern history, and is one of the most pro-business in his policies, pursuing
tax cuts for the wealthy, and pushing environmental and health care policies to benefit health
insurance corporations and the fossil fuel industry, at the expense of access to quality care
and environmental sustainability.
We see a similar trend of elitism when examining the current crop of Democratic candidates
vying for the party's presidential nomination. Beto O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, and Joe Biden rank
as three of the four wealthiest candidates (
O'Rourke at $9.9 million, and
Harris and Biden each at $4 million in net
worth), and they are well to the right in their economic policies compared to more progressive
candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. O'Rourke built his national image in the
Barack Obama vein, via a storied Texas Senate campaign against Ted Cruz that emphasized generic
themes such as national unity, while his presidential campaign thus far has been
thin in terms of laying out a left economic policy agenda. Harris's most prominent
achievement thus far is
lashing out at Joe Biden for his opposition to busing, while herself failing to establish a
vision herself for how to tackle the powder keg of U.S. racial segregation. Harris has
contradicted
herself on health care policy, rhetorically supporting Medicare-for-all, then walking back that
support in favor of privatized care.
Finally, Joe Biden is an arch neoliberal, as demonstrated
by his tenure in office as Vice President during an Obama presidency that saw much by way of
promises for progressive reform, accompanied by a pro-Wall Street agenda that produced growing
inequality. Biden, revealingly, has
promised wealthy Americans that "nothing" of any significance "would change" regarding
their position of privilege, should he be elected.
Numerous social scientists, including Benjamin Page ,
Martin Gilens ,
Nicholas Carnes ,
and others have identified how the top 10 percent of American income earners (and white collar
professionals more generally) dominate the policy process. Sociologist Rachel Sherman
documents how the
top one percent of earners construct notions of "hard work" and "worthiness" to justify their
extreme wealth in an era of growing inequality. But for all its novelty, Sherman's book only
looks at a small number of decadent Americans living in one city: New York. It cannot
generalize about upper-class Americans across the United States. Furthermore, the current
research on the political values of economic elites (the top one percenters) by Page and his
associates (see here
and here ) is
geographically limited to wealthy Americans in the Midwest.
Finding surveys with a large enough sample of upper-class Americans to generalize from has
historically been a great challenge for pollsters. To my knowledge, there has not yet been a
single national study examining the role of upper-class affluence in impacting the political
preferences of the wealthy. So my findings here represent a first effort to address the role of
upper-class elitism on attitude formation. Sadly, they suggest that little is likely to change
in the future in terms of prospects for a "Green New Deal" or the introduction of a progressive
governing regime, so long as wealthy individuals continue to dominate American politics. To
better understand the politics of affluence, I examined national survey data from the 2010s
from Princeton University's Pew Research Center , which queried Americans on their
self-described economic status as "upper," "upper-middle," "middle," "lower-middle," and
"lower-class." Only about
1 percent of Americans self-identify in these surveys as "upper-class" when asked, speaking
to their exclusive economic status. Unsurprisingly, upper-class status is tightly linked with
income, as the majority of those identifying as upper-class (60 percent in 2016) reported making
incomes over $150,000 a year. These upper-class Americans are significantly different from the
rest of the population, particularly when it comes to economic issues in which there is the
potential to adopt stances rejecting the ruling economic order. For all of the survey
questions I
examined, upper-class Americans were from 20 to 30 percentage points more likely than the rest
of the population to embrace conservative values, and to reject progressive ones. Upper-class
Americans were significantly more likely: to embrace the claim that the economy is "fair to
most all Americans"; to disagree that "too much power" exists "in the hands of a few rich
people and large corporations"; to agree with the meritocratic claim that "if you work hard,
you can get ahead" in America; to disagree that the U.S. is "divided" between "haves and
have-nots"; to reject the position that U.S. "financial institutions and banks are a major
threat to society"; to agree that "Wall Street helps the economy more than it hurts"; and to
oppose progressive-left protest groups like Occupy Wall Street, which sought to spotlight
issues such as economic stagnation, corporate greed, and Wall Street political power. One's
upper-class status is a highly significant predictor of economic attitudes, after statistically
accounting for survey respondents' other demographics, including partisanship, education level,
gender, race, ideology, and age.
My findings are significant for the 2020 Democratic Primary race considering recent research
that examines how political officials' affluence impacts how they behave once in office. Carnes
documents the
substantive differences between U.S. political leaders with prior white-collar and blue-collar
professional backgrounds, and how these differences impact their voting toward progressive-left
economic policy proposals. His study shows that the relationship between economic elitism and
conservative policymaking is longstanding, spanning decades in the United States.
We would do
well to heed Carnes' warning about the dangers of elite capture of government in a time of
rising inequality, which has occurred amidst
rising family stress and work hours,
stagnating incomes, and constant cost of living increases for essential goods like
health
care and
education beyond the inflation rate. When Americans find themselves falling further and
further behind in the "land of opportunity," electing more elites to the highest office of the
land is likely to exacerbate inequality and strengthen the democratic deficit between what the
masses expect from government and the policies that it actually produces.
Early polling data suggests that Democratic partisans have continued to elevate
neoliberal "electable" Dems when it comes to the highest office in the land, although
progressive candidates are gaining ground. Polling from mid-July of this year
reveals that Joe Biden leads all candidates, with 32 percent support. Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren are not far behind, each polling at 19 and 14 percent respectively, while
Kamala Harris stands at 13 percent support.
These results suggest that there is a real struggle among Democratic partisans to determine
the future direction of the party, with the top four candidates as of mid-2019 split between
establishment neoliberals on the one hand, and New Dealer-style liberal-progressive reformers
on the other. Whoever prevails in the primaries, one thing appears clear. Should a neoliberal
candidate win the 2020 nomination, there is little reason to expect a reverse in the status
quo-elitism of the Democratic Party.
Not precisely on topic, but relevant and important:
"Democratic Party Dilemmas -- An Analysis" (20 July 2019) by Professor Lawrence
Davidson
Part I -- On the Domestic Front
The rise to power of Donald Trump destroyed the traditional Republican Party. Most of the
moderate conservatives fled into the ranks of the independents and were replaced by a radical
right amalgamation of racists, misogynists, conspiracy theorists, assorted "tea party" types
and warmongers. In the background also exists support from religious fundamentalists yearning
for Armageddon. If you want to get a snapshot of Trump's new Republicans, just read up on the
200 rightwing social media radicals the president hosted at the White House on Thursday, 11
July 2019. Perhaps their greatest collective desire is to smear Democrats generally and,
specifically, malign progressives. These are Trump's new Republicans. They certainly reflect
a segment of the American population. A crucial question is just how large a segment are
they.
... ... ...
Part II -- On the Foreign Policy Front
It is painfully clear that most Democrats are confused and inconsistent when it comes to
foreign policy. Consider this sequence of events:
-- Back in March of 2019, "Nearly 400 members of Congress, from both chambers -- roughly
75 percent of all federal US lawmakers -- signed an open letter calling on President Trump to
escalate the war in Syria, in the name of countering Iran, Russia, and Lebanese Hezbollah.
Among the signatories are 2020 Democratic presidential candidates Kamala Harris, Kirsten
Gillibrand, and Cory Booker." Also signing the petition was Nancy Pelosi and Chuck
Schumer.
-- Then four months later, in July of 2019, "Lawmakers passed two amendments to the
House's more than $730 billion national defense budget that would restrict Trump's ability to
go to war with Iran without congressional approval, and also put a check on Trump's
relationship with Saudi Arabia, an alliance the administration has been using to escalate
tensions with Iran."
So what happened between these two events? Between March and July the Trump administration
increased its sanctions on Iran and has threatened the Europeans with sanctions if they
fulfill their contractual obligations to Iran under the original nuclear agreement. Then the
president sent a naval and air armada to the Persian Gulf area. This constituted a form of
brinkmanship whereby any small accidental encounter of American and Iranian forces could
escalate into war.
Part III -- Theory and Practice
We can look upon the March petition as a form of theory. Probably drawn up by real
warmongers in the Congress, almost everyone jumped on board. They did so to show -- to show
whom? -- that they were tough on the nation's alleged enemies. At the time, it seemed a
costless show of face. Then, come July, theory looked like it was about to turn into practice
and the ghosts from wars in Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan started to appear before the
bipartisan eyes of members of Congress.
While very few lawmakers will admit it publicly, Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah represent
absolutely no threat to the United States. Take the case of Syria. The Syrian government has
all but won its war against rebelling factions and fanatical religious elements. Its
interests and capabilities are limited to consolidating that hard-fought victory. The
continuing violence in the country comes largely from the military activity of the U.S.,
Britain, Israel, and Turkey. At least in the case of the U.S. and Israel, the main reason for
this continued victimization of the people of Syria is to keep the country destabilized and
fragmented.
Specifically, why would the American government want to see Syria destabilized and
fragmented? Is it because Syria constitutes a real threat to the national security of the
United States? That proposition is almost laughable. Is it because Iran, an ally of Syria,
constitutes a real threat to the United States? In no practical terms is this the case,
though it is certainly the case that the U.S. constitutes a real threat to the national
security of Iran.
So why the hostility to Syria, Iran and even Hezbollah? Whom were all those March
petitioners trying to impress? And who would really benefit from continuing turmoil in Syria?
The answer to all these questions is Israel.
The unfortunate truth is that American leaders from President Trump, Vice President Pence,
Secretary of State Pompeo, and National Security Adviser Bolton on down to most
run-of-the-mill congresspersons and senators have no clear and accurate knowledge of what is
going on in the Middle East. They have a large and expensive intelligence apparatus with whom
they get irritated and angry every time their experts tell these politicos what they don't
want to hear. And what is it that they do want to hear? Well, that might depend on ideology,
religion, financial arrangements and other such things that can warp an objective picture of
national interest and security. And who manages to tell them things that seem to satisfy most
of these ideological, religious, and financial considerations? The answer is again
Israel.
Putting aside all the real damage the Zionists actually do -- I really don't want to
sound like a broken record -- there is a an outstanding irony in this present situation. And
that is, from all we know, President Trump does not want war with Iran. It's just that his
abrasive and blusterous personality, which seems never to have outgrown the spoiled bullying
nature of his youth, has literally led him to the habit of a blitzkrieg approach to whatever
passes in his mind for negotiations. In the case of Iran, he has unthinkingly destroyed the
painstakingly wrought nuclear deal of his predecessor (perhaps for no other reason than he
hates everything Barack Obama accomplished), and is now trying to force the Iranians into new
negotiations by economically and militarily threatening them. This is a form of brinkmanship
which is dangerous in the extreme.
Congress suddenly woke up to the reality of this situation -- that is, many in Congress
have gone from petitioners trying to be tough guys, to understanding just how dangerous
Trump's tactics can be. The result is the bipartisan amendments embedded in the House version
of the Defense Appropriations Bill designed to rein in the delinquent in the White House.
Part IV -- Conclusion
... White resentment over the loss of public cultural privilege has festered in the
largely unchanged, segregated private sphere. It has done so in rural regions and white
suburbs alike. Now with Donald Trump, who is little more that an opportunistic demigod, that
resentment has been empowered and our status as a civilized society is in danger.
In the realm of foreign policy the United States has much less to lose for here
national behavior has always been uncivilized. The names of presidents who have lied so as to
manufacture wars, steal other people's lands, and rein havoc and devastation upon innocent
people, rank among many of our most easily recognized leaders.
Yet, for all the horrors our foreign adventures have wrought, the real present danger is
that we will turn on ourselves and destroy our precarious democracy. Under these
circumstances, the Democrats, for all their shortcomings, represent not only the party of
choice, but the potential salvation of the United States. All they have to do is recognize
this fact and, taking a cue from the progressive "squad" in the House, act accordingly.
"... At the center of it all is former President Bill Clinton, listed twenty-six times on the Lolita Express's flight manifest -- though the ex-Prez said last week in a statement that it was only four times. (Consider the source.) ..."
"... A raft of unsealed documents in the matter has been court-ordered to drop any day, and power-players all over the world -- especially in our nation's capital and on Wall Street -- are rumored to be chewing their fingernails down to the nubbins as they wait for it. ..."
... Every candidate in the first Democratic “debate” raised a hand in favor of providing free medical
care to illegal border-jumpers. I wonder how that sits with the Americans who now pay
$12,000 a year for health insurance with a $5,000 deductible.
Of course, this policy of
unfettered illegal immigration does not economically favor the sizable demographic of poor
Americans, many of whom are people-of-color. In theory, the border-jumpers are taking
away an awful lot of jobs. But I think the argument there is that 300 years of slavery gives
bonafide US citizens-of-color a pass on manual labor - so it is not against their interests to
ally with the open border advocates - while both groups have an interest in getting any free stuff
the government may offer.
... ... ...
Finally, there is the walking time-bomb known as Jeffrey Epstein, Democratic Party poohbah
and impresario of an underage sex racket featuring the "Lolita Express" airplane service to his
private "Orgy Island" in the Caribbean, with auxiliary party shacks in New York City and the
New Mexico Desert. Rogue reports have been styling Epstein's doings as an international
blackmailing operation associated with the CIA and other Intel outfits, including the UK's MI6
and Israel's Mossad, for the purpose of keeping international bigshots on a short leash. Who
knows?
At the center of it all is former President Bill Clinton, listed twenty-six times on the
Lolita Express's flight manifest -- though the ex-Prez said last week in a statement that it
was only four times. (Consider the source.)
A raft of unsealed documents in the matter has been court-ordered to drop any day, and
power-players all over the world -- especially in our nation's capital and on Wall Street --
are rumored to be chewing their fingernails down to the nubbins as they wait for it.
What a cargo of wickedness is borne by the garbage barge called the Democratic Party as it
chugs out to sea toward a sickening, slightly radioactive orange sunset for what is looking
like its final voyage.
Trump is a zionist puppet and pretends to be doing something about illegal immigration but he
has all the authority under the Constitution to close the border and stop the illegal
immigration and since the zionists want open borders , Trump is not doing jackshit about
stopping illegal immigration!
The zionists in control of the zio/US want open borders so that they can merge the zio/US
with Mexico and zio/Canada into the North American Union similar to the European Union with a
new currency the Amero similar to the Euro, and so the borders are going to remain a sieve
!
Trump and Helliary and all the politicians , be they demonrats or republicons are all
under zionist AIPAC control and the borders will remain a pathway to the destruction of
America!
@follyofwar In case you did not hear it, Philip Giraldi is informing us:
25 Senators in Secret Meeting With Jewish Leaders to Plot Strategy Against Growing Anger
Over Influence of Jewish Elites
"On June 5, 16 heads of Jewish organizations joined 25 Democratic senators in a private
meeting, which, according to the Times of Israel, is an annual event.
As with last year, the meeting was chaired by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and included Sens.
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Bob Menendez
(D-NJ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Ed Markey (D-MA), Michael Bennet (D-CO),
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Tom Carper (D-DE), Bob Casey (PA),
Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI),
Chris Murphy (D-CT), Patty Murray (D-CT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Tom
Udall (D-NM), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Ron Wyden (D-OR)".
Alongside and consistent with other privilege- and power-serving missions, so-called
mainstream corporate media's role is to keep the populace focused as best it can on relatively
trivial matters and diverted from the most urgent topics of our time.
Kamala Harris Wants to Kill Your Health Insurance
Two Sundays ago, in a fit of masochistic media research, I watched some cable news talking
heads do their weekly news roundups. CNN had a panel of know-it-all neoliberals who reflected
on the Democratic Party's first two presidential debates. Everyone agreed that Kamala Harris
had been the big winner but had erred badly by embracing "the abolition of private health
insurance."
That's how CNN's "expert commentators" describe Medicare for All – not as high quality
and low-cost health care as a human right with great direct and collateral benefits resulting
from the eviction of corporate profit from coverage. Not as a great potential social and human
rights victory, but as destruction : the "abolition" of (unmentionably parasitic,
classist, exclusionary, inferior, and expensive, for-profit) health insurance.
Not that Senator Harris would seriously fight for Single Payer. She wouldn't. She's a
corporate
Democrat .
But I digress.
The chattering CNN craniums shifted to the United States Women's World Cup soccer team that
was triumphing in Paris. The panelists applauded the team's star, Megan Rapione, a lesbian who
refuses to visit the Donald Trump White House. (Good for her, but why not visit and spit in the
Malignant One's eye?).
Joy Reid Blames Russia for Anti-Kamala Birtherism
Over on the openly partisan-Democratic cable network MSNBC (hereafter "MSDNC"), morning host
Joy Reid was going off about the Huxwellian idiocy of Donald Trump's DMZ handshake with Kim
Jong-Un and the strange kind of love Trump has for the North Korean dictator and other
authoritarian heads-of-state. As usual with MSDNC, it was hard to detect the line separating
the network's proper criticism of Trump from its
deep investment in U.S. imperialism .
Consistent with the investment, Reid turned to the noxious racist vulgarity of online
rightists who claim that Kamala Harris isn't a "real African-American." Reid showed viewers a
copy of the Mueller Report and claimed without a hint of proof that the neo-Birther
Internet campaign against Harris was directed by the Russians? Her evidence? The Mueller
Report, completed prior to the Harris smear.
Looks like Warren weakness is her inability to distinguish between key issues and periferal
issues.
While her program is good and is the only one that calls for "structural change" (which is
really needed as neoliberalism outlived its usefulness) it mixes apple and oranges. One thing
is to stop neoliberal transformation of the society and the other is restitution for black
slaves. In the latter case why not to Indians ?
I'd argue that Warren's newly tight and coherent story, in which her life's arc tracks the
country's, is contributing to her rise, in part because it protects her against other stories
-- the nasty ones told by her opponents, first, and then echoed by the media doubters
influenced by her opponents. Her big national-stage debut came when she
tangled with Barack Obama's administration over bank bailouts, then set up the powerhouse
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). But she was dismissed as too polarizing, even by
some Democrats, and was passed over to run it. In 2012, Massachusetts's Scott Brown mocked Warren as
"the Professor," a know-it-all Harvard schoolmarm, before she beat him to take his Senate seat.
After that, Donald Trump began
trashing her as "Pocahontas" in the wake of a controversy on the campaign trail about her
mother's rumored Native American roots. And Warren scored an own goal with a video that announced
she had "confirmed" her Native heritage with a DNA test, a claim that ignored the brutal
history of blood-quantum requirements and genetic pseudoscience in the construction of
race.
When she announced her presidential run this year, some national political reporters
raised
questions about her likability
, finding new ways to compare
her to Hillary Clinton, another female candidate widely dismissed as unlikable. A month into
Warren's campaign, it seemed the media was poised to Clintonize her off the primary stage. But
it turned out she had a plan for that, too.
I n the tale that is captivating crowds on the campaign trail, Warren is not a professor or
a political star but a hardscrabble Oklahoma "late-in-life baby" or, as her mother called her,
"the surprise." Her elder brothers had joined the military; she was the last one at home, just
a middle-schooler when her father had the massive heart attack that would cost him his job. "I
remember the day we lost the station wagon," she tells crowds, lowering her voice. "I learned
the words 'mortgage' and 'foreclosure' " listening to her parents talk when they thought
she was asleep, she recalls. One day she walked in on her mother in her bedroom, crying and
saying over and over, " 'We are not going to lose this house.' She was 50 years old,"
Warren adds, "had never worked outside the home, and she was terrified."
RELATED
ARTICLE
This part of the story has been a Warren staple for years: Her mother put on her best dress
and her high heels and walked down to a Sears, where she got a minimum-wage job. Warren got a
private lesson from her mother's sacrifice -- "You do what you have to to take care of those
you love" -- and a political one, too. "That minimum-wage job saved our house, and it saved our
family." In the 1960s, she says, "a minimum-wage job could support a family of three. Now the
minimum wage can't keep a momma and a baby out of poverty."
That's Act I of Warren's story and of the disappearing American middle class whose
collective story her family's arc symbolizes. In Act II, she walks the crowd through her early
career, including some personal choices that turned her path rockier: early marriage, dropping
out of college. But her focus now is on what made it possible for her to rise from the working
class. Warren tells us how she went back to school and got her teaching certificate at a public
university, then went to law school at another public university. Both cost only a few hundred
dollars in tuition a year. She always ends with a crowd-pleaser: "My daddy ended up as a
janitor, but his baby daughter got the opportunity to become a public-school teacher, a law
professor, a US senator, and run for president!"
Warren has honed this story since her 2012 Senate campaign. Remember her "Nobody in this
country got rich on his own" speech ? It was an explanation of how the
elite amassed wealth thanks to government investments in roads, schools, energy, and police
protection, which drew more than 1 million views on YouTube. Over the years, she has become the
best explainer of the way the US government, sometime around 1980, flipped from building the
middle class to protecting the wealthy. Her 2014 book, A Fighting Chance , explains how
Warren (once a Republican, like two of her brothers) saw her own family's struggle in the
stories of those families whose bankruptcies she studied as a lawyer -- families she once
thought might have been slackers. Starting in 1989, with a book she cowrote on bankruptcy and
consumer credit, her writing has charted the way government policies turned against the middle
class and toward corporations. That research got her tapped by then–Senate majority
leader Harry Reid to oversee
the Troubled Assets Relief Program after the 2008 financial crash and made her a
favorite on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart . Starting in the mid-2000s, she
publicly clashed with prominent Democrats,
including Biden , a senator at the time, over bankruptcy reforms, and later with
then–Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner over the bank bailouts.
Sanders, of course, has a story too, about a government that works for the "millionaires and
billionaires." But he has a hard time connecting his family's stories of struggle to his
policies. After his first few campaign events, he ditched the details about growing up poor in
Brooklyn. In early June, he returned to his personal story in a New York Timesop-ed .
W arren preaches the need for "big structural change" so often that a crowd chanted the
phrase back at her during a speech in San Francisco the first weekend in June. Then she gets
specific. In Act III of her stump speech, she lays out her dizzying array of plans. But by then
they're not dizzying, because she has anchored them to her life and the lives of her listeners.
The rapport she develops with her audience, sharing her tragedies and disappointments --
questionable choices and all -- makes her bold policy pitches feel believable. She starts with
her proposed wealth tax: two cents on every dollar of your worth after $50 million, which she
says would raise $2.75 trillion over 10 years. (She has also proposed a 7 percent surtax on
corporate profits above $100 million.)
Warren sells the tax with a vivid, effective comparison. "How many of you own a home?" she
asks. At most of her stops in Iowa, it was roughly half the crowd. "Well, you already pay a
wealth tax on your major asset. You pay a property tax, right?" People start nodding. "I just
want to make sure we're also taxing the diamonds, the Rembrandts, the yachts, and the stock
portfolios." Nobody in those Iowa crowds seemed to have a problem with that.
Then she lays out the shocking fact that
people in the top 1 percent pay roughly 3.2 percent of their wealth in taxes, while the bottom
99 percent pay 7.4 percent.
That "big structural change" would pay for the items on Warren's agenda -- the programs that
would rebuild the opportunity ladder to the middle class -- that have become her signature:
free technical school or two- or four-year public college; at least partial loan forgiveness
for 95 percent of those with student debt; universal child care and prekindergarten, with costs
capped at 7 percent of family income; and a pay hike for child-care workers.
"Big structural change" would also include strengthening unions and giving workers 40
percent of the seats on corporate boards. Warren promises to break up Big Tech and Big Finance.
She calls for a constitutional amendment to protect the right to vote and vows to push to
overturn Citizens United . To those who say it's too much, she ends every public event
the same way: "What do you think they said to the abolitionists? 'Too hard!' To the suffragists
fighting to get women the right to vote? 'Too hard!' To the foot soldiers of the civil-rights
movement, to the activists who wanted equal marriage? 'Give up now!' " But none of them
gave up, she adds, and she won't either. Closing that way, she got a standing ovation at every
event I attended.
R ecently, Warren has incorporated into her pitch the stark differences between what
mid-20th-century government offered to black and white Americans. This wasn't always the case.
After a speech she
delivered at the Roosevelt Institute in 2015, I heard black audience members complain about her
whitewashed version of the era when government built the (white) middle class. Many black
workers were ineligible for Social Security; the GI Bill didn't prohibit racial
discrimination ; and federal loan guarantees systematically excluded black home buyers and
black neighborhoods. "I love Elizabeth, but those stories about the '50s drive me crazy," one
black progressive said.
The critiques must have made their way to Warren. Ta-Nehisi Coates recently
toldThe New Yorker that after his influential Atlanticessay
"The Case for Reparations" appeared five years ago, the Massachusetts senator asked to meet
with him. "She had read it. She was deeply serious, and she had questions." Now, when Warren
talks about the New Deal, she is quick to mention the ways African Americans were shut out. Her
fortunes on the campaign trail brightened after April's She the People forum in Houston, where she joined eight
other candidates in talking to what the group's founder, Aimee Allison, calls "the real
Democratic base": women of color, many from the South. California's Kamala Harris, only the
second African-American woman ever elected to the US Senate, might have had the edge coming in,
but Warren surprised the crowd. "She walked in to polite applause and walked out to a standing
ovation," Allison said, after the candidate impressed the crowd with policies to address black
maternal-health disparities, the black-white wealth gap, pay inequity, and more.
G Jutson says:
July 4, 2019 at 1:00 pm
Well here we are in the circular firing squad Obama warned us about. Sander's fan boys vs.
Warren women. Sanders has been our voice in DC on the issues for a generation. He has changed
the debate. Thank you Bernie. Now a Capitalist that wants to really reform it can be a viable
candidate. Warren is that person. We supported Sanders last time to help us get to this
stage. Time to pass the baton to someone that can beat Trump. After the Sept. debates I
expect The Nation to endorse Warren and to still hear grumbling from those that think moving
on from candidate Bernie somehow means unfaithfulness to his/our message .
Kenneth Viste says: June 27, 2019 at 5:52 am
I would like to hear her talk about free college as an investment in people rather than an
expense. Educated people earn more and therefore pay more taxes than uneducated so it pays to
educate the populous to the highest level possible.
Jim Dickinson says: June 26, 2019 at 7:11 pm
Warren gets it and IMO is probably the best Democratic candidate of the bunch. Biden does
not get it and I get depressed seeing him poll above Warren with his tired corporate ideas
from the past.
I have a different take on her not being progressive enough. Her progressive politics are
grounded in reality and not in the pie in the sky dreams of Sanders, et al. The US is a
massively regressive nation and proposing doing everything at once, including a total revamp
of our healthcare system is simply unrealistic.
That was my problem with Sanders, who's ideas I agree with. There is no way in hell to
make the US into a progressive dream in one election - NONE.
I too dream of a progressive US that most likely goes well beyond what most people
envision. But I also have watched those dreams collapse many, many times in the past when we
reach too far. I hope that we can make important but obtainable changes which might make the
great unwashed masses see who cares about them and who does not.
I hope that she does well because she has a plan for many of the ills of this nation. The
US could certainly use some coherent plans after the chaos and insanity of the Trump years.
Arguing about who was the best Democratic candidate in 2016 helped put this schmuck in office
and I hope that we don't go down that path again.
Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:13 pm
I had a misunderstanding about one key aspect of Warren's political history. I had always
thought that she was neutral in 2016 between Sanders and Hillary Clinton. On CNN this
morning, a news clip showed that Warren in fact endorsed Hillary Clinton publicly, shouting
"I'm with her," BEFORE Sanders withdrew from the race. This action had the effect of
weakening Sanders' bargaining position vis a vis Clinton once he actually withdrew. Clinton
proceeded to treat Sanders and his movement like a dish rag. I am now less ready to support
Warren in any way.
Robert Andrews says: June 26, 2019 at 12:17 pm
I have three main reasons I do not want Senator Warren nominate which are:
Not going all out for a single payer healthcare system. This is a massive problem with
Warren. With her starting out by moving certain groups to Medicare is sketchy at best. Which
groups would be graced first? I am sure whoever is left behind will be thrilled. Is Warren
going to expand Medicare so that supplemental coverages will not be needed anymore? Crying
about going too far too fast is a losing attitude. You go after the most powerful lobby in
the country full bore if you want any kind of real and lasting changes.
With Warren's positions and actions with foreign policy this statement is striking, "Once
Warren's foreign policy record is scrutinized, her status as a progressive champion starts to
wither. While Warren is not on the far right of Democratic politics on war and peace, she
also is not a progressive -- nor a leader -- and has failed to use her powerful position on
the Senate Armed Services Committee to challenge the status quo" - Sarah Lazare. She is the
web editor at In These Times. She comes from a background in independent journalism for
publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch. She tweets at
@sarahlazare.
Lastly, the stench with selling off her integrity with receiving corporate donations again
if nominated is overpowering.
For reference, she was a registered Republican until the mid 1990's.
Joan Walsh, why don't you give congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard any presence with your
articles? Her level of integrity out shines any other female candidate and Gabbard's
positions and actions are progressive. I don't want to hear that she isn't a major player,
because you have included Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. Gabbard's media blackout has been
dramatic, thank you for your contribution with it also.
Robert Andrews says: June 27, 2019 at 8:29 am
I was impressed with Warren on the debate, especially since she finally opened her arms to
a single payer healthcare system.
Caleb Melamed says: June 26, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Gabbard is playing a very important role in this race, whatever her numbers (which are
probably higher than those being reported and are sure to go up after tonight). In some ways,
her position in 2020 resembles that of Sanders in 2016--the progressive outlier, specifically
on issues relating to the U.S. policy of endless war. Gabbard makes Sanders look more
mainstream by comparison on this issue (though their difference is more one of emphasis than
substance), making it much harder for the DNC establishment to demonize and ostracize
Sanders. (Third Way really, really wants to stop Sanders--they have called him an
"existential threat.") Gabbard's important role in this respect is one reason the DNC and its
factotums are expending such effort on sliming her.
By the way, Nation, you have now reprinted my first comment to this article five (5)
times!
Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:19 pm
Tulsi,
Our most eloquent anti-military-interventionism candidate, hands down.
Richard Phelps says: June 26, 2019 at 1:29 pm
Unfortunately EW doesn't beat Trump past the margin of error in all the polls I have seen.
Bernie does in most. The other scary factor is how so many neoliberals are now talking nice
about her. They want anyone but the true, consistent progressive, Bernie. And her backing
away from putting us on a human path on health care, like so many other countries, is
foreboding of a sellout to the health insurance companies, a group focused on profits over
health care for our citizens. A group with no redeeming social value. 40,000+ people die each
year due to lack of medical care, so the company executives can have their 8 figure salaries
and golden parachutes when they retire. Also don't forget they are adamantly anti union.
Where is Warren's fervor to ride our country of this leach on society? PS I donated $250 to
her last Senate campaign. I like her. She is just not what we need to stop the final stages
of oligarchic take over, where so much of our resources are wasted on the Pentagon and
unnecessary wars and black opps. It is not Bernie or bust, it is Bernie or oligarchy!!!
Walter Pewen says: June 27, 2019 at 10:52 am
Frankly, having family from Oklahoma I'd say Warren IS a progressive. Start reading
backwards and you will find out.
Clark Shanahan says: June 26, 2019 at 1:24 pm
You certainly shall never see her call out AIPAC.
She has since tried to shift her posture.. but, her original take was lamentable.
You really need to give Hillary responsibility for her loss, Andy
Also, to Obama, who sold control of the DNC over to Clinton Inc in Sept, 2015.
I'll vote for Warren, of course.
Sadly, with our endless wars and our rogue state Israel, Ms Warren is way too deferential;
seemingly hopeless.
Walter Pewen says: June 28, 2019 at 11:22 am
I don't want to vote for Biden. And if he gets the nomination I probably won't. And I've
voted the ticket since 1976. I DO NOT like Joe Biden. Contrary to the media mind fuck we are
getting in this era. And I'll wager a LOT of people don't like him. He is a dick.
Karin Eckvall says: June 26, 2019 at 10:50 am
Well-done article Ms. Walsh. Walter, I want to vote for her but can't because although she
has plans to deal with the waste and corruption at the Pentagon, she has not renounced our
endless militarism, our establishment-endorsed mission to police the world and to change
regimes whenever we feel like it.
"... The nation almost elected a women who's first man appears to be an unrepentant child molester. His abuse of women is legendary and they were in no way treated like Stormy Daniels who was punching in 100 interviews a week. Clinton's accusers cowered in silence and fear in the 90's and for good reason. I am very familiar with that machine personally. I think this will play out in the minds of the independent swing voters that will decide the election. ..."
"... Biden is not going to make it as he is too old and too weak physically. Bernie sounds like an angry old man telling the kids to get off his lawn. The new faces have the best chance. ..."
"... Getting rid of the fundamentalist Israel worshiper Pence for the 2020 election would be a smart move for Trump's reelection campaign, but please God not the ultraZionist Nicki Haley. ..."
"... Texas is the key to the election. Trump needs a running mate who can help deliver the state be that a woman, a Hispanic, or whatever. Without TX Trump's chances of reelection are poor. ..."
I am not so sure about that because of the timing of the event. These cases move slowly
and all this will dribble out during the primaries.
The nation almost elected a women who's first man appears to be an unrepentant child
molester. His abuse of women is legendary and they were in no way treated like Stormy Daniels
who was punching in 100 interviews a week. Clinton's accusers cowered in silence and fear in
the 90's and for good reason. I am very familiar with that machine personally. I think this
will play out in the minds of the independent swing voters that will decide the election.
This may again blow over as a guy just trying to blackmail some people for personal
benefit. It appears that is the best "limited hang out" story being floated so far. I have
never seen a major NY newspaper base a story of that magnitude on a anonymous poster. Very
suspicious.
I strongly suspect that Pence will graciously step aside and let Mad Dog Nicky Haley run
as VP as Trump needs a women on the ticket to have a decent chance at winning. Another thing
I find interesting is that all the Democrat candidates are most likely not connected
to Epstein in some fashion. Biden is not going to make it as he is too old and too weak
physically. Bernie sounds like an angry old man telling the kids to get off his lawn. The new
faces have the best chance.
We live in one very sick country that appears to be in a terminal condition. I do not
think we will recover.
Getting rid of the fundamentalist Israel worshiper Pence for the 2020 election would be a
smart move for Trump's reelection campaign, but please God not the ultraZionist Nicki Haley.
She brings nothing to the table, coming from an unimportant state electorally speaking; her
only contribution would be a never ending gush of neocon hogwash. Her warmongering threats at
the UN were an embarrassment. Nix. If Pence chooses not to "gracefully step aside," Trump
should throw him overboard.
Texas is the key to the election. Trump needs a running mate who can help deliver the
state be that a woman, a Hispanic, or whatever. Without TX Trump's chances of reelection are
poor. Winning combo for Democrats: Kamala Harris/Julian Castro.
"... Biden said that the use of force should be a last resort used only to "defend our vital interests, when the objective is clear and achievable, and with the informed consent of the American people." ..."
"... Biden's statements in support of arms control were fine, and his commitment to extend New START was welcome. ..."
"... ...No single speech can address all important issues, but despite Biden's frequent disapproving references to Putin and his one statement about New START I have no idea what Biden's proposed Russia policy would be. ..."
"... He checked off the box of endorsing continued aid to Israel, but had nothing to say about the illegal occupation, the settlements, or Trump's recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan Heights. ..."
"... Even if we grant that Biden was painting in broad strokes about general principles, his foreign policy platform seems weirdly underdeveloped and half-baked for someone who has worked on these issues for decades. ..."
"... "And he promised to restore the United States' global leadership role, which Trump had often cast as a burden and drag on the American economy. "The world does not organize itself, and if we do not shape it . . . some nation will step into the vacuum," or no one will and "chaos will prevail," Biden said." ..."
"... This is nonsense and he just lost my vote in a primary election. Next! Please Democrats! Reject this fantasy! It's not 1945 anymore. ..."
"... I've been watching in complete dismay for more than two decades now how many unbelievably empty people run for the highest office in the US. These people are empty. No substance, no soul, no brain or heart. Nothing. ..."
Joe Biden delivered his first major foreign
policy speech as a 2020 presidential candidate earlier today at the City University of New
York. Biden said that U.S. foreign policy needed to be "purposeful and inspiring," but his
speech isn't likely to inspire very many. He began by asserting that "foreign policy is
domestic policy and domestic policy is foreign policy." It is true that there are connections
between what the U.S. chooses to do in the world and what it is able to do at home, not least
in terms of how our government chooses to use scarce resources and limited revenues, but I'm
not sure it is all that useful to collapse the two together.
The conflation of domestic and foreign policy wasn't just a throwaway line at the start of
the speech, and that explains why much of the first half of the speech was a laundry list of
domestic policy initiatives. It is unfortunate that he spent so much of his time in the speech
not talking about foreign policy, because that meant he had to leave a lot out of the actual
foreign policy section.
... ... ...
There were a few notable commitments that Biden made during the speech that should be
acknowledged. He called for an end to the travel ban. Biden said that the use of force should
be a last resort used only to "defend our vital interests, when the objective is clear and
achievable, and with the informed consent of the American people." That commitment is a good
one, and he should be held to it.
He also said, "It's long past time we end the forever wars,"
and he restated his call for ending support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. Naturally, he
did not mention that U.S. support for the war began when he was vice president. Biden also
stated his intention to rejoin the JCPOA if Iran returns to full compliance. Biden's statements
in support of arms control were fine, and his commitment to extend New START was welcome. At
the same time, his insistence on North Korea's denuclearization is every bit as unrealistic as
Trump's current policy.
...No single speech can address all important issues, but despite Biden's frequent
disapproving references to Putin and his one statement about New START I have no idea what
Biden's proposed Russia policy would be.
He name-checked some countries and mentioned Latin America in passing, but he said nothing
about the crisis in Venezuela or what he would differently in response to it.
He berated Trump for being too cozy with authoritarian rulers, but he didn't tell us how
U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt would differ if he became president.
He
checked off the box of endorsing continued aid to Israel, but had nothing to say about the
illegal occupation, the settlements, or Trump's recognition of Israel's illegal annexation of
the Golan Heights.
Even if we grant that Biden was painting in broad strokes about general
principles, his foreign policy platform seems weirdly underdeveloped and half-baked for someone
who has worked on these issues for decades.
Biden wants to be leader of the free world. He spoke of vacuums and chaos.
"And he promised to restore the United States' global leadership role, which Trump had
often cast as a burden and drag on the American economy. "The world does not organize itself,
and if we do not shape it . . . some nation will step into the vacuum," or no
one will and "chaos will prevail," Biden said."
This is nonsense and he just lost my vote in a primary election. Next! Please Democrats!
Reject this fantasy! It's not 1945 anymore.
I've been watching in complete dismay for more than two decades now how many unbelievably
empty people run for the highest office in the US. These people are empty. No substance, no
soul, no brain or heart. Nothing.
"... The whole story of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election is "crazy," he says. Hillary Clinton had done everything wrong as a candidate, had led the Democratic Party into misfortune. There was no need for anything Russian. "Where is the evidence? There is none." ..."
"... Two years ago Hersh published a piece on Syria in Welt. He needs to go to Deutschland to get published, being banned from the MSM. ..."
"... Just like Col. Lang, Juan Cole and so many others. Our press is strictly controlled to focus on The Narrative. ..."
"... "Please watch this clip. It captures Russiagate perfectly: blaming Russian bots, neoliberals like Kamala Harris show ignorance about domestic injustices & contempt for those fighting it; while at the same time, sounding like deranged conspiracy theorists in the process." ..."
"... Lots of garbage trying to pollute our minds. Truth is the only antidote, but at times it's hard to find. Search for it and fight complacency. ..."
Form a
portrait of Seymour Hersh in the German weekly Die Zeit (my translation):
The whole story of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election is "crazy," he
says. Hillary Clinton had done everything wrong as a candidate, had led the Democratic Party
into misfortune. There was no need for anything Russian. "Where is the evidence? There is
none."
Use as open thread ...
Posted by b on July 14, 2019 at 13:16 UTC | Permalink
"Please watch this clip. It captures Russiagate perfectly: blaming Russian bots,
neoliberals like Kamala Harris show ignorance about domestic injustices & contempt for
those fighting it; while at the same time, sounding like deranged conspiracy theorists in the
process."
"This is really good -- from calling out U.S. foreign policy that causes ppl to migrate to
the history of the term 'concentration camps' to the larger tradition of racist, state
sanctioned violence against ppl from the Southern border region."
Lots of garbage trying to pollute our minds. Truth is the only antidote, but at times it's
hard to find. Search for it and fight complacency.
"... Little is spoken of today, particularly as Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are threatening war on three continents simultaneously, but the failure of diplomacy and the primacy of militarism. ..."
"... Eisenhower described this process as he saw it, universities "pimping" for militarists, congress bought, judges owned, as he left office. He never truly understood the extent of the problem as he himself was under the thumb of the Dulles boys, John Foster (Secretary of State) and Allen (CIA Director), formerly Adolf Hitler's legal representatives on Wall Street prior to Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... Worse still, Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, has become the "dime store" von Ribbentrop of our time, settling the world's affairs with an eye to personal enrichment and little concern for justice, human suffering or the wars his incompetence may lead to. ..."
"... War for profit isn't anything new and the American military industrial complex that failed to collapse as intended after the end of World War II is a major component in today's ever maddening world. President Eisenhower warned of this in his 1961 farewell address: ..."
"... Research available to military intelligence as early as 1949, clearly showed that the "ratlines" that sent Nazis to South America after the war had been sending war profits to American and British corporations throughout World War II, not just through Swiss banks but the Vatican as well. ..."
"... Facilitating this treason on a massive scale was America's OSS, precursor to the CIA and Britain's SIS (Secret Intelligence Services) who continued to work closely with Nazi Germany's Abwehr throughout the Cold War. ..."
"... Hitler's domestic policies, however, were, for the "chosen people" at least, in this case ethnic Germans, far more beneficial than Hitler's predecessors have chosen for the people of the US and Britain. Is it fair to call American and British leaders "predecessors" or "inheritors" of Adolf Hitler? ..."
NEO was established and has been continually publishing since 1818
Little is spoken of today, particularly as Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are threatening war on
three continents simultaneously, but the failure of diplomacy and the primacy of militarism.
Problem is, those who drive these insane policies control and even own the "engines of reason
and dissent."
Eisenhower described this process as he saw it, universities "pimping" for militarists,
congress bought, judges owned, as he left office. He never truly understood the extent of the
problem as he himself was under the thumb of the Dulles boys, John Foster (Secretary of State)
and Allen (CIA Director), formerly Adolf Hitler's legal representatives on Wall Street prior to
Pearl Harbor.
Trump simply inherited what he calls "the sewer" and has done exactly what Eisenhower did,
surrounded himself with the worst of the worst, men like Bolton and Pompeo, "shills" for the
military industrial complex and the "banksters" who have orchestrated wars for a thousand
years.
Worse still, Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, has become the "dime store" von Ribbentrop
of our time, settling the world's affairs with an eye to personal enrichment and little concern
for justice, human suffering or the wars his incompetence may lead to.
War for profit isn't anything new and the American military industrial complex that failed
to collapse as intended after the end of World War II is a major component in today's ever
maddening world. President Eisenhower warned of this in his 1961 farewell address:
"Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or
small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could
become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements
of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a
dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may
be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in
the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and
threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
IV. A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be
mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own
destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my
predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we
can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half
million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt
in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave
implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of
our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can
compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our
peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military
posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized,
complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of,
the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces
of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university,
historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a
revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government
contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard
there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project
allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded."
What "Ike" as we called him then was unaware of was the international nature of the military
industrial complex as well. Did he choose to ignore the roles of Standard Oil of New Jersey,
General Motors, Ford, Alcoa, Lockheed, Goodyear, Dupont and dozens of other American
corporations in not only building the Third Reich but keeping its war machines going throughout
the war?
Behind the corporations were the banks, Brown Brothers of New York, the Rothschild's of
London, powerful law firms, Dulles Brothers which included Eisenhower's own CIA director and
Secretary of State, all working for Hitler before the war and perhaps, more than perhaps,
during.
Research available to military intelligence as early as 1949, clearly showed that the
"ratlines" that sent Nazis to South America after the war had been sending war profits to
American and British corporations throughout World War II, not just through Swiss banks but the
Vatican as well.
Facilitating this treason on a massive scale was America's OSS, precursor to the CIA and
Britain's SIS (Secret Intelligence Services) who continued to work closely with Nazi Germany's
Abwehr throughout the Cold War.
This continuation of Nazi influence in Washington and London led NATO to largely reflect the
policies of Nazi Germany, building a world of totalitarian puppets and stripping the world
bare.
Hitler's domestic policies, however, were, for the "chosen people" at least, in this case
ethnic Germans, far more beneficial than Hitler's predecessors have chosen for the people of
the US and Britain. Is it fair to call American and British leaders "predecessors" or
"inheritors" of Adolf Hitler?
One needs only to listen to the racist and jingoistic rhetoric of Washington and London, the
smears, the threats, the raving lunacy.
As London now has its own "populist" waiting in the wings, Boris Johnson, there to save the
British people from the influx of refugees resulting from Britain's own policies in the Middle
East and Africa, one might feel history is actually being "recycled."
Where Hitler had Mussolini, his inheritors now have Jail Bolsonaro of Brazil and a new
military alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
The key, of course, is creating factionalism and fakery, even in the total absence of
ideological conflict.
A closer examination of history shows the runup to August 1914, the engineering by the
Warburgs, Shiffs and Rothschilds of the alliances needed to burn down the world.
At Versailles they built the framework for the next war and by the late 1920s had collapsed
the world economy and began pouring cash into Europe's fascists.
Of course, today's universities, just as Eisenhower warned, would never allow the
generations of the latter 20th century and beyond to gain the tools needed to secure a peaceful
world order.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and
POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He's a
senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today , especially for the online magazine "
New Eastern Outlook ."
+ 64% of veterans said the Iraq War
wasn't worth fighting , considering the costs versus the benefit to the U.S., and more than
50% think the same about the war in Afghanistan I wonder what percentage of them got "woke" to
this before Tulsi Gabbard?
You can bet that the likes of Rachel Maddow will never change their tune on the subject
of Russiagate.
However, with the election season heating up, it might seem wise for them to
start singing a different tune altogether, such as Sanders and Warren are too radical to have
any chance of defeating Trump.
The saddest thing of all is that the Dems' fixation on Russia
and Putin is now coming back to bite them in the ass. Trump could not have asked for a better
gift.
+ Joe Biden was one of the loudest cheerleaders in the Senate for the Bill Clinton/Newt
Gingrich "welfare reform bill." Would Tulsi Gabbard describe that bill as racist, misguided or
that it didn't go far enough?
+ Remember when Union Joe Biden came out guns blazing against NAFTA? Neither do I. And, of
course, he still doesn't regret his vote for the job-killing trade pact because, well, "
It made sense at the time ."
+ When it comes to foreign policy, Biden, whose big plan for post-Saddam Iraq was to split
it into three
different countries , is a one-man Sykes-Picot roadshow, willing to enforce any arbitrarily
drawn boundary lines with Predator drone strikes.
+ Biden enthusiastically backed & shepherded through the senate, the 5 most appalling
policies of the Clinton era
1. NAFTA
2. '94 Crime Bill
3. Welfare "reform"
4. The murderous sanctions on Iraq
5. Bombing of Serbia
+ Thousands of pages of Biden's senate papers, which he donated to the University of
Delaware in 2011, were supposed to be released to the public this year, but Biden has suddenly
changed the terms of the deal, instructing the library to keep the papers locked up until he "
leaves public life ." These papers are bound to be more damaging to Biden than Hillary's
tedious speeches to Goldman Sachs. Russia, if you're reading, I hope you're able to find the
missing 415 gigabytes of electronic records
+ Only 7 of the more than 20 Democratic Party presidential candidates (give or take Tom
Steyer) are now polling at
2% or higher and one of those is Andrew Yang.
+ Langston Hughes: "A liberal is one who complains about segregated railroad cars but rides
in the all white section."
... ... ...
+ Meet the new-new Democrats: fighter pilots, Navy SEALs, spooks and MPs. Campaign slogan:
"We're not chickenhawks! We've actually killed and tortured people. It's our turn to lead!"
+ Democratic mega-donor and super-Zionist
Haim Saban :
"We love all 23 candidates. No, minus one. I profoundly dislike Bernie Sanders, and you
can write it. I don't give a hoot. He's a communist under the cover of being a socialist. He
thinks that every billionaire is a crook. He calls us 'the billionaire class.' And he attacks
us indiscriminately. 'It's the billionaire class, the bad guys.' This is how communists
think. So, 22 are great. One is a disaster zone."
... ... ...
+ People, including Barbara Lee today, keep talking about "the failed war on drugs,"
launched, re-launched and re-tooled by Biden and his pals in the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton
administrations. But did it really fail? Not if the object was to fill America's prisons with
the black and brown underclass
"... Timing is indeed everything. Russiagate set the precedent for lawfare to become a normal part of the political process and I'd fully expect Trump to maximize it to his own advantage in the run up to 2020. ..."
"... Lolitagate may be targeting the Clintons and you are probably right that the Clintons need not drag down someone like Warren simply because of party association. ..."
"... It will be interesting to see who will be the ultimate targets. It was a travesty that in the original case Epstein was the only person charged, unless I missed something. It's obvious that there had been a facilitating organization that he was running and boatloads of cash coming and going. No curiosity about that? ..."
Timing is (just about) everything, including within the art of public swamp draining.
I'm not familiar with the pace of legal proceedings of this nature through the US Court
system, however Trump will be in an advantageous position if Barr's processes are timed to
result in convictions and penalties being handed out to various well known DNC and IC
luminaries immediately before the 2020 election date.
The mistake would be to rely on any convictions of the 2016 players to discredit the DNC
candidate of 2020. The Clintons, et al, are current era irrelevancies or indeed parodies, and
they and proof of long gone conspiracies would be seen as separate issues to whatever the
Democrat candidate, eg., Elizabeth Warren, can credibly promise for 2020-24.
Trump will still have to fight 2020, not re run 2016.
I think the answer to the above question is 'yes' within the context that ever action the
WH takes from now on in, be it relating to Epsteins or Iranians, will be with the 2020
outcome as the prime determinant.
Timing is indeed everything. Russiagate set the precedent for lawfare to become a normal
part of the political process and I'd fully expect Trump to maximize it to his own advantage
in the run up to 2020.
Lolitagate may be targeting the Clintons and you are probably right that the Clintons
need not drag down someone like Warren simply because of party association.
However, I'd bet Barr can be relied upon to do plenty of damage to the Dems which
will affect voters next year. It depends how high up the Russiagate blowback goes. I'd
not expect any Dem candidate to beat Trump if the guts of the coup plot spill out in public,
especially if St. Obama is implicated - that would be a dagger to the heart.
This is why I found it interesting to see the Strzok-Page texts info the
Favored Fox News Channel had, referred to in Larry's last post. I'd expect
more of the same building to a crescendo at the most opportune time. Trump is a ruthless SOB
and I expect his revenge will be sweet.
Trump is a very smart and ruthless SOB, but his ill fated Inaugural Address declaration of
war on the Swamp demonstrated that his sense of time and timing was off at least at the start
of his Presidency. By now, years later, his enemies will have taught him well and he will
return the favor.
Lawfare ? It sounds good, until the voters figure out that some of it is nothing more than
abuse of the legal system in the pursuit of the corrupt by the corrupt, or until African
National Congress lawyers begin offering their services pro bono.
Certainly whatever Barr produces will be levered against the DNC to the last ounce of
weight by the pro Trump media, although to be effective it must be configured to match the
attributes of the eventual candidate - the best will be saved until last. Dear old Joe, on
his merits, need not worry about that.
I think the DNC will have a clean out of anyone who has ever stood within a mile of even
possible witnesses in Barr's proceedings. Changing their brand will prove far harder - there
will be no New DNC copy of Blair's 1990's era New Labour, and the GOP's intent will be , as
you say, to hit the Dem's brand as much as hit the final candidate.
The idiocy of the Strzok-Page texts illustrates once again the throwing of caution to the
wind when victory is assured - I suspect neither had ever in their pasts received a hit big
enough to foster instinctive caution against the speed at which the world can unravel around
them. Well, they do now !
...The sleazy guy didn't use the girls for his own pleasure alone. Instead, I think the
girls were being groomed for entrapping imp figures for blackmail. The money and the
billionaire lifestyle (with no known source of income) provided the context in which he could
meet the powerful and the famous. He was set up by the Wexner and others in mega group.
Why else should wexner entrust his money to a college dropout maths school teacher, who
was later thrown out of a minor job at a hedge fund for malpractice?
Sometimes things are as obvious as they seem. If you have a bunch of openly pro-Izzie
types (Wexner, maxwell) associated with such a setup, then you can safely conclude what they
are after.
We haven't seen anything yet of which I'm aware to allow for a determination of what led
to Epstein's serial abuses getting revisited. I very much doubt that it was a political
appointee new to the system who came into the job while harboring a determination to right a
wrong if given the chance. I think it more likely that it's a bottom up initiative, a witness
having developed as a result of having gotten jammed up in another case and offering up a
bigger fish, a newspaper story, new victims coming to light as a result of civil process, the
review process prior to releasing the disclosure materials triggering outrage, something
along these orders. Whatever it was, once the case was underway, in the era of #MeToo and
with new political appointees in place, there would be no stopping it.
It will be interesting to see who will be the ultimate targets. It was a travesty that in the
original case Epstein was the only person charged, unless I missed something. It's obvious
that there had been a facilitating organization that he was running and boatloads of cash
coming and going. No curiosity about that?
The prediction here is that Epstein will offer to cooperate sooner rather than later. It
would not surprise me at all if hasn't already been given the opportunity and wanted to wait
to see what cards the government was holding, try to figure out who from his old team had
turned and were witnesses against him.
A big question now is that if and when he does cooperate, what kind of corroborative
materials he would be able to bring along with him to bolster the victim testimony which will
be recollections of abuse from women when they were adolescents that happened quite a while
ago.
The indictment forecloses on any opportunity to use Epstein actively; and what kind of deal
do you offer to this guy anyway who right now appears to be the principal malefactor in order
to get to others, culpable users of his scheme surely, but not integral to his organization
per se, largely because they are newsworthy figures of one sort or another. Not an easy call,
but I would argue Epstein should take a major hit even if it means risking not getting his
cooperation.
"We haven't seen anything yet of which I'm aware to allow for a determination of what led
to Epstein's serial abuses getting revisited."
An important figure pushing for the re-opening of the case is Mike Cernovich. He along
with Breitbart are the main cheerleaders for the conviction- the draining of the swamp. They
are Trump's mouthpieces who talk directly to his base. I believe the Trump admin is
completely supporting the re-trial. AG Barr's father had to leave the posh school where he
had worked asa principal for a decade, soon after he employed college dropout Epstein as a
Math teacher. The guy who replaced barr Sr was a pedo (perhaps appointed with Epstein) and
left under a cloud. I think there is some personal revenge angle here as well.
The link optimax provides below (and reproduced here ) to an EIR (LaRouche) piece
on "Mega" is very interesting. It pulls a lot of this together and seems to be the main
source for your linked article. The title quote; "'Mega' was not an agent, Mega was the boss"
refers to the NYC-based Mega Group of Jewish billionaires (incl. Wexner) who actually run the
show. Epstein's operation looks to me like an subsidiary SPV to manufacture kompromat, as you
say.
The EIR piece is frustratingly lacking in links/citations, but the crucial one backing up
this quote does check out (link below). I have taken the liberty of saving it into the
Internet Archive in case it now 'disappears' due to the publicity. The author refers to Mega
Group as "the Megabucks" and describes an interesting twist on the traditional Mossad-run Z0G
narrative. He asserts that they are actually out for themselves and influence/buy politics in
Israeli every bit as much as in the US to further their own ends. Israel to them is merely a
useful tool. From the article:
" Israel for them is only a means to Jewish unity, on a par with the Holocaust
propaganda. The idea is to keep Jews together, away from hanging with other folks. The heads
of the American Jewish community need it, as they have a fair chance to find themselves
without soldiers, all chiefs, and no Indians. "
EIR quotes the WSJ article (paywall) saying Wexner and
Charles Bronfman founded the Mega Group in 1991. Charles' brother; Edgar Bronfman is also
listed as a member. I came across someone on reddit
) saying that Hillary basically handed over Libya to the Bronfmans. Edgar's daughter Sara and
her husband; Basit Igtet ( http://basitigtet.com) appear to have run the coup (see their
wikis on Libya). Basit is coincidentally chairman of an energy co. now looking to exploit
Libyan oil and apparently had/has ambitions to become president.
It may be antisemitic to characterize Jews as power-hungry money-obsessed world
dominators, but this group sure seem to fit the characterization rather well.
We do not know why Epstein resurfaced, there was no need to re-open the case unless 'they'
wanted it to be reopened. Thus, there is definitely a deeper political purpose behind this.
As I know the higher ups in both Democrat and Republican Party are in one way or another
involved in this (both Clinton and Trump visited his island and I am sure many more prominent
high ranking US career politicians), this could indeed be equally dangerous for either
political party.
However, I don't think Trump needs convincing with regard to Iran he has been all in on
that from day 1 of his presidency and never hesitated a moment to tear up the JCPOA. Bibi was
right when he said there was never a US president as friendly towards Israel than Donald
Trump. His actions have spoken louder than words. So for this case, we will just have to wait
and see what pieces of information they allow the MSM to publish and we will know who they
are after or what bigger political goal is at play.
Something does not smell right about this.
It's not like Epstein was some obscure issue or that Trump was uninformed about the case.
Who would allow a person with such baggage on the team?
And the issue was raised so no possibility it was over-looked.
Congress (including the now concerned repubs) had their shot at him, where was the
indignation?
Looks like people were told to disregard the issue, until now.
Now like good soldiers they are all barking alert.
Looks like this guy was a plant, an insurance policy maybe.
Now that policy has been triggered - has Trump failed in playing his role?
Trumps ex-pal Epstein linked to intelligence. Makes sense given he has Robert Maxwell's
daughter doing the procuring. His was likely a black mail operation run by the intelligence
agency
Trumps other ex-pal (partner) was also linked to intelligence. Bayrocks Felix Sater. I
imagine some of their business practices could have landed Trump in jail unless like Felix he
cooperated
Could Trump himself be a an intelligent asset? Perhaps under duress through his activities
with Jeffrey and Felix.
If so, indeed the question is if its Israels or the US agency, or is there any difference
now.
I don't pretend to know the answers.
Whats the end game?. Comeys daughter is one of the NY prosecutors.Dershowitz is an Israeli
puppet and was behind getting the sealed files opened. Is Clinton and the Dems the target or
is it meant to pressure Trump to go hard on Iran or risk something coming out? Something
else?
I cant help but wonder why nobody choses to remind us about the case filed against Trump
in 2016, where a woman claimed rape at age 13 at Epstein's apartment. Is wasn't covered much
at the time either. Apparently silently withdrawn. Curious no? Not even the so called Deep
State Media that everyone believes was against Trump. Theydon't seem to want to touch it now
either. Maybe its just BS.
Of course, maybe just more distraction as they continue fleecing the bottom 90%
Billionaire, $6 B, Les Wexner, L Brands, Victoria's Secret.
from Wiki
Wexner had a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who managed Wexner's financial
assets. Wexner and Epstein parted when Epstein went to prison.[25] Wexner was believed to be
the primary source of Epstein's wealth. [26]
I am trying to link Wexner with the Bronfman's (Seagrams Liquor Family) via a source other
than the Mega Group (which may not be credible, IDK).Clare Bronfman and NEXIVM.
Looks like Epstein was running a high powered honey trap to ensnare Politicians, Lawyers,
Government employees for the express purpose of promoting the "Greater Israel Project".
@fastfreddy - While I hesitate to engage in the ubiquitous Israel is at the root of all
debacles conjecture, I think you might be onto something there. Sure would be interesting
(now or when whatever shakes out of this) to compare the record on votes of importance to
Israeli interests of any politician who gets implicated or indicted with who doesn't.
Protecting Epstein and his clients is secondary. The main goal is to protect his
billionaire, Jewish, sponsors and whatever state sponsored him. The pleabs cannot know that
their gov is corrupt but the bigger secret that must be kept is who is pulling the strings
and how they are doing it.
Regarding questions on Acosta by Jared at #27, here's a 2017 article showing that the
facts were out about Acosta when the Senate confirmed him: "Did Trump Labor Pick Protect
Trump, Rich Rapists, Tax Cheats, Crooked Bankers? Do We Find Out Wednesday?" March 14, 2017.
http://ow.ly/hk8b309Uerm
Regarding MSM reluctance to mention rape of 12 and 13 year olds by Trump, as several
commentators noted, here's a January 2017 wrap up of those matters with leading to other
links: "Welcome To Waterbury: The city that holds secrets that could bring down Trump," Jan.
9, 2018.
http://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump.
My colleague Wayne Madsen and I filed a FOIA action today at the U.S. Justice Department
seeking further records.
Our view is that this is an intelligence / foreign policy operation and it's likely that
Epstein's time has run out, an occupational hazard in that field. Further, Madsen and I have
written separate books years ago documenting that all U.S. presidents after Carter -- but not
yet Trump as proven -- have been covert assets of the CIA or FBI before -- stress that --
they entered politics. That's the way it is, and helps explain a lot of the complaints in
comments above. Trump is in his own category of a corrupt stooge -- that's not necessarily
better.
Can recommend excellent 2008 book "Flat Earth News" by longtime UK journalist Nick Davies
that describes the deeply flawed nature of MSM from his perspective as a Guardian and other
UK journalist, who aptly describes why lies and quarter-truths get printed. That's a longer
story but the gist is what many here are suggesting.
After years of study and many many books I believe the Mossad and CIA are one and the
same. The Mossad is very useful when leaving sovereign footprints is verboten--and vice
versa.
"...'Belongs to intelligence' makes a lot of sense. The question is to which one. A lot
of people will says "Mossad" but I don't believe that to be the (full) truth ..."
At the level that Jeffrey Epstein is operating, he is loyal primarily to himself but
happily takes his reward from whichever intel agency at any time offers him the most or whose
interests might prove the most lucrative for him.
And the interests of American, British, Israeli and other nations' intelligence agencies
are surely so entwined that picking them apart is impossible. One thing for sure though: none
of them serve the interests of the nations they supposedly work for.
The function of the CIA/Mossad is to make sure the agenda and the narrative of the Deep
State gets served. In that case one could truly blame Epstein's actions on individuals, or
groups of individuals who dictate orders to the Mossad/CIA.
Epstein reminds me of the Bill Browder affair. And the statement: To know who are the
rulers not which are the ones you are not permitted to criticize. Or somethinh like that.
If indeed they are after Trump as he failed them on 'Iran', then it makes absolute sense that
Dershowitz and Cernovich had the records unsealed as both are strong, strong Zionists and
supporters of Israel. Getting a judge do the thing they need is just a formality. I agree
with some writer above who asked, why the publicity if pressure can be applied in secret
without the media being involved? But this may be the stated goal to bring Trump either
completely in line now or publicly topple his presidency.
I get why @94 Really? and others would be sceptical at this stage but I know strong
powers in the Zionist/Neo-con deep state want a direct confrontation with Iran for myriad
number of reasons (stop the BRI, deal a blow to Syria and Hizbollah, take out Israel's No 1
enemy etc, shore up the Petrodollar), and Trump was still the most likely candidate to follow
through with this, given his proximity to Zionism. So far he also has dully followed through
with everything imaginable, except for actually attacking Iran.
Interesting development indeed. B. Clinton could be collateral damage, at this stage their
power is overestimated in my opinion.
Okay, An "intelligence op," but which one? The Epstein/Mueller link was made several
months ago. I don't see any irregularities in the court judgement to order the unsealing as
it's been ongoing for almost 2.5 years and involves odd bedfellows. Was Mueller even aware of
the attempt to unseal Epstein's case? So many questions!
Arnon Milchan? He was Israeli. Should he be punished, absolutely. But you know who should
be hung? Robert DeNiro. He knew Arnon Milchan was a spy and kept his mouth shut for decades.
He is a POS of epic proportions.
Insofar as Epstein is concerned. It is all about timing. Mueller is set to testify and
probably has skeletons in his closet with regards to Epstein's case. He is likely being told
implicitly via the Epstein arrest to be on his best behavior by Barr, and Barr at this age
probably can care less that Epstein is being sacrificed so he can make his point,
particularly since Barr is probably the 2nd most powerful person in the USA right now.
Epstein was extremely likely an Israeli asset. The Israelis have through political power
and force convinced many in the US IC that their ship is sailing in the same direction, and
that they should be allowed to serve as the US's dog on a leash, and once in a while be
unleashed to do what the US won't. So while he was an Israeli asset, his resources (that is
compromising material) was often made available to the CIA, and thus Acosta was told that he
is an intelligence asset.
The fireworks will start to fly if and when Epstein realizes he is being hung out to dry
and won't be saved. But like almost every other case involving such rich and powerful people,
don't hold your breath for justice to be served in the US.
What does protecting adolescent teenagers from predatory adults have to do with
puritanism? Am I understanding this correctly that you advocate sex with minors as long as
they have reached biological puberty? Never mind their mental maturity? So sexual relations
involving young women is ok what about sexual relations with young men? This has nothing to
do with a false pretentious morality but with the fact that teenagers have not yet reached
the level of mental maturity that protects them from sexual exploitation that will haunt them
for the rest of their lives, never mind their biological functions and ability to conceive or
sire children. It is really puzzling that I even need to make these elaborations in here!
In many ways this thread is as sickening as the subject it discusses. All sorts of types left
and right competing to show that they have the most insight into the forces behind the anal
rape of a 12 year old girl See Andrew Kreig's excellent piece which does consider the horror
of the acts, rather than just whether or not it plays into the particular vision of 'power
politics' each poster invokes). In no instance does anyone express disgust at the actions of
these low life scum other than for the corruption of the pols such as Acosta.
The glee which so many have displayed jumping into this horror story because it can be
twisted and forced into their own particular theory about "how the world really works" while
totally ignoring that these humans who were abducted at age eleven or twelve & then sold
like cattle, now inhabit the netherworld of 'the great society' living in the fringes of
prosperous cities in a ramshackle 'double wide', reveals a psychic corruption not a million
miles away from that of the rapists.
This story is those young boys & girls, anyone who claims to want to use it to force
the greedy rapists and warmongering grubs to face justice, will not succeed as long as they
waste time speculating who works for who and who is really in control.
Prince Andrew still bludges off taxpayers despite being photographed with his arm around
one of his victims, if you're english & really care about stopping this scum, instead of
speculating on which shadowy 'palace spokesman suggested that the
Daily Mail include the line "There is no suggestion that the duke had any sexual contact
at the house, or knew what was allegedly going on there" you will find out how the at the
time 17 y.o. Virginia Roberts feels about her public destruction now (A child the Mail
described as an erotic masseuse - presumably to reduce the horror a normal human reacts to
that pic whilst ensuring the victim is so humiliated she causes no further problem for "the
royal family's" number one arms salesman). This victim first hung out with the andrew sleaze
when she was 17 at the pimp's Florida hell hole where the age of consent is 18.
Concentrating on the effect on victims while protecting them from further harm will bring
the creeps undone - nothing else will. It was only once people began to see past the priests
claims that "the victims led me on" and considered the huge power imbalance that the catholic
church came unstuck.
Most of all without humanity, there is no difference between any of us and the scum we
criticise.
Now, to be on topic, why the insistence that Epstein finally getting outed for real is
some mysterious intel op? The CIA has been screwing up left, right and center for years, so
is it any surprise that one of their major kompromat operations is getting exposed? Their
foolproof plan to install their tool Clinton in the White House in 2016 failed spectacularly
and blew up in their faces, so tell me again how great they are at running covert ops? The
CIA's own version of James Bond gets snuffed by the CIA's own death squads in Benghazi, but
people still think the CIA has a clue what they're doing? The CIA's operatives in multiple
embassies are being incapacitated by freakin' crickets and people think these clowns
still somehow maintain some vestigial link to reality?
No, this is simply another massive screw-up by the establishment. This blind-sided the
Deep State and so much took them by surprise that they were too late to get it clamped down
in the mass media. If Epstein dies before the real dirt starts getting exposed then it proves
me right and proves wrong all those who worship at the alter of the omnipotent Deep
State.
"Cy Vance - Democrat, gave Epstein a pass on sex offender status.
Acosta - Republican, approved plea deal.
Muller - Republican, signed off on FBI closing file on Epstein.
Schumer - Took money from Epstein.
Bill Clinton - Travel.
This isn't partisan. Corruption at all levels."
What's good is that most people commenting on the threads I've read, including
Cernovich's, understand just how deep the rot goes, and that it's not confined to North
America.
It would be a most salutary outcomoe if Obama were dethroned and exposed for the lying
lounge lizard he is. Scales reallyl need to fall from eyes. I am surprised that Trump doesn't
embark on this enterprise with gusto.
Puncture the Obama-Clinton BS balloon once and for all.
Gabbard is NOT a member of the CFR. She has by her own admission, attended some meetings
as an invited guest. According to her, it was to engage members and find out what their
inside game is. I don't know if Gabbard is for real. I voted for Trump because I perceived
him to be the anti-war and anti-intervention candidate. Period. So, as I said, I don't know
what to think about the lady. I do now understand however, why some individuals in olden
times became hermits.
This is a blatant UK and US intelligence hit job aimed at influencing the 2020
election:
- "UK hijacks oil tanker": Message="UK is prepared to take action against Iran, why is
Trump so war shy"
- "Trump asks Iran before bombing": Message=ditto the above.
- "Diplomatic cables released "accidentally" by UK Foreign Office": Message="Even the UK
is getting tired of confused Trump"
Come on folks, stop analysing it with endless "what if"'s and see it for what it is.
Prepare for much more of this: The UK's Skripal affair lured Trump into expelling
diplomats, later making him look too trigger happy. Now they are trying to make him look
indecisive, stupid and reluctant to stand with his closest allies: notice how Bolton has
receded into the background to avoid the flak?
In addition, I am sure the UK's intelligence would never do any of this without the OK
from US intelligence.
An Iranian general yesterday
confirmed Magnier's take (also
here ):
A senior Iranian general has revealed that Washington, through diplomatic channels,
recently asked Tehran to allow it to conduct a small-scale operation in the Iranian
airspace in order to save its face following the IRGC's shoot-down of a US spy drone.
Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, the Head of Iran's Civil Defence Organization,
said Iran vehemently rejected the US request, saying that it will respond to any act of
aggression.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran responded that it views any operation as a war and will
give a crushing response to it. You may initiate a war but this is Iran which will finish
it," he said Sunday.
The idea that the U.S. would ask Iran to allow it to bomb some targets without hitting
back sounds crazy.
Dear Mr. Rouhani,
could you please name me three targets in your country that I am allowed to bomb?
It is urgent as I need to look tough on Iran.
Pretty please!
Donald Trump
But this is the Trump White House and the only thing Trump really seems to care for is his
own rating.
. . .that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to
be chosen by Iran,
Trump has experience in such a charade, when empty buildings were struck with US rockets
after the fake Syrian "gas attack" in Douma, April 2018. Probably the details were worked out
between US and Russia in that case. That it wasn't possible this time is a clear indication
of Iran strength. Stronger than Russia! Imagine that.
That Trump would come begging hat in hand seeking for Tehran to let the US bomb the country
unimpeded does not strike me as surprising or implausible. It fits Trump's trademark MO of
"chaotic, incoherent" to a 't', with a heavy dash of megalomania thrown in as well. Just
another day in the office for Trump.
The seizure of the Grace 1 is more intriguing for its brazen illegality as well as the
reported circumstances (if one can believe the Brits in their claim of boarding 2.5 miles
from shore). Was this another avenue of "maximum pressure" cooked up by Iran?
As for Iran seeking US military targets in the region, those sitting ducks will be the last
targets sought. Not that they might not, but that certainly would be nuclear option for
Tehran. There is much lower hanging fruit to target that would cripple the lackey Gulf
states. Hitting the desalination plants of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain would ruin
those economies overnight without risking environmental fallout. Iran would be hammered in
the MSM, but would be no matter their course of action. Those countries would have strategic
reserves of water, so I wouldn't imagine people actually dying of thirst in the desert, but
the next day there would be a biblical exodus of the ex-pats that run those economies. The
UAE would grind to a halt, there would be a possible overthrow of the monarchy of Bahrain,
and massive unrest in Saudi Arabia, without risking immediate gloves-off war with the US.
The cartoon has an element of truth, but mainly Trump is doing the bidding of his
pro-Israel billionaire funders, Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer. They are frustrated that
Trump has not been forceful enough with Iran.
"... Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The "pimple" subsequently vanished. ..."
"... While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that scale. ..."
"... Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news organization. ..."
Yes, there is strong reason to believe that, during Tulsi's response to a question on Iran
in the first debate, MSNBC technicians digitally implanted a pimple on Tulsi's chin. The
"pimple" subsequently vanished.
This bizarre behavior by MSNBC lends additional credence to claims by Andrew Yang and
Marianne Williamson that their mikes were turned off during portions of the debate.
Those responsible for this must be identified, fired, and, if feasible, prosecuted. Until
MSNBC cooperates in these regards, it should be treated like a pariah. Complaints to the
regulatory authorities are in order, and the public should be fully apprised of this. If this
strategy of digital manipulation is not nipped in the bud NOW, who knows what dangerous frauds
might await us in the future?
While placing a pimple on her chin is a childish prank, it is a childish prank played by one
of the largest information company on the planet. It's not really a childish prank at that
scale.
Mics being turned off is another trick, not so childish, but still played out by a
multibillion dollar institution. This is happening in a public policy event hosted by a news
organization.
It's rather ugly, IMO. And while I get the "distraction" angle, it's beyond that: it's a
trial balloon. When it comes to psyops; we ain't seen nothin' yet.
@mimi
I did an eyeroll when I first heard about it too. But then I started to understand. Tulsi is a
beautiful woman, inside and out from what I've seen. I'm quite sure that her outer beauty is
one thing that made lots of people google her.
Some people really are that superficial.
How
would you go about trying to make her less beautiful without being overtly obvious? Did that
pimple stop people from wanting to know who she is?
I really hope not. Personally, I think
she's beautiful with or without a zit on her chin, but her message is what makes her shine so
bright. They can't put a pimple on that.
Both the article and discussion is more then two year old, but sounds like were writfen
yestarday. Nothing changed... Trump betraed his voters and neoliberalism continue its march in
bloodthirsty zombie state it acquired after 2008 financial crisis.
Notable quotes:
"... People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the scream of an America desperate for radical change. ..."
"... Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present. ..."
"... Never has there been a transfer of wealth from so many to so few and it isn't just happening in the USA. People have rightly had enough - but you are right, voting for Trump is hardly the way to fix it. ..."
"... The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all. ..."
"... And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside. ..."
"... Everybody's an expert after the event, aren't they? OK, noble sentiments but "let's set aside whatever is keeping us apart"? ..."
"... The idea of the 'American dream' seems to have morphed into a nasty belief that if you're poor it's your own fault. You didn't 'want it enough'. You must be secretly lazy and undeserving, even if you're actually working three jobs to survive, or even if there are no jobs. ..."
"... It always seems very odd to me that so many people who think like that profess to be Christian. 'Poverty equals moral failure' is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ got into so much trouble for saying. ..."
People have lost their sense of security, status and even identity. This result is the
scream of an America desperate for radical change.
'Elite neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are
the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.
They will blame ->
James Comey and the FBI. They will blame ->
voter suppression and racism. They will blame ->
Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They
will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn,
and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry.
But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now
find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by ->
Hillary
Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run
one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn
from that mistake?
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under
neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living
standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have
lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network
of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests,
and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a
party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and
power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness.
For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white
men most of all – these losses are unbearable.
-> Donald
Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of
the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at
remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade
agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing
immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism
has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as
Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party.
Trump's message was: "All is hell." Clinton answered: "All is well." But it's not well
– far from it.
Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But
what we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A
good chunk of Trump's support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive
agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and
use the money for a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying
unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and
insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this
future.
It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and
climate change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and
honour indigenous people as the original protectors of the land, water and air.
People have a right to be angry, and a powerful, intersectional left agenda can direct that
anger where it belongs, while fighting for holistic solutions that will bring a frayed society
together.
Such a coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it together under the
banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto , endorsed by more
than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of our
largest trade unions.
Bernie Sanders' amazing campaign went a long way towards building this sort of coalition,
and demonstrated that the appetite for democratic socialism is out there.
So, the very people harmed by neoliberalism have elected someone already a member of the
Davos class, whose rise will harm them even more. Another own goal for democracy.
Never has there been a transfer of wealth from so many to so few and it isn't just
happening in the USA.
People have rightly had enough - but you are right, voting for Trump is hardly the way to fix
it.
The problem with centre left parties throughout the western world is that they sold out to
corporate capitalism, which forced people who rejected neoliberalism to go to the extremes to
protest. The question is, once someone's loyalty has been broken, it is that much more
difficult to win loyalty back, if it is possible at all.
And you're right - the neoliberal capture of centre-left legacy parties from the Democrats
to the German SPD and French Socialist Party has created an exceptionally unpromising
landscape and public mood. Trust has been broken. Responsibilities betrayed. Intellectual
traditions traduced, distorted, or simply cast aside.
In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs to
be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles as well as evolving new
strategies and insights appropriate to the present.
Economic realities shape cultural and social relations. The left should always listen to
the experiences of people and build a consensus based on solidarity between groups and not
the alienated support of different self-interested demographics. Exploitation is the
corner-stone of capitalism when it is left to run unchecked. Without regulation, capitalism
tends towards monopolies that end up subverting democracy itself.
These are the issues Bernie Sanders raised and the enthusiasm with which it was greeted is
testimony to the fact that there are white working class voters hungry for a politics of
positive, radical social change. Intoning with robotic piety that the people have never had
it so good despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is a form of deceit; when it comes
from the mouths of corporate Democrats, it is political obscenity.
In moments of humiliation or defeat - and make no mistake, this was both - there needs
to be reflection and a willingness to return to first principles
I think what I've realised from the Brexit and Trump results is how desperate
people are for something to believe in. What used to be called 'the vision thing'.
For decades we've had to choose between different forms of managerialism and variations on
a theme of 'there is no alternative to rule by the market'. We just had to put up and shut
up, there was nothing to get excited about. Nobody's ever jumped up and down shouting "What
do want? Trickle-down economics! When do we want it? Now!"
The thing about demagogues is they offer that emotional release. What we need is
principled political movements that also enable it.
Absolutely right. One of the by-products of There Is No Alternative, though, is that
managerialism and wonkiness have been fetishised. Hillary Clinton's devastatingly uninspiring
offer to the American people was hailed by some as a mark of her "maturity", "experience",
and "competence". Bernie Sanders, by contrast, was attacked for firing people up, for
inspiring them to believe change was possible - by implication, of course, such attacks rest
on the belief that change is in fact not possible at all. It is a bleak nihilism that states
the best that can be hoped or organised for is a slightly better management of existing
structures.
There is a hypocrisy, too, when someone like Clinton derides Trump's economic plans as
"Trumped-up trickle-down". In reality, they were arguing simply over who would offer the
*bigger* tax cuts. The notion that there were alternative visions on the economy, on climate
change, on racial equality or healthcare and education, not to mention foreign policies, was
almost completely absent.
This is why I wrote that in some ways Hillary Clinton was the greater evil in this
election. It is one thing to hark backwards to a mythical past, as Donald Trump did. It is
quite another to put such tight constraints on the entire notion of what is possible in the
future. Trump offered nostalgia. Clinton offered the tyranny of low expectations -
forever.
But that is all in the past now - for the future, I agree with you that there needs to be
a willingness to offer radical, inspirational and visionary alternatives to a system that has
simply not worked for the majority of people who through no fault of their own find their
quality of life, possibilities and security in decline while wealth flows ceaselessly upwards
and into the pockets of those already insulated from the harm their favoured politicians
unleash.
Bernie showed what can be done - he also showed that people are willing to finance such
campaigns and thus liberate the political process from the death-grip of corporate donations.
Personally, I am sceptical of whether the Democratic Party is an appropriate vehicle for such
politics (I know that Bernie doesn't agree with me!) Regardless, his campaign should provide
somewhat of a model for what can be done - and likewise his statement from today. Amidst the
headlong rush - in this paper as well - to denigrate and smear voters for failing to advance
bourgeois liberal interests, it is imperative that deprived, working class voters of all
races are listened to properly and not labelled racists and bigots. A few no doubt are. But
these are, in many instances, the same people that helped elect Barack Obama in 2008 and
2012. They are crying out for something to organise around. Hillary Clinton failed because
she was not and never has been a person capable of, even interested in, offering that.
You write: "there was a failure in the campaign to connect with older black and Latino
voters who are the demographic most abused by our current economic model."
A major reason the Sanders campaign didn't connect in time was the DNC's suppression of
the debate schedule. A corrupt but wildly successful tactic that saw Clinton sweep the
southern states.
Naomi, has omitted one very important detail: automation, i.e. the use of AI to
replace jobs.
This absolutely requires us to restructure society to provide security and purpose to each
every one of us who is not part of the super rich owners.
For example we will see driving jobs rapidly disappearing within the next five to ten
years.
I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there
appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues do
not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the UK. If
Australia were suffering a similar economic slow down it may well join the US and UK. But
what's happening in Canada and New Zealand?
I don't think it is. It is the same old hate hate hate blame the white man stuff.
If you want to know why you lost and will keep losing look in the mirror -as a tribe the
left - despises anything different to your view of the world - ironic
I also notice that where the worst effects of rampant capitalism are ameliorated there
appear to be fewer issues. I'm thinking of many Western European nations where the issues
do not yet seem to have the over fifty percent traction that they have in the US and the
UK.
Over the last few months I've been writing in here about the main difference
between (some of?) those Western European nations and the UK and US. One big difference is we
(I'm from the UK but applies also to US) use the First Past The Post voting system. This
enforces a two party system (Duverger's Law) which tends to crowd out minority voices - can
you imagine a conservative/green alliance in government in UK/US as happened not too long ago
in Germany.
Much of what ails the UK and the US is not evident in the North Western Eu nations: less
inequality, greater wealth (in the UK, not US - GDP per capita: from worldbank data), better
healthcare outcomes, better education outcomes, greater worker productivity. The move to
neoliberalism under Thatcher/Reagan and the resultant move to market economics and reduction
in nationalised industries (Larry Elliot recently wrote an article on here describing the
issue
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/06/the-legacy-of-leaving-old-industrial-britain-to-rot-is-becoming-clear
) and the Left didn't have a reply: workers lost their jobs and their traditional political
parties couldn't help. A move to the centre and the rise of third way politics of
Clinton/Blair was the only way that the Democrats and (New) Labour could get into power: did
they do anything to help the left-behind? The Global Financial Crisis and resultant
austerity, coupled with rising rates of immigration and the inability of those people to have
their voices heard with FPTP led to Trump/Brexit and the rise of popular
nationalism/socialism.
This is a useful and pertinent plea. However the article failed to include the automation
of work as a massive driver of joblessness.
We humans get excited by success, but if large swathes of Society cannot embrace change
and adaptation as a determinant of ambition, then technology advance and neoliberal economics
will ruin them.
Iterative workplace skills are perhaps the biggest investment a Society should make. The
alternative is governments paying chunks of Society in place of work. Society will generate
new jobs, but unless those replace by Technology at work adapt, great pain will come. For
sure you cant easily blame Technology, its easier to blame migrants...
Manufacturing has moved to China and Mexico. Jobs have been off-shored to India and the
Philippines.
What is left behind? Take a look at Detroit.
Automation hasn't had that much impact - it's cheaper to (under)pay a bunch of people in
developing countries than automate solutions.
Yes, there are some real insights here and the beginnings of a response, which has been
pretty much absent elsewhere.
A pity that, although comments have finally been opened, the piece is somewhat buried well
down the page, and that Hadley Freeman's vastly inferior piece which bangs on about misogyny
(as at least 3 pieces did yesterday) is being promoted.
Trump is snarling bully with what look like very unattractive attitudes towards women. But
as, Klein also pointed out on R4 this morning, the most important thing about this election
is not that Clinton failed to break the glass ceiling.
Freeman is also right, most of Trump's voters don't match the description of them as down
on their luck working class people, most are just upper middle class people with backward
views and a decent paycheck.
Really? You respond to the crushing defeat of Liberal pseudo intellectualism with even
more Liberal pseudo intellectualism?
And you can't understand why it's all going wrong for you?
Everybody's an expert after the event, aren't they? OK, noble sentiments but "let's set
aside whatever is keeping us apart"?
What is keeping people apart is that the elitism of the political classes and their hangers
on, certainly in the UK. They are absolutists; they have no concern over what ordinary people
think. If anyone at all thinks differently from them then they are wrong, end of.
They don't see any need to back their opinion up, to debate the point. Anyone who thinks
differently from them is just plain wrong. This is usually backed up with sneers and insults.
Racist, xenophobe, stupid, misogynist.
These people can't change. their sense of infallibilty and superiority is
unchallengeable.
What is keeping them apart is themselves; to change would be to surrender their sense of
superiority and entitlement. They can't do it.
I should have made it plain that absolutism isn't confined to the political classes. It's
amazing how many people collapse into incoherent rage when they are disagreed with; and a
lack of toleration of the views of others tends to make the "others" themselves be less
tolerant. It's a vice that spreads.
Of all the articles in the Guardian, this is the only one that gets close to defining the
cause of Trump's win. What we have is effectively the educated rebelling against the educated
and who can blame them. Our financial system is rigged towards the better educated who are
disproportionately contributed for their efforts at a cost to the less well educated. Is it
any wonder that they vote for change? I don't think Trump is the answer any more than Brexit
is in this country. But blaming Trump's win on wholesale misogyny and racism is sneering
prejudice that could be every bit as damaging as Trump's racism and sexism
Our educated politicians need to work out how to make capitalism work for the middle,
support the bottom and not over reward the top. It is doing the opposite currently
Everyone who voted Trump is neo-fascist? ... still think the left is missing the point.
All around the world people are being lifted out of poverty by globalised industry; jobs and
hence wealth are being redistributed more evenly around the world. I thought the left were in
favour of wealth redistribution.
The elephant in the room was hardly mentioned if at all. The Israelis love him, the
American Jews were split but, guess what, he was endorsed by KKK and David Duke! What the
hell is going on?....
The problem with a coalition of progressives, is that "the left" in general don't believe
in limits on growth or even climate change.
Look at the Richmond by-election, where labour MPs want to turn the spotlight from the
issue of airport expansion, to Zac Goldsmith's support for Brexit.
Look at union support for continued use of coal, feeding into the labour party's own
ambivalence. Or the frankly bizarre support for building trident submarines, to keep the
jobs, but not actually using them.
If you want a coalition that does something about climate change - and all the other
ecological ills of the earth - you will have to reach out to small c- and even large C-
conservatives - the likes of Boris's father Stanley Johnson and Zac Goldsmith (mayoral
campaign notwithstanding) - and dare I say it, cut out some of the social progressives, whose
ecological credentials are not so progressive. That really would change everything.
The first thing to do is to stop vilifying the white man, most are hard working and keep
economies going, stop calling them names and blaming for everything bad that has happened
since the Roman Empire and before.
Amen to that. Its just racism/sexism of another kind. As a good husband and father,
hard-working professional, law abiding citizen, good neighbour etc I am made to feel guilty
for being a white man. Shouldn't all individuals be judged on their merits???
What is puzzling is that based on your premise these vast swathes of disenfranchised
voters surely sided with the enemy as represented by an elitist, sneering billionaire. What
he has now created though is a massive crisis of expectation. The anti Trump protests seen in
the last 24 hours may in time be replaced by those whose aspirations he has ignited but
remain unfulfilled. Clinton winning the popular vote may be a moral victory of some kind but
here in the UK we are used to having to accept a government often voted for by barely a third
of the electorate. Other commentators have said things like 'it's the end of democracy as we
know it'. How so, when electing Trump is the clearest demonstration of democracy in action
there is, whether you like the result or not. The parallels with Brexit are startling. France
next?
No, what really really pisses people off is when the winners of the election (and numpties
in the media) talk of a "clear mandate" and "the people voted for this". In the US as in the
UK it's nothing of the kind (Democrats won more votes for christ sake, and you call it "clear
democracy") and this reality-corrupting idea of "clear mandate" causes real trouble.
I'm sick of seeing the word elite used by angry people in these forums. Used to describe
the powerful, mostly faceless people who they believe oppress them. They read newspapers
owned by tax dodging aristocrats and pornographers and then they go out and vote for multi
millionaire who inherited every cent and a chinless public school prick with an EU
pension.
True. Perhaps the word should be replaced by "plutocracy", but the media don't like to use
that word as it pinpoints the causes of most our problems far more accurately than
"elite".
A bit simplistic. The Davos class is a very small number of people. Their votes couldn't
elect a pope in a vatican on their own.
No, the real turning point is that those losing out and seeing no chance of that changing
now outnumber those who are dragged along by the elites, on an upward if gentle trajectory,
with belief that they can 'make it'. Much more subtle.
And the Elephant is the unwillingness to accept that long term there is no fundamental
reason for a historically rich nation to maintain relative prosperity compared to
historically poorer ones. Parity is inevitable in the long term - one man is as valuable as
any other.
The idea of the 'American dream' seems to have morphed into a nasty belief that if you're
poor it's your own fault. You didn't 'want it enough'. You must be secretly lazy and
undeserving, even if you're actually working three jobs to survive, or even if there are no
jobs.
This view has taken hold in the UK too, where the tabloids peddle the view that anyone who
claims state benefits must be a fraud. But at least, people here and in mainland Europe have
the direct experience of war within living memory and we understand that you can lose
everything through no fault of your own. In the US, even when there's a natural disaster like
Katrina it seems to be the poor people's fault for not having their own transport and money
to go and stay somewhere else.
It always seems very odd to me that so many people who think like that profess to be
Christian. 'Poverty equals moral failure' is the complete opposite of what Jesus Christ got
into so much trouble for saying.
Superb article. A voice of reason in the sea of hysteria from the other Guardian
commentators who don't seem to be learning anything from this.
What I think the left needs on a political level is to dispense with identity politics
(which only divides people who should be on the same level in terms of economic status and
relative need) and have a coming together moment, wherein we effectively set out that woman,
man, black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, etc who are living at the bottom end of society
all come together behind a unified political purpose - one that doesn't seek to demonise
others within its ranks. Because let's be honest - the racism that brought Trump to power is
at least partially a response to the intolerant, bigoted views of 'progressives' on the
'left'. Look at Hadley Freeman's article today as an example. These people divide us, and
make the job harder.
The left needs to embrace rational egalitarianism, not agenda driven crusades. They aren't
working, they're complicit in delivering hell.
What I think the left needs on a political level is to dispense with identity politics
(which only divides people who should be on the same level in terms of economic status and
relative need) and have a coming together moment, wherein we effectively set out that
woman, man, black, white, homosexual, heterosexual, etc who are living at the bottom end of
society all come together behind a unified political purpose - one that doesn't seek to
demonise others within its ranks.
But we know as a sociological fact that if you are, say, an African-American you
experience forms of oppression based on the fact that you are African-American. Explicitly
naming that oppression, however, is seen to be divisive, and few people will stand with them
behind a unified political purpose. Where does that leave us?
Naming the oppression isn't divisive, in my view. The way in which the naming is done, and
at whom the blame is directed, can be - and often is. I believe most people can rationally
assess what is and is not oppression if done in a calm and measured way - all except the
racists anyway (and they'd probably still be able to see it rationally, they just wouldn't
care). But if you start screeching at people, they're just going to switch off - and
screeching is generally what we see.
In the wider context of the improvement of people's lives at the bottom end of the scale,
I believe you would get buy in from other, non-affected groups. In fact, we see this all the
time - BLM and LGBT groups frequently work with each other on combatting things that harm one
or both of them. Where this falls flat is when you get the demonising of the white working
class (especially the male, cis-gendered working class), who should be allies for other low
income people.
Why do people assume that working and lower middle class white men, who are being squeezed
and seeing their incomes and quality of life fall in the same way as everyone else, are the
problem - the enemy to be railed against, while we have super rich white men (and women, and
even an increasing number of super rich non-white men, believe it or not), who are literally
stacking the whole system in such a way that all lower income groups suffer? I suspect
because actually fixing the issue and compromising and working together isn't as important as
being a victim for a lot of the people who lead the identity politics drive. They'd rather
scream at racists - who in turn scream back.
The only reason I think the 'progressives' can't see this is because they have too big a
stake in the status quo.
But people aren't interested in the World, this is the mistake the globalisers make.
They care about their family, their town and their country. Since 1979 things have stood
still. My Plumber Father bought his first house at 22, on a single wage. He could leave a job
on Friday and have another one on Monday.
It takes 2 professional salaries to buy a house now and I can't walk to China to pick up
that new job over the weekend.
"... I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it. I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump. ..."
"... On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign ..."
"... And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite! ..."
"... Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up to company executives. ..."
"... However, the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class" onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today. ..."
"... It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit they were wrong. ..."
"... It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs, not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either. ..."
"... Rights are important, but identity politics contain too much whimsy and focus on the self. ..."
"... Yes, but they're politically and economically cheap, don't require much thought, and you get to hang out with pop-stars. ..."
That ship has sailed. Bernie was the opportunity and it wasn't grasped. The moment for a 'left' alternative has been lost
for a long time. The whole globalised liberal paradigm - allied to the metropolitan elite's obsession with identity politics
at the expense of bottom-line issues - has been broken up by people who now realise centre-left politicians (Clinton/Obama)
have presided over whole communities being gutted in the name of 'free' trade (for 'free' trade read labour arbitrage). I felt
it in my bones that Trump would be elected - 55% of US households are worse off than they were in 2000, how on earth could anyone
possibly think that that would result or a vote for the status quo.
I am an angry white male, and I am not a misogynist, as this paper would have it.
I am fully aware of the appalling nature of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, I fully understand the bureaucratic nature of the Democrat Party, the embedded interests of Wall Street
and the military-industrial complex in that bureaucracy, the dirty tricks that that bureaucratic machinery got up to in order
to extinguish Bernie Sander's campaign.
I am aware of how that machinery has been ramping up a situation of global conflict, shamelessly recreating an aggressive
Cold war Mk II situation with Russia and China, which is simply cover for the US racist colonial assumption that the world and
its resources belongs to it in its sense of itself as an exceptional entity fulfilling its manifest destiny upon a global stage
that belongs to its exceptional, wealthy and powerful elites.
And I am aware of how Hillary was so keen to service this reality and American image of itself. And to go beyond that, and
bomb Libya for 6 months, killing thousands of civilians (Middle eastern unpeople) and, may I suggest, doing nothing whatsoever
for the women of Libya. Quite the opposite!
Michael Moore, in a talk in which he predicted the victory of Trump before the election, notes how Trump went into an American
car factory and told the executives of that company that if they relocated to Mexico, he would put a huge tax on their cars
coming into America. Not all was misogyny in the vote for Trump. Whether he delivers on his threat or not, unlike the democrat
bureaucratic machinery, he showed he was actually listening to working class Americans and that he was ;prepared to face up
to company executives.
What has this paper got to say about Hillary and the Democrat Party's class bigotry – its demonstrable contempt for 10s of
millions of Americans whose lives are worse now than in 1973, while productivity and wealth overall has skyrocketed over those
43 years.
What has this paper got to say about the lives of African American women, which have been devastated by Republican/Democrat
bipartisan policy over the last 43 years?
What has Hadley Freeman got to say about Hillary's comment that President Mubarek of Egypt was "one of the family? A president
whose security forces used physical and sexualised abuse of female demonstrators in the Arab Spring?
A feminist would need more than a peg on their nose to vote for Hillary – a feminist would need all the scented oils of Arabia.
Perhaps Wahhabi funded Hillary can buy them up.
Great article. I think there needs to be a lot of soul searching in certain sections of the media and amongst the left wing
political parties too. They don't have the correct approach to a rapidly changing ground swell of opinion. They are fast becoming
out of touch - leaving a huge void for more conservative rhetoric (euphemism) to take over.
The failure to tackle immigration
concerns across the west is the greatest example of comfy left wing elites being so far away from general consensus imo. The
assumption that if you are concerned about immigration then you are a racist, xenophobic half wit appears rife amongst elites
and the highly educated.
I agree that this is a great article. And I agree that there is a coming migration crisis that we need to be very worried
about, as the refugees from the Middle East try desperately for a better life away from conflict zones and poverty. However,
the right wing have very skilfully redirected the anger that SHOULD be directed at what Naomi cleverly calls the "Davos class"
onto a very small "immigration" issue that we have in the UK today.
The evidence for this is that in the EU referendum, the
areas that were most strongly Leave were generally speaking those with few or no immigrants. I campaigned for Remain here in
Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation in the NHS and over and over
again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't think that people are concerned
about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated.
"Fear the stranger" is an evolutionary response buried
deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button for the right wing to push. I grew
up in Northern Ireland so I saw this at first hand. My grandfather was a highly intelligent technocrat, but he was also an Orangeman.
He did not seem able to understand that the Catholics he knew and were his friends were the same "them" that he demonised. All
progressive people need now to find a way, as Naomi's article says, to repoint this anger to where it belongs. Sorry if this
makes me a comfy left wing elite!
It is not going to happen. The holier than thou, supremacist arrogance of the illiberal class, means they can never admit
they were wrong. Look at the past year here ATL and then BTL. Witness the absolute, unchanging and frankly extreme editorial
line, in the face of massive discourse and well argued opposition BTL. Even now there are no alarm bells ringing in the back
of their minds, they are right and everyone else is wrong. No attempt to understand, such is their unwavering belief in the
echo chamber. You will only find an attempted programme of re-education in these pages. They will be still be doing it as Europe
falls into the hands of the far-right.
I campaigned for Remain here in Stockport where there are very few immigrants and I also campaign regularly against privatisation
in the NHS and over and over again, I am told that immigrants are the problem in an area which has virtually none. I don't
think that people are concerned about immigration are half wits, but I think they've been manipulated. "Fear the stranger"
is an evolutionary response buried deep in our brains that we need to control with rationality and it's such an easy button
for the right wing to push.
It's all about jobs, really, isn't it? There is a natural fear of 'the other', but if times are good and jobs (proper jobs,
not ZHC) are plentiful, it feels less important. On the face of it, it seems odd that the most fear of immigration is in places
where there isn't much immigration, but they're often places where there isn't much work either.
Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation,
privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They
have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future
for their kids even worse than their precarious present.
Yes. But, in the meantime, the system has become so right-wing that it only permits a right-wing outburst - a Social-Democratic
one is instantly discredited by the totalitarian media outlets.
There is no way to articulate an effective response to this attack within the system.
This article is spot on except that both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren jumped on the Clinton neoliberal train for reasons
of political expediency. From now on, anything either of them say should be critically examined before being supported.
"... government for the centre ground has been about management- the days when the US New Deal funded by taxing the rich and which built the wealth Americans now miss, and the Labour post war government that built the NHS [and taxed the rich] is part of history. Instead we have no new innovation but a little bit of tweaking with banks and global business. ..."
"... In return the gutted communities become less smart and given bread and circuses but their privilege and lack of mobility means they don't travel to pick fruit elsewhere- yet they still demand food on the table and the only ones prepared to travel and work hard are the even greater poor. ..."
It wasn't just free trade that the white working class voters of the rust belt states were
angry about, it was also high immigration. Naomi doesn't mention this, probably because fluid
borders is one policy which the Davos class and left-liberals like herself agree on.
Such a[n intersection left] coalition is possible. In Canada, we have begun to cobble it
together under the banner of a people's agenda called The Leap Manifesto, endorsed by more
than 220 organisations from Greenpeace Canada to Black Lives Matter Toronto, and some of
our largest trade unions.
And if such a coalition of the usual suspects got off the ground in the USA it would just
about seal a second term for Donald.
government for the centre ground has been about management- the days when the US New Deal
funded by taxing the rich and which built the wealth Americans now miss, and the Labour post
war government that built the NHS [and taxed the rich] is part of history. Instead we have no
new innovation but a little bit of tweaking with banks and global business.
No government wants to upset the powers that run the economy- so a multinational can move
its workforce to a country with lower pay, lower environmental regulation- it can use the
inequality to move not only manufacturing but people.
In return the gutted communities become less smart and given bread and circuses but their
privilege and lack of mobility means they don't travel to pick fruit elsewhere- yet they
still demand food on the table and the only ones prepared to travel and work hard are the
even greater poor.
And the right simply blames the immigrants, the others and you believe them.
don't stop at 2011, the precedent started in 1934 in Nuremberg Germany. Trump used the
same how to manual written by Goebbels, he got the idea from the Romans.
"... Great post. Inequality has been visibly widening in the US (and the UK) for years, principally as a result of globalisation. ..."
"... some people see that you put in the same republican representatives that are just the opposite side of the same coin. Actually the repubs are worse . No to unions, higher min wage, tax cuts to the very wealthy etc. Dems talk about these issue but can never get it together to actually implement them. ..."
"... I think Naomi has given the answer by mistake. The liberal elite is totally disconnected from the rest of the country. It wasn't just trump it was a red wave of republican victory ..."
This is an excellent response. However already you can hear the liberal elite dismiss the
Trump voters as idiots - it's always funny when you hear people complain that Trump
threatening to put his opponent in jail, or Brexiters threatening the partiality of the
judiciary are threats to the democratic system... these same people then start making the
argument the electorate is too stupid to make a decision. The liberal elite need to
acknowledge the tangible suffering and injustice being faced by working-class people across
Europe and the United States, and act to address it.
There was a telling point early on in the election coverage when the democrat
representative on the BBC panel was arrogantly smiling once the exit polls showed Clinton on
for a comfortable victory. Andrew Neil put him straight back in his place when he asked 'is
it not concerning for the Democrat Party that they are no longer the party of the blue-collar
American?' The representative highlighted the arrogance and complacency of the liberal elite,
that seconds after the election result looked to be in, he seemed to go back to not caring
about working-class people and re-enter the elite bubble.
Great post. Inequality has been visibly widening in the US (and the UK) for years,
principally as a result of globalisation. A large proportion of the people are "mad as hell"
and have decided to try to do something about it. Trump is unlikely to be the answer, but
there will be more support for anti-politicians (such as Grillo & the 5 Star movement in
Italy) while the conventional politicians continue to bleat nonsense.
some people see that you put in the same republican representatives that are just the
opposite side of the same coin. Actually the repubs are worse . No to unions, higher min
wage, tax cuts to the very wealthy etc. Dems talk about these issue but can never get it
together to actually implement them.
I think Naomi has given the answer by mistake. The liberal elite is totally disconnected
from the rest of the country. It wasn't just trump it was a red wave of republican victory --
her article demonstrates how little she understands.
The liberal elite includes the media, who can't wait to run stories of "thousands" of
people protesting about Trump in the US. Yes, thousands, in a country with a population of
318 million.
"... Just like Dubya. Just like Obomber. Just like the Orange Baboon. Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus. ..."
Same old, same old, same old, same old. Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired
old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel. Honest.
Just like Dubya. Just like Obomber. Just like the Orange Baboon. Whilst simultaneously
begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
In order to justify the unjustifiable (a corporate elite exploiting the world as their own
private estate), they constructed an artificial equivalence to make it seem that their
self-interested economic system was part and parcel of a package of 'democracy',
'multi-racial tolerance', 'LGBT tolerance' etc, so that people would be fooled into thinking
that rejecting the economics meant rejecting all the other things too.
George Soros' "Open
Society Foundation'" is a key offender here. The false consciousness thus engendered does
indeed set the scene for fascism, but a genuine left opposition can and needs to be built and
we can only hope that we can succeed in so doing.
"... “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually both. ..."
The neoliberal era is being undermined from two directions. First, if its record of economic
growth has never been particularly strong, it is now dismal. Europe is barely larger than it
was on the eve of the financial crisis in 2007; the United States has done better but even its
growth has been anaemic. Economists such as Larry Summers believe that the prospect for the
future is most likely one of secular stagnation .
Worse, because the recovery has been so weak and fragile, there is a widespread belief that
another financial crisis may well beckon. In other words, the neoliberal era has delivered the
west back into the kind of crisis-ridden world that we last experienced in the 1930s. With this
background, it is hardly surprising that a majority in the west now believe their children will
be worse off than they were. Second, those who have lost out in the neoliberal era are no
longer prepared to acquiesce in their fate – they are increasingly in open revolt. We are
witnessing the end of the neoliberal era. It is not dead, but it is in its early death throes,
just as the social-democratic era was during the 1970s.
A sure sign of the declining influence of neoliberalism is the rising chorus of intellectual
voices raised against it. From the mid-70s through the 80s, the economic debate was
increasingly dominated by monetarists and free marketeers. But since the western financial
crisis, the centre of gravity of the intellectual debate has shifted profoundly. This is most
obvious in the United States, with economists such as Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, Dani
Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs becoming increasingly influential. Thomas Piketty's Capital in the
Twenty-First Century has been a massive seller. His work and that of Tony
Atkinson and Angus Deaton have pushed the question of the inequality to the top of the
political agenda. In the UK, Ha-Joon Chang , for long isolated within
the economics profession, has gained a following far greater than those who think economics is
a branch of mathematics.
Meanwhile, some of those who were previously strong advocates of a neoliberal approach, such
as Larry Summers and the Financial Times 's Martin Wolf, have become extremely critical.
The wind is in the sails of the critics of neoliberalism; the neoliberals and monetarists are
in retreat. In the UK, the media and political worlds are well behind the curve. Few recognise
that we are at the end of an era. Old attitudes and assumptions still predominate, whether on
the BBC's Today programme, in the rightwing press or the parliamentary Labour party.
As Thomas
Piketty has shown, in the absence of countervailing pressures, capitalism naturally gravitates towards increasing
inequality. In the period between 1945 and the late 70s, Cold War competition was arguably the biggest such constraint. Since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, there have been none. As the popular backlash grows increasingly irresistible, however, such a
winner-takes-all regime becomes politically unsustainable.
Large sections of the population in both the US and the UK are now in revolt against their lot, as graphically illustrated by
the support for Trump and Sanders in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK. This popular revolt is often described, in a somewhat
denigratory and dismissive fashion, as populism. Or, as Francis Fukuyama writes in a recent excellent essay
in
Foreign Affairs: “‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by ordinary citizens that
they don’t like.” Populism is a movement against the status quo. It represents the beginnings of something new, though it is
generally much clearer about what it is against than what it is for. It can be progressive or reactionary, but more usually
both.
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and
Francis Fukuyama said it was the end of history.
The Americans had other ideas and set about creating another rival as fast as they
possibly could, China. China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
The Americans have realised they have messed up big time and China will soon take over
the US as the world's largest economy.
Beijing has taken over support for the Washington consensus as they have thirty years
experience telling them how well it works for them.
The Washington consensus is now known as the Beijing consensus.
"... Same old, same old, same old, same old. Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be different. There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel. Honest. ..."
Like the "withdrawal from Syria", a typically fleeting idea?
Breaking a few treaties? Ratcheting up support of the carnage and starvation in Yemen?
The "comparatively great" side of Trump is attention deficiency disorder, so it is hard
for him to start a war, something that requires some degree of organization and coordinating
different branches of governments, different countries etc.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 17:02
Nailed it!
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing: this
was my only hope when refusing to vote for HRC.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
"... "Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization." ..."
"... Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army fell thousands of troops short of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017 Department of Defense poll that found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z. ..."
"... These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right alliance between two influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months, they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. ..."
"... In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill ultimately passed the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be vetoed by President Trump. That such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy." ..."
"... And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives, and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come. ..."
"... In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this." ..."
"... It is little recognized how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC while also taking heavy casualties. ..."
"... We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South. ..."
"... Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. ..."
"... President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions. ..."
Peace activism is rising, but that isn't translating into huge street demonstrations, writes Allegra Harpootlian.
W hen Donald Trump entered the Oval Office in January 2017, Americans took to the streets all across the country to protest their
instantly endangered rights. Conspicuously absent from the newfound civic engagement, despite more than a decade and a half of this
country's fruitless, destructive wars across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa, was antiwar sentiment, much less an actual
movement.
Those like me working against America's seemingly
endless
wars wondered why the subject merited so little discussion, attention, or protest. Was it because the still-spreading war on
terror remained shrouded in government secrecy? Was the lack of media coverage about what America was doing overseas to blame? Or
was it simply that most Americans didn't care about what was happening past the water's edge? If you had asked me two years ago,
I would have chosen "all of the above." Now, I'm not so sure.
After the enormous demonstrations
against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the antiwar movement disappeared almost as suddenly as it began, with some even openly
declaring it dead. Critics
noted the long-term absence of significant protests against those wars, a lack of political will in Congress to deal with them,
and ultimately,
apathy on matters of war and peace when compared to issues like health care, gun control, or recently even
climate
change .
The pessimists have been right to point out that none of the plethora of marches on Washington since Donald Trump was elected
have had even a secondary focus on America's fruitless wars. They're certainly right to question why Congress, with the constitutional
duty to declare war, has until recently allowed both presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump to wage war as they wished without
even consulting them. They're right to feel nervous when a national
poll shows that more Americans think we're fighting a war in Iran (we're not) than a war in Somalia (
we are ).
But here's what I've been wondering recently: What if there's an antiwar movement growing right under our noses and we just haven't
noticed? What if we don't see it, in part, because it doesn't look like any antiwar movement we've even imagined?
If a movement is only a movement when people fill the streets, then maybe the critics are right. It might also be fair to say,
however, that protest marches do not always a movement make. Movements are
defined by their ability to challenge the status
quo and, right now, that's what might be beginning to happen when it comes to America's wars.
What if it's Parkland students
condemning American imperialism or groups fighting the
Muslim Ban that are
also fighting the war on terror? It's veterans not only trying to take on the wars they fought in, but putting themselves on
the front lines of the
gun control
,
climate change , and police brutality debates. It's
Congress
passing the first War Powers Resolution in almost 50 years. It's Democratic presidential candidates
signing a pledge to end America's endless wars.
For the last decade and a half, Americans -- and their elected representatives -- looked at our endless wars and essentially
shrugged. In 2019, however, an antiwar movement seems to be brewing. It just doesn't look like the ones that some remember from
the Vietnam era and others from the pre-invasion-of-Iraq moment. Instead, it's a movement that's being woven into just about every
other issue that Americans are fighting for right now -- which is exactly why it might actually work.
An estimated 100,000 people protested the war in Iraq in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 15, 2007 (Ragesoss, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia
Commons)
A Veteran's Antiwar Movement in the Making?
During the Vietnam War of the 1960s
and early 1970s, protests began with religious groups and peace organizations morally opposed to war. As that conflict intensified,
however, students began to join the movement, then civil rights leaders such as
Martin Luther King, Jr. got involved,
then war veterans who had witnessed the horror firsthand stepped in -- until, with a seemingly constant storm of protest in the
streets, Washington eventually withdrew from Indochina.
You might look at the lack of public outrage now, or perhaps the
exhaustion of having been outraged
and nothing changing, and think an antiwar movement doesn't exist. Certainly, there's nothing like the active one that fought against
America's involvement in Vietnam for so long and so persistently. Yet it's important to notice that, among some of the very same
groups (like veterans, students, and even politicians) that fought against that war, a healthy
skepticism about America's 21st century wars, the Pentagon, the military industrial complex, and even the very idea of American
exceptionalism is finally on the rise -- or so the
polls tell us.
"Arlington West of Santa Monica," a project of Veterans for Peace, puts reminders of the costs of war on the beach in Santa Monica,
California. (Lorie Shaull via Flickr)
Right after the midterms last year, an organization named Foundation for Liberty and American Greatness
reported mournfully that younger Americans were "turning on the country and forgetting its ideals," with nearly half believing
that this country isn't "great" and many eyeing the U.S. flag as "a sign of intolerance and hatred." With millennials and Generation
Z rapidly becoming the
largest voting bloc in America for the next 20 years, their priorities are taking center stage. When it comes to foreign policy
and war, as it happens, they're quite different from the generations that preceded them. According to the
Chicago Council of Global Affairs ,
"Each successor generation is less likely than the previous to prioritize maintaining superior military power worldwide as a
goal of U.S. foreign policy, to see U.S. military superiority as a very effective way of achieving U.S. foreign policy goals, and
to support expanding defense spending. At the same time, support for international cooperation and free trade remains high across
the generations. In fact, younger Americans are more inclined to support cooperative approaches to U.S. foreign policy and more
likely to feel favorably towards trade and globalization."
Although marches are the most public way to protest, another striking but understated way is simply not to engage with the systems
one doesn't agree with. For instance, the vast majority of today's teenagers aren't at all interested in joining the all-volunteer
military. Last year, for the first time since the height of the Iraq war 13 years ago, the Army
fell thousands of troops short
of its recruiting goals. That trend was emphasized in a 2017
Department of Defense poll that
found only 14 percent of respondents ages 16 to 24 said it was likely they'd serve in the military in the coming years. This has
the Army so worried that it has been refocusing its recruitment efforts on
creating an entirely new strategy aimed specifically at Generation Z.
In addition, we're finally seeing what happens when soldiers from America's post-9/11 wars come home infused with a sense of
hopelessness in relation to those conflicts. These days, significant numbers of young veterans have been returning
disillusioned and ready to lobby Congress
against wars they once, however unknowingly, bought into. Look no further than a new left-right
alliance between two
influential veterans groups, VoteVets and Concerned Veterans for America, to stop those forever wars. Their campaign, aimed specifically
at getting Congress to weigh in on issues of war and peace, is emblematic of what may be a diverse potential movement coming together
to oppose America's conflicts. Another veterans group, Common Defense, is similarly asking politicians to sign a
pledge to end those wars. In just a couple of months,
they've gotten on board 10 congressional sponsors, including freshmen heavyweights in the House of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Ilhan Omar.
And this may just be the tip of a growing antiwar iceberg. A misconception about movement-building is that everyone is there
for the same reason, however broadly defined. That's often not the case and sometimes it's possible that you're in a movement and
don't even know it. If, for instance, I asked a room full of climate-change activists whether they also considered themselves part
of an antiwar movement, I can imagine the denials I'd get. And yet, whether they know it or not, sooner or later fighting climate
change will mean taking on the Pentagon's global footprint, too.
Think about it: not only is the U.S. military the world's
largest
institutional consumer of fossil fuels but, according to a
new report from Brown University's Costs of War Project, between 2001 and 2017, it released more than 1.2 billion metric tons
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (400 million of which were related to the war on terror). That's equivalent to the emissions
of 257 million passenger cars, more than double the number currently on the road in the U.S.
A Growing Antiwar Movement in Congress
One way to sense the growth of antiwar sentiment in this country is to look not at the empty streets or even at veterans organizations
or recruitment polls, but at Congress. After all, one
indicator of a successful movement, however
incipient, is its power to influence and change those making the decisions in Washington. Since Donald Trump was elected, the most
visible evidence of growing antiwar sentiment is the way America's congressional policymakers have increasingly become engaged with
issues of war and peace. Politicians, after all, tend to follow the voters and, right now, growing numbers of them seem to be following
rising antiwar sentiment back home into an expanding set of debates about war and peace in the age of Trump.
In campaign season 2016, in an op-ed in The Washington Post , political scientist Elizabeth Saunders wondered whether foreign policy would play a significant role
in the presidential election. "Not likely," she concluded. "Voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy." And at the time,
she was on to something. For instance, Sen. Bernie Sanders, then competing for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary
Clinton, didn't
even prepare stock answers to basic national security questions, choosing instead, if asked at all, to quickly pivot back to
more familiar topics. In a debate with Clinton, for instance, he was asked whether he would keep troops in Afghanistan to deal with
the growing success of the Taliban. In his answer, he skipped Afghanistan entirely, while warning only vaguely against a "quagmire"
in Iraq and Syria.
Heading for 2020, Sanders is once again competing for the nomination, but instead of shying away from foreign policy, starting
in 2017, he became the face of what could be a
new American
way of thinking when it comes to how we see our role in the world.
In February 2018, Sanders also became the first senator to risk
introducing a war powers resolution to end American support for the
brutal Saudi-led war in Yemen. In April 2019, with the sponsorship of other senators added to his, the bill
ultimately passed
the House and the Senate in an extremely rare showing of bipartisanship, only to be
vetoed by President Trump. That
such a bill might pass the House, no less a still-Republican Senate, even if not by a veto-proof majority, would have been unthinkable
in 2016. So much has changed since the last election that support for the Yemen resolution has now become what Tara Golshan at
Vox termed "a litmus test of the Democratic Party's progressive shift on foreign policy."
Nor, strikingly enough, is Sanders the only Democratic presidential candidate now running on what is essentially an antiwar platform.
One of the main aspects of Elizabeth
Warren's foreign policy plan, for instance, is to "seriously review the country's military commitments overseas, and that includes
bringing U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq." Entrepreneur Andrew Yang and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have
joined Sanders and Warren in signing a pledge to end America's forever wars if elected.
Beto O'Rourke has called for the repeal
of Congress's 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that presidents have cited ever since whenever they've sent American forces
into battle. Marianne Williamson , one of the
many (unlikely) Democratic candidates seeking the nomination, has even proposed a plan to transform America's "wartime economy into
a peace-time economy, repurposing the tremendous talents and infrastructure of [America's] military industrial complex to the work
of promoting life instead of death."
And for the first time ever, three veterans of America's post-9/11 wars -- Seth Moulton and Tulsi Gabbard of the House of Representatives,
and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- are running for president, bringing their
skepticism about American interventionism with them. The very inclusion of such viewpoints in the presidential race is bound
to change the conversation, putting a spotlight on America's wars in the months to come.
Get on Board or Get Out of the Way
When trying to create a movement, there are three likely
outcomes : you will
be accepted by the establishment, or rejected for your efforts, or the establishment will be replaced, in part or in whole, by those
who agree with you. That last point is exactly what we've been seeing, at least among Democrats, in the Trump years. While 2020
Democratic candidates for president, some of whom have been in the political arena for decades, are gradually hopping on the end-the-endless-wars
bandwagon, the real antiwar momentum in Washington has begun to come from new members of Congress like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
(AOC) and Ilhan Omar who are unwilling to accept business as usual when it comes to either the Pentagon or the country's forever
wars. In doing so, moreover, they are responding to what their constituents actually want.
As far back as 2014, when a
University of Texas-Austin Energy Poll asked people where the U.S. government should spend their tax dollars, only 7 percent
of respondents under 35 said it should go toward military and defense spending. Instead, in a "pretty significant political shift"
at the time, they overwhelmingly opted for their tax dollars to go toward job creation and education. Such a trend has only become
more apparent as those
calling
for free public college, Medicare-for-all, or a Green New Deal have come to
realize that they could pay for such ideas if America would stop pouring
trillions of dollars into wars that never should have been launched.
The new members of the House of Representatives, in particular, part of the youngest, most diverse crew
to date , have begun to replace the old guard and are increasingly signalling their readiness to throw out policies that don't
work for the American people, especially those reinforcing the American war machine. They understand that by ending the wars and
beginning to scale back the military-industrial complex, this country could once again have the resources it needs to fix so many
other problems.
In May, for instance, Omar tweeted , "We
have to recognize that foreign policy IS domestic policy. We can't invest in health care, climate resilience, or education if we
continue to spend more than half of discretionary spending on endless wars and Pentagon contracts. When I say we need something
equivalent to the Green New Deal for foreign policy, it's this."
A few days before that, at a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing, Ocasio-Cortez
confronted executives from military contractor TransDigm about the way they were price-gouging the American taxpayer by selling
a $32 "non-vehicular clutch disc" to the Department of Defense for $1,443 per disc. "A pair of jeans can cost $32; imagine paying
over $1,000 for that," she said. "Are you aware of how many doses of insulin we could get for that margin? I could've gotten over
1,500 people insulin for the cost of the margin of your price gouging for these vehicular discs alone."
And while such ridiculous waste
isn't news to those of us who follow Pentagon spending closely, this was undoubtedly something many of her millions of supporters
hadn't thought about before. After the hearing,
Teen Vogue
created a list of the "5 most ridiculous things the United States military has spent money on," comedian
Sarah Silverman tweeted out the AOC
hearing clip to her 12.6 million followers, Will and Grace actress
Debra Messing publicly expressed her gratitude
to AOC, and according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool, the
NowThis clip of her in that congressional
hearing garnered more than 20 million impressions.
Ocasio-Cortez calling out costs charged by military contractor TransDigm. (YouTube)
Not only are members of Congress beginning to call attention to such undercovered issues, but perhaps they're even starting to
accomplish something. Just two weeks after that contentious hearing, TransDigm
agreed to return $16.1 million
in excess profits to the Department of Defense. "We saved more money today for the American people than our committee's entire budget
for the year," said House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings.
Of course, antiwar demonstrators have yet to pour into the streets, even though the wars we're already involved in continue to
drag on and a possible new one with Iran looms on the horizon. Still, there seems to be a notable trend in antiwar opinion and activism.
Somewhere just under the surface of American life lurks a genuine, diverse antiwar movement that appears to be coalescing around
a common goal: getting Washington politicians to believe that antiwar policies are supportable, even potentially popular. Call me
an eternal optimist, but someday I can imagine such a movement helping end those disastrous wars.
Allegra Harpootlian is a media associate at
ReThink Media , where she works with leading experts
and organizations at the intersection of national security, politics, and the media. She principally focuses on U.S. drone policies
and related use-of-force issues. She is also a political partner with the
Truman National Security Project . Find her on Twitter
@ally_harp .
"How Obama demobilized the antiwar movement"
By Brad Plumer
August 29, 2013
Washington Post
"Reihan Salam points to a 2011 paper by sociologists Michael T. Heaney and Fabio Rojas, who find that antiwar protests shrunk
very quickly after Obama took office in 2008 -- mainly because Democrats were less likely to show up:
Drawing upon 5,398 surveys of demonstrators at antiwar protests, interviews with movement leaders, and ethnographic observation,
this article argues that the antiwar movement demobilized as Democrats, who had been motivated to participate by anti-Republican
sentiments, withdrew from antiwar protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success, if not policy success in ending
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heaney and Rojas begin by puzzling over a paradox. Obama ran as an antiwar candidate, but his first few years in office were
rather different: "As president, Obama maintained the occupation of Iraq and escalated the war in Afghanistan. The antiwar movement
should have been furious at Obama's 'betrayal' and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead, attendance at antiwar rallies
declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement dissipated.""
Rob , July 4, 2019 at 14:20
The author may be too young to realize that the overwhelming driving force in the anti-Vietnam War movement was hundreds
of thousands of young men who were at risk of being drafted and sent to fight, die and kill in that godforsaken war. As the
movement grew, it gathered in millions of others as well. Absent the military draft today, most of America's youth don't seem
to give half a damn about the current crimes of the U.S. military. As the saying goes: They have no skin in the game.
bardamu , July 3, 2019 at 20:21
There has again been some shift in Sanders' public positions, while Tulsi Gabbard occupies a position that was not represented
in '16, and HR Clinton was more openly bent on war than anyone currently at the table, though perhaps because that much of her
position had become so difficult to deny over the years.
That said, Clinton lost to Obama in '08 because she could not as effectively deny her militarism. There was at the time within
the Democratic Party more and clearer movement against the wars than there is now. One might remember the run for candidacy
of Dennis Kucinich, for example. The 8 years of the Obama regime were a consistent frustration and disappointment to any antiwar
or anticorporate voice within the Democratic Party, but complaints were muted because many would not speak against a Blue or
a Black president. More than at any prior time, corporate media spokespersons could endorse radically pro-corporate positions
and imply or accuse their opposition of racism.
That leaves it unclear, however, what any antiwar voices have to do with the Democratic Party itself, particularly if we
take "the party" to mean the political organization itself as opposed to the people whom it claims to represent. The Party and
the DNC were major engines in the rigging of the 2016 Democratic nomination–and also, lest we forget, contributors to the Donald
Trump nomination campaign.
It should not escape us, as we search for souls and soulfulness among these remnants of Democratic Parties Past, that any
turn of the party against war is surely due to Hillary Clinton's loss to presumed patsy candidate Donald Trump in 2016–the least
and second-least popular major presidential contenders in history, clearly, in whichever order one wishes to put them.
There is some value in realism, then. So as much as one hates to criticize a Bernie Sanders in anything like the present
field that he runs in, his is not a consistently antiwar position: he has gone back and forth. Tulsi Gabbard is the closest
thing to an antiwar candidate within the Party. And under even under the most favorable circumstances, 2020 is at best not her
year.
Most big money says war. scorched earth, steep hierarchy, and small constitution. Any who don't like it had best speak up
and act up.
I am for Tulsi, a Senator from Hawaii not a rep as this article says. Folk Music was in when the peace movement was strong
and building, the same for Folk Rock who songs also had words you could get without Google.
So my way of "hoping" for an Anti-War/Peace Movement is to have a Folk Revival in my mind.
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 14:11
The answer to the question why anti war movement is dead is so simple and obvious but apparently invisible to most Dems/libs/progressives
(excuse my inability to discern the distinctions between labels). The answer points to our onetime "peace" president Obama.
As far as foreign interventions go (and domestic spying, among other things) Obama had continued Baby Bush's policy. Even worse,
Obama had given a bipartisan seal of approval (and legality) to most of Baby Bush's crimes. In other words, for 8 years, meaning
during the "peace" president's reign, the loyal "lefty" sheeple have held their mouth when it came to war and peace.
Obama and the Dems have very effectively killed the ant war movement
The establishment will always be pro-war because there's so much money in it. Street demonstrations will never change that,
as we recently learned with Iraq. The only strategy that has a chance of working is anti-enlistment. If they don't have the
troops they can't invade anywhere, and recruitment is already a problem. It needs to be a bigger problem.
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 11:51
Sorry, ALL of these Democrat wannabes save one is ignorant of foreign affairs, foreign policy and its destruction of what
they blather on about – domestic vote-getting sky pies. Oh yes, free everything: schools, health care, social justices and services.
It's as though the MIC has not stolen the money from the public's pockets to get rich by sending cheap fodder out there to get
killed and wounded, amputated physically and mentally.
Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't stand
the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men, because she drew a bad
one. Huma was better company. Since she didn't know anything beyond the superficial, she did whatever the "experts" whispered
in her ears: War! Obama was in the same boat. The target, via gaining total control of oil from Libya to Syria and Iran was
her Putin hate. So her experts set up the Ukraine. The "experts" are the MIC/CIA and our fearless, brainless, corrupt military.
They have whispered the same psychotic message since the Gulf of Tonkin. We've lost to everyone with whom we've crossed swords
and left them devastated and America diminished save for the few.
So I was a Sanders supporter until he backed the warrior woman and I, like millions of others backed off of her party. It's
still her party. Everyone just loves every victim of every kind. They all spout minor variations on the same themes while Trump
and his neocons quietly install their right wing empire. Except for one who I spotted when she had the independence to go look
for herself in Syria.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate to be the candidate who has a balance of well thought through, realistic foreign policy
as well as the domestic non-extremist one. She has the hurdle of being a too-pretty woman, of being from the remotest state,
and not being a screamer. Even this article, written about peace by a woman fails to talk about her.
Tulsi has the registered voter count and a respectable budget, but the New York Times which is policy-controlled by a few
of Hillary's billionaire friends has consistently shut her out, because Tulsi left the corrupt Hillary-owned DNC to back Sanders
and Hillary never forgave her.
If you want to know who is against Trump and war, take 5 minutes and listen to what she really said during the 1st debate
where the CBS folks gave her little room to talk. It will change your outlook on what really is possible.
Hi Anonymot; I also exited my Sanders support after over 100 cash donations and over a years painful effort. I will never
call him Bernie again; now it is Sanders, since Bernie makes him sound cute and cute was not the word that came into my mind
as Mr. Sanders missed his world moment at the democratic election and backed Hillary Clinton (I can not vote for EVIL). Sanders
then proceeded to give part of my money to the DNC & to EVIL Hillary Clinton.
So then what now? Easy as Pie; NO MORE DEMOCRATS EVER. The DNC & DCCC used Election Fraud & Election Crimes blatantly to
beat Bernie Sanders. Right out in the open. The DNC & DCCC are War Mongering more then the Republicans which is saying allot.
The mass media and major Internet Plateforms like Goggle & Facebook are all owned by Evil Oligarchs that profit from WAR and
blatantly are today suppressing all dissenting opinions (anti Free Speech).
I stopped making cash donation to Tulsi Gabbard upon the realization that the Democrats were not at all a force for Life
or Good and instead were a criminal organization. The voting for the lessor of two EVILs is 100% STUPID.
I told Tim Canova I could not support any Democrat ever again as I told Tulsi Gabbard. Tulsi is still running as a criminal
democrat. If she would run independent of the DNC then I would start to donate cash to her again. End of my story about Tulsi.
I do like her antiwar dialog, but there is no; so called changing, the DNC from the inside. The Oligarchs own the DNC and are
not supportive of "We The People" or the Constitution, or the American Republic.
The end of Tim Canova's effort was he was overtly CHEATED AGAIN by the DNC's Election Fraud & Election Crimes in his 2018
run for congress against Hillary Clinton's 100% corrupt campaign manager; who congress seated even over Tim's asking them not
to seat her until his law suites on her election crimes against him were assessed. Election crimes and rigged voting machines
in Florida are a way of life now and have been for decades and decades.
All elections must be publicly funded. All votes must be on paper ballots and accessible for recounts and that is just the
very minimums needed to start changing the 100% corrupted election system we Americans have been railroaded into.
The supreme Court has recently ruled that gerrymandering is OK. The supreme court has proven to be a political organization
with their Bush Gore decision and now are just political hacks and as such need to be ELECTED not appointed. Their rulings that
Money is Free Speech & that Corporations are People has disenfranchised "We the People". That makes the Supreme Court a tool
to be used by the world money elite to overturn the constitution of the United States of America.
No More War. No More War. No More War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 16:40
Absolutely spot-on, superb comment, P .Brooks.
DW
Nathan Mulcahy , July 3, 2019 at 18:08
I saw the light (with what the Dems are really about) after Kucinich's candidacy. That made me one of the very few lefties
in my circle not to have voted for Obama even the first time around. I hear a lot of talk about trying to reform the party from
inside. Utter bu** sh**. "You cannot reform Mafia".
Ever since Kucinich, I have been voting Green. No, this is not a waste of my vote. Besides, I cannot be complicit to war
crimes – that's what it makes anyone who votes for either of the two parties.
Steven , July 3, 2019 at 13:56
Wow you said a mouthful. It's worse than that its a cottage industry that includes gun running, drug running and human trafficking
netting Trillions to the MIC, CIA and other alphabet agencies you can't fight the mark of the beast.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:01
I fully back/endorse Gabbard, but
The battering of Bernie is not fair. He is NOT a Democrat, therefore him being able to get "inside" that party to run AS
a Dem put him in a tenuous situation. He really had no option other than to support HRC lest his movement, everyone's movement,
would get extra hammering by the neocons and status quo powers. He wouldn't be running, again, had he not done this. Yeah, it's
a bad taste, I get it, but had he disavowed HRC would the outcome -Trump- been any different? The BLAME goes fully on the DNC
and the Clintons. Full stop.
I do not see AOC as a full progressive. She is only doing enough to make it appear so. The Green New Deal is stolen from
the Green Party and is watered down. Think of this as "Obama Care" for the planet. As you should know, Gabbard's Off Fossil
Fuels Act (OFF) actually has real teeth in it: and is closer to the Green Party's positions.
I support movements and positions. PRIMARY is peace. Gabbard, though not a pacifist, has the right path on all of this: I've
been around long enough to understand exactly how she's approaching all of this. She is, however, taking on EVERYONE. As powerful
a person as she is (she has more fortitude than the entire lot of combined POTUS candidates put together) going to require MASSIVE
support; sadly, -to this point- this article doesn't help by implying that people aren't interested in foreign policy (it perpetuates
the blockout of it- people have to be reeducated on its importance- not something that the MIC wants), people aren't yet able
to see the connections. The education will occur will it happen in a timely way such that people would elect Gabbard? (things
can turn on a dime, history has shown this; she has the makeup that suggests that she's going to have a big role in making history).
I did not support Bernie (and so far have not- he's got ample support; if it comes down to it he WILL get my vote- and I've
held off voting for many years because there's been no real "peace" candidate on the plate). Gabbard, however, has my support
now, and likely till the day I die: I've been around long enough to know what constitutes a great leader, and not since the
late 60s have we had anyone like her. If Bernie gets the nomination it is my prediction that he will have Gabbard high on his
staff, if not as VP: a sure fire way to win is to have Gabbard as VP.
I'm going to leave this for folks to contemplate as to whether Gabbard is real or not:
In a context in which Rio de Janeiro's evangelical churches have been accused of laundering money for the drug trafficking
gangs, all elements of Afro-Brazilian culture including caipoeira, Jango drumming, and participation in Carnaval parades, have
been banned by the traffickers in many favelas.
[end excerpt]
"caipoeria," is something that Gabbard has practiced:
"I trained in different martial arts since I was a kid including Capoeira -- an amazing art created by slaves in Brazil who
were training to fight and resist against their slave masters, disguising their training with music, acrobatics, and dance.
Yesterday I joined my friends Mestre Kinha and others at Capoeira Besouro Hawai'i for their batizado ceremony and some fun!
" – Tulsi Gabbard December 9, 2018
The GOAL is to get her into the upper halls of governing power. If the people cannot see fit to it then I'll support Sanders
(in the end) so that he can do it.
Harpootlian claims to see what's going on, but, unfortunately, she's not able to look close enough.
Anonymot, thank you for leading out here with Gabbard and her message.
michael , July 4, 2019 at 08:10
If Gabbard had the MSM coverage Buttigieg has received she probably be leading in the polls. It is surprising(?) that this
supposedly anti-war author mentions corporatist Mayor Pete but not Gabbard.
David , July 4, 2019 at 19:55
She DOES (briefly)mention Gabbard, but she missed the fact that Gabbard is the most strongly anti-war candidate. She gets
it entirely wrong about Buttigieg, who is strikingly pro-war, and supports getting in to a war with Iran.
And sadly, Ms. Gabbard is mired at the 1% mark in the polls, even after having performed so well in the debate.
This seems to me an indication of the public's lack of caring about our foreign wars.
antonio Costa , July 3, 2019 at 19:06
The reason she's "mired" is because a number of polls don't include her!! However they include, Marianne Williamson.
How's that for inverse totalitarianism par excellence .
Skip Scott , July 4, 2019 at 07:05
I did see one poll that had her at 2%. And given the reputation of many polling outfits, I take any professed results with
a grain of salt. Tulsi's press coverage (what little she gets) has been mostly defamatory to the point of being libelous. If
her strong performance continues in the primary debates despite all efforts to sabotage her, I think she could make a strong
showing. That said, at some point she will have to renounce the DNC controlled democratic party and run as an Independent if
she wants to make the General Election debates for 2020.
"Hillary signed the papers and talked the brainless idiocy that set the entire Middle East on fire, because she couldn't
stand the sight of a man with no shirt on and sitting on the Russian equivalent of a Harley. She hates men "
If I were to psychologize, I would conjecture more un-gendered stereotype, namely that of a good student. He/she diligently
learns in all classes from the prescribed textbooks and reading materials, and, alas, American education on foreign affairs
is dominated by retirees from CIA and other armchair warriors. Of course, nothing wrong about good students in general, but
I mean the type that is obedient, devoid of originality and independent thinking. When admonished, he/she remembers the pain
for life and strives hard not to repeat it. E.g. as First Lady, Hillary kissed Arafat's wife to emulate Middle East custom,
and NY tabloids had a feast for months.
Concerning Tulsi, no Hillary-related conspiracy is needed to explain the behavior of the mass media. Tulsi is a heretic to
the establishment, and their idea is to be arbiters of what and who belongs to the "mainstream", and what is radical, marginal
etc. Tulsi richly deserves her treatment. Confronted with taunts like "so you would prefer X to stay in power" (Assad, Maduro
etc.) she replies that it should not be up to USA to decide who stays in power, especially if no better scenario is in sight.
The gall, the cheek!
Strangely enough, Tulsi gets this treatment in places like The Nation and Counterpunch. As the hitherto "radical left" got
a whiff of being admitted to the hallowed mainstream from time to time, they try to be "responsible".
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:39
Yes! Thank You I was gritting my teeth reading this article #Tulsi2020
Eddie , July 3, 2019 at 11:42
The end of the anti-war movement expired when the snake-oil pitchman with the toothy smile and dark skin brought his chains
we could beleive in to the White House. The so-called progressives simply went to sleep while they never criticized Barack Obama
for escalating W. Bush's wars and tax cuts for the rich.
The fake left wing in the US remained silent when Obama dumped trillions of dollars into the vaults of his bankster pals
as he stole the very homes from the people who voted him into office. Then along came the next hope and change miracle worker
Bernie Sanders. Only instead of working miracles for the working class, Sanders showed his true colors when he fcuked his constituents
to support the hated Hillary Clinton.
Let's start facing reality. The two-party dictatorship does not care about you unless you can pony up the big bucks like
their masters in the oligarchy and the soulless corporations do. Unless and until workers end to the criminal stranglehold that
the big-business parties and the money class have on the government, things will continue to slide into the abyss.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:33
An informed awareness of imperialism must also include an analysis of how "technology" is used and abused, from the use of
"superior" weaponry against people who do not have such weapons, from blunderbuss and sailing ships, to B-52s and napalm, up
to and including technology that may be "weaponized" against civilian populations WiTHIN a society, be it 24/7 surveillance
or robotics and AI that could permit elites to dispense with any "need", on the part of the elites, to tolerate the very existence
of a laborung class, or ANY who earn their wealth through actual work, from maids to surgeons, from machine operators to professors.
Any assumption, that any who "work", even lawyers or military officers, can consider their occupation or profession as "safe",
is to assume that the scapegoating will stop with those the highly paid regard as "losers", such comfortable assumption may
very well prove as illusory and ephemeral as an early morning mist before the hot and merciless Sun rises.
The very notions of unfettered greed and limitless power, resulting in total control, must be recognized as the prime drivers
of endless war and shock-doctrine capitalism which, combined, ARE imperialism, unhinged and insane.
michael , July 3, 2019 at 11:06
This article is weak. Anyone who could equate Mayor Pete or the eleven Democrat "ex"-military and CIA analysts who gained
seats in Congress in 2018 as anti-war is clueless. Tulsi Gabbard is anti-regime change war, but is in favor of fighting "terrorists"
(created mostly by our CIA and Israel with Saudi funding). Mike Gravel is the only true totally anti-war 'candidate' and he
supports Gabbard as the only anti-War of the Democrats.
In WWI, 90% of Americans who served were drafted, in WWII over 60% of Americans who served were drafted. The Vietnam War "peace
demonstrations" were more about the Draft, and skin-in-the-game, than about War. Nixon and Kissinger abolished the Draft (which
stopped most anti-war protests), but continued carpet bombing Vietnam and neighboring countries (Operations Menu, Freedom Deal,
Patio, etc), and Vietnamized the War which was already lost, although the killing continued through 1973. The abolition of the
Draft largely gutted the anti-war movement. Sporadic protests against Bush/ Cheney over Afghanistan and Iraq essentially disappeared
under Obama/ Hillary in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Sudan. Since their National Emergency proclamations
no longer ever end, we are in a position to attack Venezuela (Obama), Ukraine (Obama), South Sudan (Obama), Iran (Carter, Clinton),
Libya (Obama), Somalia (Obama), Yemen (Obama), Nicaragua (Trump) and even Burundi (Obama) and the Central African Republic (Obama).
The continuing support of death squads in Honduras and other Latin American countries ("stability is more important than democracy")
has contributed to the immigration crises over the last five years.
As Pelosi noted about Democratic progressives "there are like five of them". Obama not only failed to reverse any of the police
state and warmongering of Bush/Cheney, he expanded both police state (arresting and prosecuting Chelsea Manning for exposing
war crimes, as well as more whistleblowers than anyone in history), and wars in seven Arab Muslim countries. Black Americans,
who had always been an anti-War bloc prior to Obama, converted to the new America. The Congressional Democrats joined with Republicans
to give more to the military budget than requested by Trump. (Clinton squandered the Peace Dividend when the Soviet Union fell,
and Lee Camp has exposed the $21 TRILLION "lost" by the Pentagon.)
The young author see anti-war improvements that are not there. The US is more pro-war in its foreign policies than at any time
in its history. When there was a Draft, the public would not tolerate decades of war (lest their young men died). Sanctions
are now the first attack (usually by National Emergencies!); the 500,000 Iraqi children killed by Clinton's sanctions (Madeline
Albright: "we think it was worth it!") is just sadism and psychopathy at the top, which is necessary for War.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 11:38
Superb comment, michael, very much agreed with and appreciated.
DW
Anonymot , July 3, 2019 at 12:06
You are absolutely right. Obama and Hillary were the brilliant ideas of the MIC/CIA when they realized that NO ONE the Republicans
put up after Bush baby's 2nd round. They chose 2 "victims" black & woman) who would do what they were told to do in order to
promote their causes (blacks & get-filthy rich.) The first loser would get the next round. And that's exactly what happened
until Hillary proved to be so unacceptable that she was rejected. We traded no new war for an administration leading us into
a neo-nazi dictatorship.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:04
Thank you for this comment!
Mickey , July 3, 2019 at 10:47
Tulsi Gabbard is the only peace candidate in the Democratic Party
Many current crises have the potential to escalate into a major confrontation between the nuclear powers, similar to the
Cuban missile crisis, though there is no comparable sense of alarm. Then, tensions were at boiling point, when a small military
exchange could have led to nuclear annihilation. Today there are many more such flashpoint – Syria, the South China Sea, Iran,
Ukraine to name a few. Since the end of the Cold War there has been a gradual movement towards third world war. Condemnation
of an attack on Iran must include, foremost, the warning that it could lead the US into a confrontation with a Sino-Russian
alliance. The warning from history is states go to war over interests, but ultimately – and blindly – end up getting the very
war they need to avoid: even nuclear war, where the current trend is going. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:36
Many truly superb, well-informed, and very enlightening comments on this thread.
My very great appreciation to this site, to its authors, and to its exceptionally thoughtful and articulate commenters.
DW
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 10:20
I appreciate this author's perspective, research, and optimism.
Clearly, the young ARE far more open to embracing a future less warlike and hegemonic, while far too many of my generation
are wedded to childish myth and fantasy around U$ driven mayhem.
However, I would suggest that vision be broadened beyond opposition to war, which opposition, while important, must be expanded
to opposition to the larger issue of imperialism, itself.
Imperialism is not merely war, it includes economic warfare, both sanctions, internationally, and predatory debt loads, domestically,
in very many nations of the world, as well as privatization of the commons (which must be understood to include all resources
necessary to human existence).
Perpetual war, which profits only the few, is driven by precisely the same aims as pitting workers against each other, worldwide,
in a "game" of "race to the bottom", creating "credit" rather than raising wages, thus creating life-long indebtedness of the
many, which only benefits monopolized corporate interests, as does corporate ownership of such necessities as water, food production,
and most channels of communication, which permits corporations to easily shape public perception toward whatever ends suit corporate
purposes while also ensuring that deeper awareness of what is actually occurring is effectively stifled, deplatformed, or smeared
as dangerous foreign fake news or as hidden, or even as blatant, racial or religious hatred.
Above all, it is critically important that all these interrelated aspects of deliberate domination, control, and diminishment,
ARE talked about, openly, that we all may have better grasp of who really aligns with creating serious systemic change, especially
as traditionally assumed "tendencies" are shifting, quickly and even profoundly.
For example, as many here point out, the Democrats are now as much a war party as the Republicans, "traditionally" have been,
even as there is clear evidence that the Republican "base" is becoming less willing to go to war than are the Democratic "base",
as CNN and MSNBC media outlets strive to incite a new Cold War and champion and applaud aggression in Syria, Iran, and North
Korea.
It is the elite Democratic "leadership" and most Democratic Presidential hopefuls who now preach or excuse war and aggression,
with few actual exceptions, and none of them, including Tulsi Gabbard, have come anywhere near openly discussing or embracing,
the end of U$ imperialism.
Both neoliberal and neocon philosophies are absolutely dedicated to imperialism in all its destructive, even terminal, manifestations.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:16
Exactly!
Gabbard has spoken out against sanctions. She understands that they're just another form of war.
The younger generations won't be able to financially support imperialist activities. And, they won't be, as the statements
to their enlistment numbers suggest, able to "man the guns." I'm thinking that TPTB are aware of this (which is why a lot of
drone and other automation of war machinery has been stepped up).
The recent alliance of Soros and Charles Koch, the Quincy Institute, is, I believe, a KEY turning point. Pretty much everything
Gabbard is saying/calling for is this institute's mission statement: and people ought to note that Gabbard has been in Charles
Koch's circle- might very well be that Gabbard has already influenced things in a positive way.
I also believe that all the great independent journalists, publishers (Assange taking the title here) and whistleblowers
(Manning taking the title here) have made a HUGE impact. Bless them all.
The US government consistently uses psychological operations on its own citizens to manufacture consent to kill anyone and
everyone. Meaningless propaganda phrases such as "Support Our Troops" and "National Security" and "War on Terror" are thrown
around to justify genocides and sieges and distract us from murder. There is no left wing or in American politics and there
has not been one since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. All we have is neoconservatives and neoliberals representing the business
party for four decades. Killing is our business and business is good. Men are as monkeys with guns when it comes to politics
and religion.
One might be hard-pressed to find more outright perversions of reality in a mere two pages of text. Congratulations Congress,
you have indeed surpassed yourself.
So it's those dastardly Russians and Iranians who are responsible for the destabilization of the Middle East, "complicating
Israel's ability to defend itself from hostile action emanating from Syria." And apparently, it's the "ungoverned space" in
Syria that has "allowed" for the rise of terrorist factions in Syria, that (we must be reminded) are ever poised to attack "Western
targets, our allies and partners, and the U.S. homeland."
Good grief.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 08:29
Thank you Joe Lauria and Consortiumnews.
There is much wisdom and a good deal of personal experience being expressed on these pages. I especially want to thank IvyMike
and Dao Gen. Ivy Mike you're so right about our troops in Vietnam from 1965 to 1968, draftees and volunteers, they fought what
was clearly an internal civil war fought valiantly, beyond that point, Vietnam was a political mess for all involved. And Dao
Gen all of your points are accurate.
As for our legislators, please read the linked Foreign Affairs press release signed by over 400 leglislators On May 20th.,
2019 that address "threats to Syria" including the Russia threat. Clearly it will take action by the People and Peace candidates
to end this travesty of a foreign policy.
Vietnam a war triggered by the prevention of a mandated election by the USA which Ho Chi Minh was likely to win, who had
already recently been Premier of a unified Vietnam.
Sorry, being courageous in a vicious cause is not honorable.
Speaking a true history and responsibility is honorable.
Bob Van Noy , July 3, 2019 at 11:07
No need to be sorry James Clooney. I did not mention honor in my comment, I mentioned valiant (courage and determination).
American troupes ultimately fight honorably for each other not necessarily for country. This was the message and evaluation
of Captain Hal Moore To General Westmorland And Robert McNamera after the initial engagement of US troops and NVA and can be
viewed as a special feature of the largely inaccurate DVD "We Were Soldiers And Young).
The veterans group About Face is doing remarkable work against the imperial militarization that threatens to consume our
country and possibly the world. This threat includes militarization of US police, a growing nuclear arms race, and so-called
humanitarian wars. About Face is also working to train ordinary people as medics to take these skills into their communities
whose members are on the front lines of police brutality.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only candidate with a strong, enlightened understanding of the costs of our many imperial wars Costs to
ourselves in the US and costs to the people we invade in order to "save" them. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I would vote for
Tuldi's Gabbard in 2020 if given the chance.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:35
Vote for her now by supporting her*! One cannot wait until the DNC (or other party) picks the candidate FOR us. Anyone serious
about peace ought to support her, and do it now and far into the future. I have always supported candidates who are champions
for peace, no matter their "party" or whatever: I did not, though I wish that I had, support Walter Jones -of Freedom Fries
fame- after he did a 180 (Gabbard knew Jones, and respected him); it took a lot of guts for him to do this, but his honest (like
Ron Paul proved) was proven and his voters accepted him (and likely shifted their views along with him).
* Yeah, one has to register giving money, but for a lousy $1 She has yet to qualify for the third debate (need 130k unique
donations): and yet Yang has! (nothing against him, but come on, he is not "Commander in Chief" material [and at this time it
is, as Gabbard repeats, the single most important part of being president]).
Mary Jones-Giampalo , July 4, 2019 at 00:43
Strongly agree Only Tulsi
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:14
Not surprising there was little or no antiwar sentiment in the newfound civic engagement after Trump's election, since the
majority of those participating were supporters of the war criminals Obama, Clinton, and their corporate, war mongering DEM
party. Those same people today, support Obama-chaperone Biden, or one of the other vetted corporate DEMs, including socialist-in-name-only
Sanders, who signed the DEM loyalty oath promising to continue austerity for the poor, socialism for rich, deregulation, militarism,
and global war hegemony. The only party with an antiwar blank was the Green Party, which captured >2% of the ~130 million votes
in the rigged election- even though Stein is as competent as Clinton, certainly more competent than Trump, and the Green platform,
unlike Sanders', explained how to pay for social and environmental programs by ending illegal wars in at least 7 countries,
closing 1000 military command posts located all over earth, removing air craft carrier task forces from every ocean, cutting
defense spending.
I believe the CIA operation "CARWASH" was under Obama, which gave us Ultra fascism in one of the largest economies in the
world, Brazil.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:02
Superb comment, trieke, and I especially appreciate your mention of Jill Stein and the Green Party.
It is unfortunate that the the Green New Deal, championed by AOC is such a pale and intentionally pusillanimous copy of the
Green New Deal articulated by Stein, which pointedly made clear that blind and blythe economic expansion must cease, that realistic
natural constraints and carrying capacity be accepted and profligate energy squandering come to an end.
That a sane, humane, and sustainable economic system, wholly compatible with ecological responsibility can provide neaningful
endeavor, justly compensated, for all, as was coherently addressed and explained to any who cared to examine the substance of
that, actual, and realistic, original, GND.
Such a vision must be part of successfully challenging, and ending, U$ imperialism.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 14:53
And Trump likely signed a GOP pledge. It's all superficial crap, nothing that is really written in stone.
I LOVE Stein. But for the sake of the planet we have little time to wait on getting the Green Party up to speed (to the clasp
the levers of power). Unless Gabbard comes out on top (well, the ultimate, and my favorite, long-shot would be Gravel, but reality
is something that I have to accept) it can only really be Sanders. I see a Sanders nomination as being the next best thing (and,
really, the last hope as it all falls WAY off the cliff after that). He would most certainly have Gabbard along (if not as VP,
which is the best strategy for winning, then as some other high-ranking, and meaningful cabinet member). Also, there are a lot
of folks that would be coming in on his coattails. It is THESE people that will make the most difference: although he's got
his flaws, Ro Kana would be a good top official. And, there are all the supporters who would help push. Sanders is WAY better
than HRC (Obama and, of course, Trump). He isn't my favorite, but he has enough lean in him to allow others to help him push
the door open: I'll accept him if that's what it take to get Gabbard into all of this.
Sometimes you DO have to infiltrate. Sanders is an infiltrator (not a Dem), though he treads lightly. Gabbard has already
proven her intentions: directly confronted the DNC and the HRC machine (and her direct attack on the MIC is made very clear);
and, she is indirectly endorsed by some of the best people out there who have run for POTUS: Jill Stein; Ron Paul; Mike Gravel.
We cannot wait for the Dems (and the MIC) to disarm. We need to get inside "the building" and disarm. IF Sanders or Gabbard
(and no Gravel) don't get the nomination THEN it is time to open up direct "warfare" and attack from the "outside" (at this
time there should be enough big defectors to start swinging the tide).
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:34
Yes trieke, I voted for Stein in 2016, and I plan on voting Green Party again in 2020. I see too many fellow progressives/liberals/leftists
(whatever the hell we want to call ourselves) agonizing about which compromised Democrat to vote-for, trying to weigh their
different liabilities, etc. I've come to believe that my duty as a voter is to vote for the POTUS candidate/party whose stances/platform
are closest to my views, and that's unequivocally the Green Party. My duty as a voter does NOT entail 'voting for a winner',
that's just part of the two-party-con that the Dems & Reps run.
jmg , July 3, 2019 at 07:06
The big difference is that, during the Vietnam years, people could *see* the war. People talked a lot about "photographs
that ended the Vietnam war", such as the napalm girl, etc.
The government noticed this. There were enormous pressures on the press, even a ban on returning coffin photos. Now, since
the two Iraq wars, people *don't see* the reality of war. The TV and press don't show Afghanistan, don't show Yemen, didn't
show the real Iraq excepting for Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who are in prison because of this.
And the wars go on:
"The US government and military are preventing the public from seeing photographs that depict the true horror of the Iraq
war."
For example, we all know that mainstream media is war propaganda now, itself at war on truth and, apart from some convenient
false flags to justify attacks, they very rarely let the very people suffering wars be heard to wake viewers up, and don't often
even show this uncensored reality of war anymore, not like the true images of this old, powerful video:
Happy Xmas (War Is Over! If You Want It)
So this is Xmas
And what have you done
-- John Lennon
mbob -- thank you -- has already put this very well, but it is above all the Dems, especially Obama and the Clintons, who
killed the antiwar movement. Obama was a fake, and his foreign policy became even more hawkish after Hillary resigned as SoS.
His reduction of Libya, the richest state in Africa, to a feudal chaotic zone in which slavery is once more prominent and his
attempt to demonize Syria, which has more semi-democracy and women's rights than any of the Islamic kingdoms the US supports
as its allies, and turn Syria into a jihadi terrorist hell, as well as Obama's bombing of other nations and his sanctions on
still other nations such as Venezuela, injured and killed at least as many people as did GW Bush's invasion of Iraq. Yet where
was the antiwar movement? In the 21st century the US antiwar movement has gained most of its strength from anti-Repub hatred.
The current uptick of antiwar feeling is probably due mostly to hatred of Trump. Yet Trump is the first president since Carter
not to invade or make a major attack on a foreign country. As a businessman, his policy is to use economic warfare instead of
military warfare.
I am not a Trump supporter, and strong sanctions are a war crime, and Trump is also slow to reduce some of Obama's overseas
bombing and other campaigns, yet ironically he is surely closer to being a "peace president" than Obama. Moreover, a major reason
Trump won in 2016 was that Hillary was regarded as the war and foreign intervention candidate, and in fact if Hillary had won,
she probably would have invaded Syria to set up her infamous "no-fly zone" there, and she might have bombed Iran by now. We
might even be in a war with Russia now. At the same time, under Trump the Dem leadership and the Dem-leaning MSM have pursued
an unabashedly neocon policy of attacking from the right Trumps attempts at detente with Russia and scorning his attempts to
negotiate a treaty with N Korea and to withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan. The main reason why Trump chose dangerous neocons
like Bolton and Pompeo as advisors was probably to shield himself a little from the incessant and sometimes xenophobic attacks
from the Dem leadership and the MSM. The Dem leadership seems motivated not only by hatred of Trump but also, and probably more
importantly, by a desire to get donations from the military-industrial complex and a desire to ingratiate itself with the Intel
Community and the surveillance state in order to get various favors. Look, for example, at Adam Schiff, cheerleader-in-chief
for the IC. The system of massive collusion between the Dem party elite and the US deep state was not as advanced during the
Vietnam War era as it is now. 2003 changed a lot of things.
The only Dem presidential candidates who are philosophically and securely antiwar are Gabbard and Gravel. Even Bernie (and
even more so, Warren) can't be trusted to stand up to the deep state if elected, and anyway, Bernie's support for the Russiagate
hoax by itself disqualifies him as an antiwar politician, while the Yemen bill he sponsored had a fatal loophole in it, as Bernie
well knew. I love Bernie, but he is neither antiwar nor anti-empire. As for Seth Moulton, mentioned in the article, he is my
Rep, and he makes some mild criticisms of the military, but he is a rabid hawk on Syria and Iran, and he recently voted for
a Repub amendment that would have punished Americans who donate to BDS organizations. And as for the younger generation of Dems,
they are not as antiwar as the article suggests. For every AOC among the newly elected Dems in 2018, there were almost two new
Dems who are military vets or who formerly worked for intel agencies. This does not bode well. As long at the deep state, the
Dem elite, and the MSM are tightly intertwined, there will be no major peace movement in the near future, even if a Dem becomes
president. In fact, a Dem president might hinder the formation of a true antiwar movement. Perhaps when China becomes more powerful
in ten or twenty years, the unipolar US empire and permanent war state will no longer look like a very good idea to a large
number of Americans, and the idea of a peace movement will once again become realistic. The media have a major role to play
in spreading truthful news about how the current US empire is hurting domestic living standards. Rather than hopey-hope wish
lists, no-holds-barred reporting will surely play a big role.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:05
Absolutely superb comment, Dao Gen.
DW
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:07
Another fine example of why I think there is hope! (some very sharp commentators!)
A strong leader can make all the difference. The example gets set from the top: not that this is my preference, just that
it's the reality we have today. MLK Jr. was such a leader, though it was MANY great people that were in his movement/orbit that
were the primary architects. I suppose you could say it's a "rally around the flag" kind of deal. Just as Trump stunned the
System, I believe that it can be stunned from the "left" (the ultimate stunning would be from a Gravel win, but I'm thinking
that Gabbard would be the one that has what it takes to slip past).
I really wish that people would start asking candidates who they think have been good cabinet members for various positions.
This could help give an idea of the most important facet of an administration: who the POTUS selects as key cabinet members
tells pretty much everything you need to know. Sadly, Trump had a shot at selecting Gabbard and passed on her: as much as I
detest Trump, I gave him room in which to work away from the noecon/neolib death squads (to his credit he's mostly just stalemated
them- for a rookie politician you could say that this has been an impressive feat; he's tried to instigate new wars but has,
so far, "failed" [by design?]).
geeyp , July 3, 2019 at 01:19
"We saved more money today for the American people ." – Elijah Cummings. Yea? Well then, give it to us!! You owe us a return
of our money that you have wasted for years.
mark , July 3, 2019 at 00:17
Same old, same old, same old, same old.
Prospective candidates spewing out the same tired old hot air about how, this time, it really, really, really, really will be
different.
There won't be any more crazy multitrillion wars for Israel.
Honest.
Just like Dubya.
Just like Obomber.
Just like the Orange Baboon.
Whilst simultaneously begging for shekels from Adelson, Saban, Singer, Marcus.
And this is the "new anti war movement."
Yeah.
Tom Kath , July 3, 2019 at 00:04
Every extreme elicits an extreme response. Our current western pacifist obsession is no exception. By prohibiting argument,
disagreement, verbal conflict, and the occasional playground "dust up" on a personal level, you seem to make the seemingly less
personal war inevitable.
Life on earth is simply not possible without "a bit of biff".
An aware person may not react extremely to a extreme. USA slaughtered 5 to 10 million Vietnamese for no apparent reason other
than projection of power yet the Vietnamese trade with the USA today.
Who prohibits argument? Certainly not those with little power; it's the militarily and politically powerful that crush dissent,
(Tinamen Square , Occupy Wall Street). How much dissent does the military allow? Why is Assange being persecuted?
I believe even the most militant pacifist would welcome a lively debate on murder, death and genocide, as a channel for education
and edification.
Antonio Costa , July 2, 2019 at 20:53
Weak essay. AOC hops from cause to cause. She rarely/ever says anything about US regime change wars, and the bombing of children.
She's demonstrated no anti-war bona fides.
Only Tulsi Gabbard has forthright called for an end to regime change wars, the warmongers and reduction in our military.
The power is with the powerful. We'll not see an end to war, nor Medicare for All or much of anything regarding student debt.
These are deep systemic problems calling for systemic solutions beginning with how we live on the planet(GND is a red herring),
the GDP must become null and void if we are to behave as if plundering the planet is part of "progress". It needs to be replaced
to some that focuses on quality of life as the key to prosperity. The geopolitics of the world have to simply STOP IT. It's
not about coalitions between Russia and China and India to off-set the US imperialists. That's an old game for an empty planet.
The planet is full and exceeding it capacity and is on fire. Our geopolitics must end!
Not one of these candidates come close to focusing on the systemic problem(s) except Gabbard's focus on war because it attacks
the heart of the American Imperial Empire.
Maxime , July 3, 2019 at 09:24
I agree with you that you americans will probably not see the end of your system and the end of your problems any time soon.
BUT I disagree on that you seems to think it's inevitable. I'm not american, I'm french, and reading you saying you think
medicare for all, no student debt and end to endless wars are systemic problems linked to GDP and the current economic system
is well, amusing. We have medicare for all, in fact even better than your medicare, we have no student cost for our educating
system, and still in both cases often better results than yours, even if we are behind some of our northern neighbors, but they
don't pay for these either. And we don't wage endless wars, even if we have ourselves our own big war problems, after all we
were in Lybia, we are in Syria, we are in Mali and other parts of Africa.
We also have a big militaro-industrial complex, in fact very alike the american one. But we made clear since much longer
than we would not accept as much wars, in part because the lesson we got from WW2 and Cold War was to learn to live together
with our hated neighbor. You know, the one the other side of the Rhine. Today France is a diplomatic superpower, often the head
of the european spear onthe subject, we got feared elite military, and we are proud of that, but we would not even accept more
money (in proportion) given to our military complex.
And you know the best news (for the americans)? we have an history of warmongering going back millenias. We learn to love
Caesar and the "Guerre des Gaules", his invasion of Gauls. We learn how Franks invaded their neighbors and built the first post-roman
Empire. We learn how crusaders were called Franks, how we built our nation and his pride on ashes of european continental english
hopes and german holy empire aspirations. We learn how Napolean nearly achieved to built a new continental Empire, how we never
let them passed at Verdun, and how we rose in the face of a tyran in 1944.
All of this is still in our history books, and we're still proud of it. But today, if most of us were to be asked what we
were proud about recent wars France got into, it would be how our president vetoed USA when they tried to got UN into Irak and
forced them to invade illegally, and without us.
I think my country's revelation was Algeria's independance war. One bloody and largely filled with war crimes and crimes against
humanity. We're ashamed of it, and I think we, as a nation, learned from it that stopping wars on our soil wasn't enough. I
still don't understand how americans can still wage wars after Vietnam, but I am not american. Still, even the most warmongering
nation can learn. Let's hope you will be quicker than us, because we got millennias of bloody history before even the birth
of USA.
Eddie S , July 3, 2019 at 23:15
Thanks Maxime for a foreign perspective! I'm often curious what people in foreign countries think of our current politics
in the US,especially when I read analysis/commentaries by US writers (even ones I respect) who say "Oh most of our allies think
this or that" -- - maybe they're right or maybe they're wrong or somewhere in-between, but it's interesting getting a DIRECT
opinion from a fellow left-of-center citizen from a foreign state.
I agree with your points that European countries like France almost all have their own bloody history including an imperial
period, but the two big World Wars that killed SO many people and destroyed so many cities in Europe were so tragic and wasteful
that I suspect they DO continue to act as a significant deterrent to the saber-rattling that the US war mongers are able to
engage-in. For too many US citizens 'war' is just something that's mentioned & sometimes displayed on a screen, just like a
movie/TV program/video-game, and there's a non-reality to it because it's so far away and seldom directly affects them. Geography
has famously isolated us from the major death & destruction of war and enables too many armchair warriors to talk boldly and
vote for politicians who pander to those conceits. In a not-so-subtle way, the US IS the younger offspring of Europe, where
Europe has grown-up due to some hard lessons, while the US is going through its own destructive stage of 'lesson-learning'.
Hopefully this learning stage will be over soon and won't involve a world war.
DW Bartoo , July 3, 2019 at 12:48
Tulsi Gabbard is, indeed,pointing at part of a major organ of imperialism, Antonio Costa, yet habeas corpus, having the whole
body of imperialism produced is necessary for the considered judgement of a people long terrorized by fictitious "monsters"
and "demons", if they are to understand that shooting warfate is but one part of the heart, while the other is economic warfare.
Both brutally destructive, even if the second is hidden from public awareness or dismissed as "a price worth paying". Imperialism
pays no price (except "blow-back", which is merely "religious extremism" as explained by a fully complicit MSM).
And the "brain" behind it all?
That is corporate/military/political/deep state/media greed – and their desperate need/ambition for total, and absolute,
control.
Only seeing the whole body may reveal the true size of the threat and the vicious nature of the real danger.
Some may argue that it is "too soon", "too early", or "too costly", politically, for Gabbard, even if she, herself, might
see imperialism as the real monster and demon, to dare describe the whole beast.
Frankly, this time, Tulsi's candidacy, her "run" for President, is not likely to see her become the Dem nominee, most likely
that will be Kamala Harris (who will happily do the bidding of brute power), rather, it is to lay the firm and solid foundation
of actual difference, of rational perspective, and thoughtful, diplomatic international behavior.
To expose the whole, especially the role of the MSM, in furthering all the rest of the lumbering body of Zombie imperialism,
would be far more effective in creating an substantial "opening" for alternative possibilities, even a new political party,
next time.
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:31
I'm figuring that Warren and Harris will take one another out. Climbing to the top requires this. But, Gabbard doesn't stop
fighting, and if there's a fighter out there it is her: mentally and physically she is the total package.
Sanders' 2016 campaign was ignored, he wasn't supposed to go anywhere, but if not for the DNC's meddling he would be POTUS
right now (I have zero doubt over that). So too was Obama's climb from nowhere: of course, Obama was pushed up by the System,
the System that is NOT behind Gabbard. And then there's the clown at the helm (Trump). I refuse to ignore this history.
Gababard is by no means out. Let's not speak of such things, especially when her campaign, and message, is just starting
to burst out: the MSM is the last to admit the state of things unfavorable to the wealthy, but out on the Internet Gabbard is
very much alive. She is the best candidate (with the best platform of visibility) for peace. She has all the pieces. One comment
I read out on the internet (someone, I believe, not in the US) was that Gabbard was a gift to the Americans. Yes, I believe
this to be the case: if you really look closely you'll see exactly how this is correct. I believe that we cannot afford to treat
this gift with other than the utmost appreciation. Her sincerity when she says that she was/is willing to die for her fellow
soldiers (in reference to LBGT folks, though ALL apply) is total. She is totally committed to this battle: as a warrior in politics
she's proven herself with her support, the loyalty, for Sanders (at risk to her political career- and now look, she's running
for POTUS, she continues to come out on top!).
IvyMike , July 2, 2019 at 20:14
I burned my draft card, grew my hair out, and smoked pot and was anti war as heck. But the peace demonstrations (and riots)
in the 60's and 70's did not have much effect on how the U.S. Government prosecuted the Vietnam War. It is little recognized
how hard American troops fought from 1965 to 1968. Our air mobile troops in particular made a great slaughter of NVA and VC
while also taking heavy casualties.
We were having such success that no one in the military thought the enemy could keep up the fight. Then, the Tet offensive
with the beaten enemy attacking every city in the South.
Then the politicians and Generals knew, given the super power politics surrounding the war, that we had lost. We had failed
to recognize that we had not intervened in a Civil War, in truth Vietnam as a whole was fighting for freedom from Imperialism
and we had no friends in the South, just a corrupt puppet government. Instead of getting out, Nixon made the unforgivable choice
to slowly wind the war down until he could get out without losing, Peace With Honor the ultimate triumph of ego over humanity.
Americans had a chance to choose a peace candidate in 1972, instead Nixon won with a big majority.
The military has never been able to admit they were defeated on the battlefield by North Vietnam, blaming it instead on the
Liberal Media and the Anti War movement. Believing that lie they continue to fight unwinnable wars in which we have no national
interest at stake. The media and the people no longer fight against war, but it never really made a difference when we did.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 05:17
I too hoped for a miracle and voted for George. But then I always voted for the loser in whatever state I happened to be
living in at the particular time. I think Carter was a rare winning pick by me but only once. I got disgusted with voting and
sat out the Clinton campaigns, only returning to vote against the Bush juggernaut. In retrospect, Perot should have won to make
a real difference. I sided with the winner in Obama, but the loser turned out to be America getting saddled with that two-faced
hypocrite. Nobel Peace Prize winner indeed! (What did he spend the money on?) When you listen to their campaign promises be
aware they are telegraphing how they plan to betray you.
triekc , July 3, 2019 at 07:45
American people in mass need to hit reset button. A yellow vest-like movement made up of tens of millions of woke people,
who understand the democrats and republicans are the left and right wing of the oligarch party,
US elections have been and continue to be rigged, and the US constitution was written to protect the property (such
as slaves) of oligarchs from the people, the founding oligarchs feared real democracy, evident by all the safeguards they built
into our government to protect against it, that remain in tact today.
We need a new 21st century constitution. Global capitalism needs to be greatly curtailed, or ended out right, replaced by
ecosocialism, conservation, restoration of earth focussed society
Seer , July 3, 2019 at 15:38
And just think that back then there was also Mike Gravel. The CIA did their work in the 60s to kill the anti-war movement:
killing all the great social leaders.
Why wars are "lost" is because hardly is there a time when there's an actual "mission statement" on what the end of a given
war will look like. Tulsi Gabbard has made it clear that she would NOT engage in any wars unless there was a clear objective,
a clear outcome lined out, and, of course, it was authorized by THE PEOPLE (Congress).
All wars are about resources. We cannot, however, admit this: the ruling capitalists won't allow that to be known/understood
lest they lose their power.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 04:59
Ya got all that right, especially the part about the analysts essentially declaring the war lost after Tet. I remember that
offered a lot of hope on the campuses that the war would soon end (even though we lost), especially to those of us near graduation
and facing loss of that precious 2S deferment. Yet the big fool marched on, getting my generation needlessly slaughtered for
four or five more years.
And, yes, the 2 or 3 million dead Vietnamese did matter, to those with a conscience. Such a price to keep Vietnam out of
Russia's and China's orbit. Meanwhile they set an independent course after kicking us out of their land and even fought a war
with China. We should still be paying reparations for the levels of death and destruction we brought to a country half a world
away with absolutely no means or desire to threaten the United States. All our wars of choice, starting with Korea, have been
similar crimes against humanity. Turkey shoots against third world societies with no way to do us any harm. But every one of
them fought ferociously to the death to defend their land and their people. Inevitably, every occupier is sent packing as their
empire crumbles. Obviously, Americans have been too thick to learn this from mere history books. We will only learn from our
tragic mistakes. I see a lot of lessons on the upcoming schedule.
USA did not "intervene" in a civil war. USA paid France to continue it's imperial war and then took over when France fled
defeated. USA prevented a mandated election Ho Chi Minh would win and then continued western imperial warfare against the Vietnamese
( even though Vietnamese was/is bulwark against China's territorial expansion).
mauisurfer , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
The Watson study says: "Indeed, the DOD is the world's largest institutional user of petroleum and correspondingly,
the single largest producer of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the world.4"
This is a gross UNDERcount of emissions. It includes ONLY petroleum burned.
It does NOT count explosions from bombs, missiles, rockets, rifles, etc.
Perhaps someone could provide an estimate of this contribution to greenhouse gases???
Don't worry, Elizabeth Warren has a plan to operate the military on renewables! (she can continue to make sure her constituency,
which is Raytheon, is well served)
Raytheon, one of the biggest employers in Warren's state, where it's headquartered, "has a positive relationship with Sen.
Warren, and we interact with her and her staff regularly," Michael Doble, a spokesman for the company, said.
jo6pac , July 2, 2019 at 20:12
This awful news for the merchants of death and I'm sure they're working overtime to stop silliness;-). I do hope this isn't
killed by those that love the endless wars.
Thanks AH
mbob , July 2, 2019 at 20:10
Perhaps there is no open anti-war movement because the Democratic party is now pro-war. Rather than support President
Trump's efforts to end the Korean War, to reduce our involvement in the Middle East and to pursue a more peaceful path with
Russia, the Democratic party (with very, very few exceptions) is opposed to all these things.
The Democratic party places its hatred for Trump above its professed love of peace.
President Obama, the Nobel peace prize winner, started a war with Libya, which had neither attacked nor threatened the
US and which, by many accounts, was trying to improve relations with the US. GW Bush unnecessarily attacked Iraq and Clinton
destroyed Haiti and bombed Yugoslavia, among other actions.
From a peace perspective, Trump looks comparatively great (provided he doesn't attack Iraq or invade Venezuela). But, since
it's impossible to recognize Trump for anything positive, or to support him in any way, it's now impossible for Democrats to
promote peace. Doing so might help Trump. It would, of necessity, require acknowledging Trump's uniqueness among recent US Presidents
in not starting new wars.
Realist , July 3, 2019 at 03:28
I agree. mbob makes perfect sense in his analysis.
The Democrats must be brought back to reality with a sound repudiation by the voters, otherwise they are of no use to America
and will have no long-term future.
Obama escalated Afghanistan when he had a popular mandate to withdraw. He facilitated the the Syrian rebellion in conjunction
with ISIS funding Saudi Arabia and Qatar. He instigated the Zalaya (primarily Hillary) and the Ukraine rebellion.
Trump supports the Yemeni genocide.
But yes citizens have been directed to hate Trump the man/symptom rather than the enduring Imperial predatory capitalistic
system.
Opps sorry; so many interventions and invasions, under Obama, special forces trained Malian general overthrew the democratically
elected president of Mali, result, more war,death and destruction.
Robert , July 3, 2019 at 10:48
You are correct in your analysis. Allegra Harpootlian is searching for the peace lobby among Democrat supporters, where it
no longer resides.
As a result of corporate-controlled mainstream media and their support for Democrat elites, Democrat supporters have largely
been brainwashed into hatred for Donald Trump and everything he stands for. This hatred blinds them to the far more important
issue of peace.
Strangely, there is huge US support to remove troops from the ME, but this support resides with the overwhelming majority
of Donald Trump voters. Unfortunately, these are not individuals who typically go to peace demonstrations, but they are sincere
in bringing all US troops home from the ME. Donald Trump himself lobbied on this, and with the exceptions of his anti-Iranian
/ pro-Israel / pro-Saudi Arabia stance and withdrawal from JCPOA, he has not only backed down from military adventurism, but
is the first President since Eisenhower to raise the issue of the influence of the military-industrial complex.
In the face of strong opposition, he is the first President ever to enter North Korea and meet with Kim Jong Un to discuss
nuclear weapons. Mainstream media continues its war-mongering rhetoric, attacking Trump for his "weakness" in not retaliating
against Iran, or in meeting "secretly" with Putin.
Opposition to Trump's peace efforts are not limited to MSM, however, but are entrenched in Democrat and Republican elites,
who attack any orders he gives to withdraw from the ME. It was not Trump, but Democrat and Republican elites who invited NATO's
Stoltenberg to speak to Congress in an attempt to spite Trump.
In essence, you have President Trump and most of his supporters trying to withdraw from military engagements, with
active opposition from Democrats like Adam Schiff, and Republican elites, actively promoting war and military spending.
DJT is like a less-likeable Inspector Clouseau. Sometimes ineptitude is a blessing. You also have a few Republicans, like
journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, and Democrats, like Tulsi Gabbard, actively pushing the message of peace.
Erelis , July 3, 2019 at 20:45
I think you got it. The author is right in the sense that there is an anti-war movement, but that movement is in many ways
hidden. As bizarre as it may seen counter to CW wisdom, and in some way ironically crazy, one of the biggest segments of anti-war
sentiment are Trump supporters. After Trump's decision not to attack Iran, I went to various right wing commentators who attacked
Trump, and the reaction against these major right wing war mongers was to support Trump. And with right wing commentators who
supported Trump, absolute agreement. These is of course based on my objective reading reading and totally subjective. But I
believe I am right.
This made me realize there is an untapped anti-war sentiment on the right which is being totally missed. And a lack of imagination
and Trump derangment syndrome which blocks many on the anti-war Left to see it and use it for an anti-war movement. There was
an article in The Intercept that looked research on the correlation between military deaths and voting preference. Here is the
article:
And the thing is that Trump was in many ways the anti-war candidate. And those areas that had high military death rates voted
for Trump. I understand the tribal nature of political affiliation, but it seems what I have read and this article, there may
be indeed an untapped anti-war stance with Trump supporters.
And it really just challenges my own beliefs that the major obstacle to the war mongers are Trump supporters.
mbob – I couldn't have said it better myself. Except to add that in addition to destroying Libya, the Nobel Peace Prize winner
Obama, ably assisted by Hillary Clinton, also destroyed Honduras and the Ukraine.
Anarcissie , July 3, 2019 at 11:55
Historically, the Democratic Party has been pro-war and pro-imperialism at least since Wilson. The hatred for Trump on their
part seems to be based entirely on cultural issues -- he is not subservient enough to their gods.
But as for antiwar demonstrations, it's been proved in the streets that they don't accomplish anything. There were huge demonstrations
against the war in Vietnam, but it ground on until conservatives got tired of it. At least half a million people demonstrated
against the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and no one important cared. Evidently more fundamental issues than the war of the moment
are involved and I think that is where a lot of people are turning now. The ruling class will find this a lot harder to deal
with because it's decentralized and widely distributed. Hence the panic about Trump and the seething hatred of Sanders.
mbob , July 3, 2019 at 18:15
I attempted to make three points in my post. First, Democrats are now pro-war. Second, solely regarding peace, Trump looks
better than all other recent Presidents because he hasn't started any new wars. Third, the inability of Democrats (or the public
as a whole) to give Trump the benefit of a doubt, or to support him in any way, is contrary to the cause of peace.
Democrats should, without reservation, support Trump's effort to end the Korean War. They should support Trump's desire to
improve relations with Russia. They don't do either of those things. Why? Because it might hurt them politically.
Your comment does not challenge the first two points and reinforces the third.
As for Yemen, yes, Trump is wrong. Democrats rightly oppose him on Yemen -- but remarkably tepidly. Trump is wrong about
a lot of things. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. But I will vote for him if Democrats nominate someone worse than him,
which they seem inclined to do. (Gabbard is better than Trump. Sanders probably. Maybe Warren. Of the three, only Warren receives
positive press. That makes me skeptical of her.)
Trump stood up to his advisors, Bolton and Pompeo, regarding both Iran and Venezuela. Obama, on the other hand, did not.
He followed the advice of his advisors, with disastrous consequences.
>>In addition to Tuesday's sanctions, the Treasury Department issued an advisory to maritime shipping companies, warning
them off transporting oil to Syria or risking their property and money seized if kept with financial institutions that follow
U.S. sanctions law.
"The United States will aggressively seek to impose sanctions against any party involved in shipping oil to Syria, or seeking
to evade our sanctions on Iranian oil," said Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence,
in a release. "Shipping companies, insurers, vessel owners, managers, and operators should all be aware of the grave consequences
of engaging in sanctionable conduct involving Iranian oil shipments."<<
Today British marines seized a tanker near Gibraltar for the crime of transporting oil to Syria. And Trumpian peaceful military
seized Syrian oil fields. Traditional war is increasingly augmented by piracy, which is less bloody, but trades outright carnage
for deprivation of civilians. Giving "measured praise" for that makes me barf.
The problem here is that the US population is too brainwashing with jingoism and Exceptionalism to value Tulsi message. The
US army is mercenary army and unlike situation with the draft people generally do not care much when mercenaries die. That makes
any anti-war candidate vulnerable to "Russiagate" smear.
He/she need to have a strong domestic program to appeal to voters, So far Warren is in better position in this area then
Tulsi.
Notable quotes:
"... The Drudge Report website had its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the debate. ..."
"... On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced an article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of Defense." ..."
"... In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable." ..."
"... Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment, saying that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end." ..."
"... Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to "defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging ..."
"... In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the Vietnam War back in 1968. ..."
"... And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be at war with Russia and possibly also with China. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities, leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past twenty years. ..."
"... Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. ..."
"... She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren, who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups, but she has moderated her views recently. ..."
"... To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
Last Wednesday’s debate among half of the announced Democratic Party candidates to become their party’s nominee for
president in 2020 was notable for its lack of drama. Many of those called on to speak had little to say apart from the usual
liberal bromides about health care, jobs, education and how the United States is a country of immigrants. On the following
day the mainstream media anointed Elizabeth Warren as the winner based on the coherency of her message even though she said
little that differed from what was being presented by most of the others on the stage. She just said it better, more
articulately.
The New York Times’
coverage was typical, praising Warren for her grasp of the issues and her ability to present the same
clearly and concisely, and citing a comment "They could teach
classes in how Warren talks about a problem and weaves in answers into a story. She's not just
wonk and stats." It then went on to lump most of the other candidates together, describing
their performances as "ha[ving] one or two strong answers, but none of them had the electric,
campaign-launching moment they were hoping for."
Inevitably, however, there was some disagreement on who had actually done best based on
viewer reactions as well as the perceptions of some of the media that might not exactly be
described as mainstream. The Drudge Report website
had
its poll running while the debate was going on and it registered overwhelmingly in favor of
Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard. Likewise, the Washington Examiner , a right-wing
paper, opined that Gabbard had won by a knockout based on its own polling. Google's search
engine reportedly saw a surge in searches linked to Tulsi Gabbard both during and after the
debate.
On the following day traditional conservative Pat Buchanan produced
an
article entitled "Memo for Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi," similar to a comment made by
Republican consultant Frank Luntz "She's a long-shot
to win the presidency, but Tulsi Gabbard is sounding like a prime candidate for Secretary of
Defense."
Tulsi, campaigning on her anti-war credentials, was indeed not like the other candidates,
confronting directly the issue of war and peace which the other potential candidates studiously
avoided. In response to a comment by neoliberal Congressman Tim Ryan who said that the U.S. has
to remain "engaged" in places like Afghanistan, she referred to two American soldiers who had
been killed that very day, saying "Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers
who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will
tell you that answer is unacceptable."
At another point she expanded on her thinking about America's wars, saying "Let's deal with
the situation where we are, where this president and his chickenhawk cabinet have led us to the
brink of war with Iran. I served in the war in Iraq at the height of the war in 2005, a war
that took over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniforms' lives. The American people need to
understand that this war with Iran would be far more devastating, far more costly than anything
that we ever saw in Iraq. It would take many more lives. It would exacerbate the refugee
crisis. And it wouldn't be just contained within Iran. This would turn into a regional war.
This is why it's so important that every one of us, every single American, stand up and say no
war with Iran."
Tulsi also declared war on the Washington Establishment,
saying
that "For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after
the next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned
tax payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Blunt words, but it was a statement that few Americans whose livelihoods are not linked to
"defense" or to the shamelessly corrupt U.S. Congress and media could disagree with, as it is
clear that Washington is at the bottom of a deep hole and persists in digging. So why was there
such a difference between what ordinary Americans and the Establishment punditry were seeing on
their television screens? The difference was not so much in perception as in the desire to see
a certain outcome. Anti-war takes away a lot of people's rice bowls, be they directly employed
on "defense" or part of the vast army of lobbyists and think tank parasites that keep the money
flowing out of the taxpayers' pockets and into the pockets of Raytheon, General Dynamics,
Boeing and Lockheed Martin like a perpetual motion machine.
In the collective judgment of America's Establishment, Tulsi Gabbard and anyone like her
must be destroyed. She would not be the first victim of the political process shutting out
undesirable opinions. One can go all the way back to Eugene McCarthy and his opposition to the
Vietnam War back in 1968. McCarthy was right and Lyndon Johnson and the rest of the Democratic
Party were wrong. More recently, Congressman Ron Paul tried twice to bring some sanity to the
Republican Party. He too was marginalized deliberately by the GOP party apparatus working
hand-in-hand with the media, to include the final insult of his being denied any opportunity to
speak or have his delegates recognized at the 2012 nominating convention.
And the beat goes on. In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, head of the Democratic National
Committee, fixed the nomination process so that Bernie Sanders, a peace candidate, would be
marginalized and super hawk Hillary Clinton would be selected. Fortunately, the odor emanating
from anything having to do with the Clintons kept her from being elected or we would already be
at war with Russia and possibly also with China.
Tulsi Gabbard has let the genie of "end the forever wars" out of the bottle and it will be
difficult to force it back in. She just might shake up the Democratic Party's priorities,
leading to more questions about just what has been wrong with U.S. foreign policy over the past
twenty years. To qualify for the second round of debates she has to gain a couple of points in
her approval rating or bring in more donations, either of which is definitely possible based on
her performance. It is to be hoped that that will occur and that there will be no Debbie
Wasserman Schultz hiding somewhere in the process who will finagle the polling results.
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is
not a perfect candidate . On most domestic issues she appears to be a typical liberal
Democrat and is also conventional in terms of her accommodation with Jewish power, but she also
breaks with the Democratic Party establishment with her pledge to pardon Chelsea Manning,
Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.
She also has more of a moral compass than Elizabeth Warren,
who cleverly evades the whole issue of Middle East policy, or a Joe Biden who would kiss
Benjamin Netanyahu's ass without any hesitation at all. Gabbard has openly criticized Netanyahu
and she has also condemned Israel's killing of "unarmed civilians" in Gaza. As a Hindu, her
view of Muslims is somewhat complicated based on the historical interaction of the two groups,
but she has moderated her views recently.
To be sure, Americans have heard much of the same before, much of it from out of the
mouth of a gentleman named Donald Trump, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine
antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. It is essential
that we Americans who are concerned about the future of our country should listen to what she
has to say very carefully and to respond accordingly.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a
501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more
interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected]
"... But to me, she looks like – among other things – a clever manipulator in her, relatively short radius. Yet, although the US is no.1. as world power, she is no match for any real world politician, anywhere. Not just now; anytime in the future. ..."
"... Her "visibility" is a confluence of a few fleeting influences. Basically, fate has favored her for the time being (I'm not talking about morals etc.). But, to think that she's capable of much more is to entertain the idea that Trump is, all the time, playing 6-dimensional chess. ..."
"... Ivanka took her conversion to Judaism to an almost insane level. This comes from the Rabbi's involved in her conversion. She is an even more hard core Zionist than "daddy dearest", if that is even humanly possible ..."
"... Two days ago I commented on Breitbart that good or bad G20, Trump looked foolish toting Ivanka along. Response: Oh yeah, he should have brought AOC, that would have been much better, you idiot. Me: So Trump's only choice was Ivanka or AOC? None of the hundreds of attorneys or diplomats who have devoted careers to international trade negotiations? ..."
Because however loud the calls for Ivanka's ouster have gotten . Ivanka just digs those stilettoes in. She won't be budged.
She refuses to take a hint.
Amazing how deaf fathers can be when it comes to their daughters. Surprising he didn't dispose of Jared by making him Secy of
Education or some shizzle like that.
Ilana seems to think, referencing Wolff (and arguing with his position), that IKT is a sort of Machiavellian (although inexperienced)
woman greedy for power who, well, should not be underestimated.
Of course no one should be underestimated.
But to me, she looks like – among other things – a clever manipulator in her, relatively short radius. Yet, although the
US is no.1. as world power, she is no match for any real world politician, anywhere. Not just now; anytime in the future.
She seems to be one of those people who are lucky for a period of time, but soon disappear from the scene. Her "visibility"
is a confluence of a few fleeting influences. Basically, fate has favored her for the time being (I'm not talking about morals
etc.). But, to think that she's capable of much more is to entertain the idea that Trump is, all the time, playing 6-dimensional
chess.
Trump's(Ivanka)Hebrew name is "Yael." In the Book of Judges, a woman named Yael came upon the enemy king Sisera, who had
fled from battle with the Isralites. She fed and sheltered him until he fell asleep. Then she killed him by using a mallet to
drive a tent peg into his skull.
Ivanka took her conversion to Judaism to an almost insane level. This comes from the Rabbi's involved in her conversion.
She is an even more hard core Zionist than "daddy dearest", if that is even humanly possible. Ivanka believes she is now a
chosenite of the highest order and is therefore destined to rule over all us insignificant little Goys. Yael's greatest
concern is rising antisemitism here in the US of Israel.
Many of our MAGApedes still think Ivanka's great because Trump is God Emperor.
Two days ago I commented on Breitbart that good or bad G20, Trump looked foolish toting Ivanka along. Response: Oh yeah, he should have brought AOC, that would have been much better, you idiot. Me: So Trump's only choice was Ivanka or AOC? None of the hundreds of attorneys or diplomats who have devoted careers to
international trade negotiations?
Response: I would take Ivanka over any single "professional" negotiator of the past 30 years – hands down.
I think the sage commenters at Unz underestimate just how entrenched God Emperor's fanatic support remains. And apparently
this support extends to Jarvanka.
Let us not forget the words of General George Cornwallis in 1781.
"Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working
for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be
permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of
the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."
In the words of a speaker at a secret B'nai Brith meeting in Paris in 1936:
"Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our
plot should never know that these associations are of our creation and that they serve our purpose
"One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect
that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of
Israel; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King
of the World."
Cornwallis, apparently not wanting to face Washington, claimed to be ill on the day of the surrender, and sent Brigadier
General Charles O'Hara in his place to surrender his sword formally.
Washington had his second-in-command, Benjamin Lincoln,
accept Cornwallis' sword
"... That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage, Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left ..."
In the years that followed, the crash, the crisis of the eurozone and the worldwide drop in
the price of oil and other commodities combined to put a huge dent in global trade. Since 2012,
the IMF reported in its World Economic Outlook for October 2016
, trade was growing at 3% a year – less than half the average of the previous three
decades. That month, Martin Wolf argued in a column that globalisation had "lost dynamism", due
to a slackening of the world economy, the "exhaustion" of new markets to exploit and a rise in
protectionist policies around the world. In an interview earlier this year, Wolf suggested
to me that, though he remained convinced globalisation had not been the decisive factor in
rising inequality, he had nonetheless not fully foreseen when he was writing Why Globalization
Works how "radical the implications" of worsening inequality "might be for the US, and
therefore the world".
Among these implications appears to be a rising distrust of the establishment that is blamed
for the inequality. "We have a very big political problem in many of our countries," he said.
"The elites – the policymaking business and financial elites – are
increasingly disliked . You need to make policy which brings people to think again that
their societies are run in a decent and civilised way."
That distrust of the establishment has had highly visible political consequences: Farage,
Trump, and Le Pen on the right; but also in new parties on the left, such as Spain's Podemos,
and curious populist hybrids, such as Italy's
Five Star Movement . As in 1997, but to an even greater degree, the volatile political
scene reflects public anxiety over "the process that has come to be called
'globalisation'".
If the critics of globalisation could be dismissed before because of their lack of economics
training, or ignored because they were in distant countries, or kept out of sight by a wall of
police, their sudden political ascendancy in the rich countries of the west cannot be so easily
discounted today.
"... Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick. ..."
"... by Al Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike. ..."
"... In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes. ..."
"... Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the neocons. ..."
Yes, to some critics, Tulsi Gabbard is not a perfect candidate.
Tulsi is a candidate for political office, not sainthood. Much like Trump in 2016, being
patently less cynical than her rivals makes her the obvious choice.
the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable
Operative word in the above sentence: "genuine."
Her courage and convictions were hardened in the burning cauldron of an unjust war. Call it
burning resentment if you prefer. It's real and it's what makes her tick.
She went to Syria and proclaimed that rule by Assad was better for Syrians than rule by Al
Qaeda. For that unrecanted heresy she was vilified by Republicans and Democrats alike.
In the Democratic Party debates, she cut that posturing hypocrite Tim Ryan off at the knees
in a matter of seconds. A few home truths about U.S. soldiers dying for no good reason was all
it took to dispatch him and his mealy-mouthed platitudes.
What was Ryan going to do? Tell Tulsi she didn't know what she was talking about?
Watch her do the same to DJT if she gets the nomination and he continues to pander to the
neocons.
Gabbard did well but if I had to vote tomorrow it would be for Elizabeth Warren ..she's
got the real intelligence firepower combined with some old fashioned common sense. None of
them are going to directly attack the jew lobby during the campaign .why bring on
smear jobs and fake stories when it doesnt matter what they say, only what they do when
elected.
Would never vote for Joe "I am Zionist" Biden, he's just a paler shade of Trump .or to be
even clearer Biden is the DC establishment whereas Trump is the NJ Mafia,
The moderator-filtered t "debate" showed viewers the level of selective-issue political
control. The fact that Tulsi was able to overcome this control and discuss the issue of
neoliberal wars for the
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with our entire D.N.C. by now , they have
to pin their nose (to avoid the stink) while sitting through one more . Establishment Elite,
corporate " con job " debate ?
How many , Phil ?
Like just about EVERYBODY .
How many Americans aren't so thoroughly disgusted with NBC . and all its LIES . that even if
the broadcasters PAID them, tomorrow , they would STILL refuse to watch their network ?.
Like just about EVERYBODY .
Tulsi is not simply the ONLY candidate who MATTERS .she is the only candidate, alive, who
has a shot in rescuing our country from its descent into corporatist "warmongering" hell .
@Brabantian lectorate
has been fooled so many times before, no big harm in getting fooled again, although not very
smart (as Einstein once remarked about repeating same same while expecting a different
result).
Hopefully by a "peace" or pseudo-peace candidate to at least keep that narrative going in
the general population even if once elected the new president turns around and betrays the
pre-election promises. Now if there were some way to make those politicians pay for
dishonouring their word.
But as I may have asked in another comment, could the electorate be as cynical and
hypocritical as these politicians they cast votes for?
Bingo! For a smart dude, PG should know (and I am sure he does) that the problem is
systemic. No candidate, if s/he expects to get anywhere, is going to call out Aipac or bring
up the issue of Jewish influence and power.
On Tucker Carlson, Tulsi named Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia as the main pushers for war with
Iran. No, she isn't perfect. No American politician dare say more. But she's the best we have
and deserves our support. If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is
cheated out of the nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to
form a third, Peace Party, and run on it. So she splits the Democrats and they lose? So what!
What difference does it make what Democrat or Republican Zio-whore becomes President?
Trump was a roaring lion for America First, right up until his inauguration. President
Tulsi will also "see the light" about how Israel is our most important ally. Ever see the
photo of the 10 rabbis flanking Trump's desk in the Oval office? It could just as easily been
a scene out of The Sopranos, with the family forcing some schmuck to "legally" sign over his
business.
As Giraldi wrote, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But who can compare with
her in this moribund democrat field? Politics is the art of the possible. When Trump first
announced in 2015, no pundit outside of Ann Coulter said he had a chance. And look how he
demolished that republican field consisting of 16 brain dead neocons. If given half a chance,
Tulsi could do the same. And the fact that she is a veteran works in her favor. Just because
she was in Iraq, does not mean that she supported the US aggression. Like thousands of other
vets, she obviously did not.
@Commentator Mike ou're
right but consider the obstacles she has to overcome – her desperate need to bypass the
hostile media in order to make her point to the American masses who will care little or
nothing about a few hundreds of thousands of dead foreigners but, when it comes to American
dead, they are rather more receptive.
Same thing is true on Israel – if she is to have any chance she has to grit her
teeth and stay pretty mum on that topic. They already know where she stands after her remarks
about Netanyahu; her meeting with Assad and her wish for better relations with Russia –
they will do everything in their power to destroy her.
My Congressman, Tim Ryan, was up there. He's a likeable guy, and he plays ball, probably
because he has to after succeeding Jim Traficant, who was expelled from Congress. He's
criticized locally for not bringing back more pork, and his local cliche-ridden talks sound
as though they were scripted by the Democrat Central Committee. I'll give him credit for
avoiding misconduct that could lead to indictment, no small achievement in this
preternaturally corrupt area. I think he's reasonably honest, but just not a firebrand.
There's unsubstantiated speculation here he's been positioning himself for hire as a
lobbyist.
If she does gain a large following, as Bernie Sanders did, and is cheated out of the
nomination, as Bernie was, I hope she has the guts, as Bernie didn't, to form a third,
Peace Party, and run on it.
Yes. My question, when to start preparing for an outside run? If she's making steady
progress, she won't move until after the convention. Would threatening an independent run
help or hurt her before then?
to TKK:
I've never had a female boss so I can't comment on your question. No, Tulsi can't win the
Presidency, it'd be a miracle if she did, but I'm saying that if she does get a huge
following, gets cheated out of the nomination, and has the guts to form a Third Party, she'd
shake up the rotten rigged system and give us some hope.
"... why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them" (e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did 9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations? ..."
"... If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and self-destructive wars? ..."
"... If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard? ..."
"... somebody is going to be president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat ..."
If orange clown can pretend to be one of "us" and then immediately turn around and
enthusiastically stab "us" in the back, why can't Tulsi Gabbard pretend to be "one of them"
(e.g., by taking money from Raytheon, being a member of the CFR, claiming that al-Qaeda did
9/11, etc.) but then actually oppose the self-destructive wars and risky provocations?
If orange clown can be honest about his feelings of animosity toward Iran during his
campaign, why can't Tulsi Gabbard be honest about her feelings about pointless and
self-destructive wars?
If Ed Snowden and Chelsea Manning can betray the "deep state" why can't Tulsi Gabbard?
The cynicism I see in some of the comments here disparaging Gabbard is "over the top" IMO; somebody is going to be
president anyway, whether we like it or not, and the wars – especially the looming WW3 – is the biggest threat. So why not support someone who
appears to be genuinely opposed to the wars?
To mis-paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to war with the candidate you don't
have.
Unless Ms. Gabbard can figure out some way to raise and cycle a billion dollars through
media ads in the MSM, they're going to largely ignore her or even demonise her, because it is
the Praetorian Media who now decide who will be the the American President.
Presidential elections are a joke. It's best to vote for 3rd candidate to express your
opposition to the Status quo: I won't be voting Trump again and fall for that sting. Will
vote Tulsi whether she's on ballot or not.
She will never make it as she is too honest about foreign policy and the USA lies.
"... He supported the attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement. He called for regime change in Syria. ..."
Bernie Sanders a "peace candidate?" Hardly. His opposition to the Iraq invasion was just a
hiccup, and he voted several times to continue funding the Iraq occupation.
He supported the
attacks on Serbia, Libya and Afghanistan. He signed Rubio's letter denouncing the BDS movement.
He called for regime change in Syria.
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
Wars are necessary for the maintaining and expanding the US controlled neoliberal empire. Wars is the health of military
industrial complex.
The Deep State will bury any candidate who will try to change the USA forign policy. Looks
what happened to Trump. He got Russiagate just for vey modest proposal of detente with Russia
(of course not only for that, but still...)
Notable quotes:
"... The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they lied us into. ..."
Those are interesting proposals but wishful thinking: wars are necessary for Electing Tulsi Gabbard as our next Commander in Chief will not solve our biggest problems
alone.
Her candidacy, I believe , must be augmented by two new laws which should be demanded by the
taxpayer and enforced by her administration on "day one".
The first is "The War Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ Retroactive to 2002, it states
that any and all individuals who conspired to defraud the United States into illegal war of
aggression should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any and all
assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit . to pay down the cost of the wars they
lied us into.
If they lied us into war .they pay for it NOT the US taxpayer.
The second is " The Terror Fraud Accountability Act of 2020″ also retroactive to 2001,
it states that any and all individuals found to have engaged in plotting, planning, or staging
"false terror events" will be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Moreover, any
and all of the assets owned by these individuals shall be made forfeit to pay down the cost of
our War on Terror.
Americans should not have to sacrifice one cent of their tax dollars to pay for their own
defrauding by "staged" or "phony" terror events.
I believe that were Tulsi to be elected, she should set up two new task forces designed
especially for these reasons, Try to think of them as the " Office of Special Plans" IN
REVERSO.!.
Moreover she should hold weekly press briefings to notify the taxpayer of her progress, and
also how much of our 23 trillion in losses , FROM THEIR LIES, she has been able to recoup.
Getting these two initiatives up and running is the most potent force the taxpayers have in
cleaning out the fraud and larceny in DC, .ending our illegal wars overseas .. and
(finally)holding our "establishment elite " accountable for "LYING US INTO THEM"
It is way overdue for the American Taxpayer to take back control of our government from
those who ALMOST BANKRUPTED OUR ENTIRE NATION BY LYING US INTO ILLEGAL WARS.
It is not enough any more just to complain or "kvetch" about our problems .put on your
thinking caps .and start coming up with solutions and initiatives .start fighting for your
freedom, your finances and your future.
Elect the leaders YOU WANT and tell them exactly what you want them to do!
Tulsi has promised us all "SERVICE OVER SELF"
There you go !
I say that means not only ENDING our ILLEGAL, CRIMINAL WARS .but GETTING AS MUCH OF OUR
MONEY BACK from those who lied us into them !
ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR FRAUD it is $23,000,000,000,000.00. in "heinous debt" .overdue!
"... So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've decided to work for her campaign! ..."
Doing Due Diligence on Tulsi Gabbard by watching the 1:20 long interview by Jimmy Dore of which
the first 20 minutes are excellent. At the 21 minute mark, Dore asks how can we end these
endless wars. Paraphrasing Gabbard: Failure is not an option: We must end these
interventionist wars as they suck the life blood out of doing the positive things that
must be done to benefit Americans.
Prior to the above, Dore as an aside mentions that Howard Dean, the Podestas, Clintons,
and others are all about keeping the flow of Big Money into politics at the expense of
everything else--that's their absolute #1 concern, to which you'll hear Gabbard agree!
So, the two biggest issues in US politics--Forever Wars and the utter strangulation of
politics by Big Money are what she wants to take on. And on those two issues alone, I've
decided to work for her campaign!
@74 karlof1 - " I've decided to work for [Tulsi Gabbard's] campaign"
This is excellent. As someone who has never had any national experience in politics, I
would be interested to know how one offers this kind of support - if you ever have time to
say, but don't break a leg over it.
One sees in politics how good moral character gets compromised by involvement in the
system. But we also know that one's own contribution to universal sanity can never be known
or measured - or discounted! Therefore, we do what we can. Who knows, perhaps your
involvement is the final butterfly-wing stroke that keeps her honest and upright and making a
difference.
Well done. And thank you.
~~
ps..please don't worry that people are not taking up your links or comments, just because
you don't see feedback here. Keep it all coming as well as you can, but please don't limit
your contributions to feedback. Many of the pieces you post are so friggin' long that it
takes the rest of the night to absorb them all ;)
I'm glad you donate the time of your retirement to offer all the things you do. I still
work, and it's a struggle to keep up with things. Your reading list overlaps mine very
nicely, and I ride on your coat-tails a lot - you along with many commenters here save me a
lot of time in pinpointing articles of value.
In fact, beyond b's superlative work - which he keeps producing even though we all
appreciate it so intently that we usually forget to praise him for it - I'd say the offering
of links from the top analysts and journalists, combined with the gems from the left field,
are a signature mark of this forum.
So please keep the summaries coming, and never lose heart or doubt that people are reading
them and placing value on them.
"... Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an African-American. ..."
Kamala
Harris's Hillaryesque tweet re Trump meeting Kim at DMZ:
"This President should take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against
humanity seriously. This is not a photo-op. Our security and our values are at stake."
Comments on the thread are telling, and she's not fooling anyone.
Thank goodness that there is one place where Globalism, Boeing, and Kamala Harris can be
discussed. From the bottom, looking up, they are intertwined. Corporate media strictly
ignores the restoration of the robber baron aristocracy, the supremacy of trade treaties, the
endless wars for profit, the free flow of capital, and corrupted governments. The sole
purpose is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.
There are many tell-tale signs that this is an apt description of the world. With
deregulation and outsourcing, there is no incentive to design and build safe airplanes. That
costs money. Two 737 Max(s) crash killing 346. Workplaces are toxic. The life expectancy in
the UK and USA is declining. The US dollar is used as a military weapon. Monopolies buy up
innovation. Corporate law breaking is punished by fines which are added to the cost of doing
business. There is no jail time for chief executives. The cost of storm damage is increasing.
Families are migrating to survive. Nationalist and globalist oligarchs are fighting over the
spoils. Last week the global economy was 10 minutes away from collapse by an American air
attack on Iran.
Kamala Harris is multi-cultural, East Indian and Jamaican, globalist educated in the
USA and Canada. To be elected and earn rewards she identifies herself as an
African-American. Neo-Populism and France's Yellow Vests are the direct response to
global capitalism that is supported by Corporate Democrats, New Labour Party, and Emmanuel
Macron. The rise of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson in response is no coincidence.
especially read this by Helen Hanna in the comments section:
kamala looked aside while wells fargo bank established 3 million fraudulent accounts while
she was attorney general of california. she did nothing to punish them. she might as well be
wearing a hillary mask. as someone who lived in the bay area for 31 years, i remember her on
the 'matier and ross' interview program--her performance was juvenile and silly--- and i
remember her being willing to join the parade of willie brown's cocaine addicted mistresses,.
as number 21 and as a woman of color, she was a relief---not white, not skanky, no silver
cocaine spoon around her neck while pretending to eat dinner at chez michel with willie, but
why on earth would you want to join this parade and go out with this sleazy man whose kiton
suits do not improve his image one bit, a politician who offended the san francisco public by
his obnoxious habit of publicly flaunting his many skanky female hangers on, and reveling in
their 'whiteness.' what a bad choice kamala made. remember that pelosi and feinstein wouldn't
let willie brown anywhere near the inauguration podium of barack obama because these women
did not want willie's offensive background to sully obama. willie had had an illegitimate
child while 'serving as' mayor of san francisco, a city of 500 churches, mostly catholic. the
catholic church continued to retain him in the role --'of counsel.' that was astounding to
me, absolutely astounding.... willie also laundered drug money in a sutter street garage with
his haberdasher, wilkes bashford, but dianne feinstein prevented him from being jailed. i can
just see the sisterhood at temple emanuel where dianne feinstein worships--i can just see
them admonishing her for even suggesting one of serial adulterer willie's former mistresses
be the first woman president....is that why senator feinstein is keeping such a low profile
lately? what i don't understand is why pelosi and feinstein keep bringing us these
puppet-like women----hillary will always be bill's puppet and kamala will be willie's puppet.
you cannot possibly choose two more sleazy, obnoxious men to be your superior.
Just in time for the 2020 presidential election, the Democrats have discovered that there is
real economic inequality in the United States. But they have not yet fully addressed the role
that the Democratic party and its leaders have played in creating this vast inequality that led
to the election of President Donald Trump in 2016.
The presidential candidates have been slow to fully recognize the role that former President
Bill Clinton's globalization policies (NAFTA and WTO) played in the outsourcing of American
jobs or the lowering of wages for workers.
As the Democratic presidential debates have shown, Vice President Biden is having a hard
time defending his long public record, especially as an opponent of federally mandated "forced"
busing to integrate our public schools decades after the Supreme Court's overturning of racial
segregation in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). As a Senator Joe Biden was a free
trade advocate as well.
But Senator Biden played a large role in creating inequality in two additional realms. He
was a strong backer of a 2005 bankruptcy "reform" law that made it harder for people to file
personal bankruptcy and to wipe out all of their debts. Given that perhaps as many as fifty
percent of all personal bankruptcies in America are caused by debt incurred from health care
not covered by insurance, this was an especially cruel blow to those seeking relief from their
heavy debt loads.
In "'
Lock the S.O.B.s Up: Joe Biden and the Era of Mass Incarceration ," The New York
Times documents his decades-long support of tough on criminals legislation, culminating in
the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. This bill, signed into law by President
Clinton, has been blamed for the jailing of high numbers of African Americans and other
minorities, in particular.
Unlike the Republicans whose goal is to increase inequality by lowering taxes on the
wealthy, at least the Democrats seem sincere about reducing it. To do this, they have fallen
all over themselves to offer free college tuition and to reduce student loan debt. Sen. Bernie
Sanders recently proposed to
eliminate all student loans entirely .
Why have Democrats focused on college as a means of solving economic inequality? Statistics
have shown that in general the more education you have, the higher your lifetime earnings will
be. For example, men with bachelor's degrees earn nearly a million more
dollars in median lifetime earnings than high school graduates.
People who run "debates" are the same people (the DNC and the MSM and the USA MIC who controls both) who have charged
that our "democracy" was compromised by Russian interference via Facebook posts and the publishing of DNC documents that no one
has disputed the validity thereof.
As pathetic as Dems "debate" format is, it does give people an actual look at the candidates,
in many cases for the first time. It does change some minds and move the numbers. After all, Tulsi was the person who introduced
Bernie at the DNC convention in 2016. She's the person who left the DNC because she saw what scumbags they were.
For a candidate speaking out about the endless wars but the MSM and associates are performing their marginalization
magic.
More exposure for Gabbard can only help her. She did a fine job in her debate, I'm sure her
numbers will climb a bit.
election is a mighty high bar. she needs about 750 new donors a day, every day, if indeed
the cutoff date is 60ish days from now.
i wonder how many will make it? for that matter, i wonder how many already have? Biden,
O'Rourke, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg for sure. Booker, Castro, Gillibrand probably.
Klobuchar maybe?
most of the rest are just taking up space, as far as I can tell -- they're contributing
nothing to the debate at all, and they have no hope of winning substantial support.
meanwhile, i wouldn't be surprised if both Biden and O'Rourke are done and out before the
next debate, destroyed by their own negatives. on the other hand, ego is a powerful thing,
and even the ones whose stars are declining may insist on sticking it out through New
Hampshire at least, in which case there could be a dozen or more still in the race come
September, hopefully including TG.
This is WSWS with their outdated dreams of "working class dictatorship" but some points and observation are very apt and
to the point.
Notable quotes:
"... The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy ..."
"... Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate, her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class, whose views are promoted by the New York Times ..."
"... The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump and Obama. ..."
"... If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia. ..."
"... On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders. ..."
Four hours of nationally televised debates Wednesday and Thursday among 20 Democratic
presidential candidates demonstrated the gigantic disconnect between the claims of this
pro-war, pro-corporate party to be driven by concerns for the well-being of working people
and the reality of poverty and oppression in America, for which the Democratic Party is no
less responsible than the Republicans.
The stage-managed spectacle mounted by NBC marked the formal beginning of an electoral
process dominated by big money and thoroughly manipulated by the corporate-controlled
media.
The attempt to contain the growing left-wing opposition in the working class and channel
it behind the second oldest capitalist party in the world necessarily assumed the form of
lies and demagogy. For the most part, the vying politicians, all of them in the top 10
percent on the income ladder, made promises to provide healthcare, jobs, decent schools,
tuition-free college and a clean environment for all, knowing full well they had no intention
of carrying them out.
No one -- neither the millionaire media talking heads asking the questions nor the
candidates -- dared to mention the fact that that Democratic Party has just voted to give
Trump an additional $4.9 billion to round up, detain and torture hundreds of thousands of
immigrants, including children, in the growing network of concentration camps being set up
within the US. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things, and this one demonstrates the
complicity of the Democratic Party in the fascistic policies of the Trump administration.
The second night of the debate featured the front-runners, former Vice President Joe Biden
and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Biden has a long record of reactionary politics,
including in the Obama administration. Sanders is continuing in this election his role in
2016 of channeling growing support for socialism into the framework of a right-wing
party.
The fraud of a "progressive" Democratic Party and presidential candidate was summed up in
the near-universal declaration of the media that Senator Kamala Harris had emerged as the
clear winner, part of a coordinated effort to promote her candidacy. The African-American
senator was lauded for attacking Biden for statements boasting of his ability in the past to
collaborate with segregationist senators and his past opposition to busing for school
integration.
It was Harris who adopted the most transparently bogus posture of left-radicalism in
Thursday night's debate, repeatedly declaring her agreement with Bernie Sanders and raising
her hand, along with Sanders, to support the abolition of private health insurance in favor
of a single-payer system. By Friday morning, however, she had reversed that stand, claiming
she had "misheard" the question and declaring her support for the continuation of private
insurance.
Harris climbed to the Senate by serving for years in the Bay Area of California as a
law-and-order district attorney and state attorney general, defending police killers and
bankers engaged in foreclosure fraud, including Trump's current treasury secretary, Steven
Mnuchin. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she has been among the most rabid of
Democrats in attacking Trump as a stooge of Russian President Putin. In Thursday's debate,
her main foray into foreign policy was to denounce Trump for being soft on Putin and North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
She is being promoted most enthusiastically by those sections of the ruling class,
whose views are promoted by the New York Times , who want the Democratic campaign to
be dominated by racial and gender politics so as to mobilize the party's wealthy upper-middle
class base and divert and divide the mass working class anger over social
inequality.
Many of the candidates fondly recalled the Obama administration. But those eight years saw
the greatest transfer of wealth from working people to the super-rich in American history.
The pace was set by the initial $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, which was expanded to
uncounted trillions in the course of 2009, combined with the bailout of the auto companies at
the expense of the autoworkers, who suffered massive cuts in benefits and a 50 percent cut in
pay for new hires, rubber-stamped by the United Auto Workers.
The Obama administration also deported more immigrants than any other, a fact that was
raised in a question to Vice President Biden, who confined himself to empty declarations of
sympathy for the victims of Trump's persecution, while denying any comparison between Trump
and Obama.
Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado attacked Biden for claiming credit for a bipartisan
budget deal in 2011 with Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Far from a genuine
compromise, he said, the deal "was a complete victory for the Tea Party. It extended the Bush
tax cuts permanently," as well as putting in place major cuts in social spending which
continue to this day. Bennet neglected to mention that he had voted for the deal himself when
it passed the Senate by a huge majority.
It was remarkable, under conditions where President Trump himself declared that the United
States was only 10 minutes away from launching a major assault on Iran earlier this month,
that the 20 Democratic candidates spent almost no time discussing foreign policy.
In the course of four hours, there were only a few minutes devoted to the world outside
the United States. The silence on the rest of the world cannot be dismissed as mere
parochialism.
Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are deeply implicated in either the
policy-making or combat operations of US imperialism. The 20 candidates include two who were
deployed as military officers to Iraq and Afghanistan, Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard; Biden,
vice president for eight years and the former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee; and five senators who are members of high-profile national security committees:
Harris and Bennet on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten
Gillibrand on the Armed Services Committee, and Cory Booker on the Foreign Relations
Committee.
If these ladies and gentlemen decide not to engage on foreign policy, the reason is
clear: the Democrats know that the American people are adamantly opposed to new military
interventions. They therefore seek to conceal the preparations of American imperialism for
major wars, whether regional conflicts with Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or conflicts with
nuclear-armed global rivals like China and Russia.
In the handful of comments that were made on foreign policy, the Democratic candidates
struck a belligerent note. On Wednesday, four of the ten candidates declared the main global
threat to the United States to be China, while New York Mayor Bill de Blasio opted for
Russia. Many candidates referred to the need to combat Russian interference in the US
election -- recycling the phony claims that Russian "meddling" helped Trump into the White
House in 2016.
On the first night, Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, asked to name the greatest
global security threat, replied, "The greatest threat that we face is the fact we are at a
greater risk of nuclear war today than ever before in history." This remarkable declaration
was passed over in silence by the moderators and the other candidates, and the subject was
not raised on the second night at all, including by Bernie Sanders.
"... If her trend of seriously closing the favorability gap with Joe Biden is any indication, if her broad but incomplete acceptability to the Clinton and the Sanders wings of the Democratic party is any indication, we would have to answer that question with a fairly emphatic, "yes, she can." ..."
On the first night of the first Democratic debates, Elizabeth Warren gave a master class in
when to speak and when to keep one's mouth shut. This is a lesson former Vice President Joe
Biden could learn a ton from.
When Waren did speak, it was clear, passionate, on point, and richly factual. On health
care, she even surprised a bit by committing to eliminating private insurance where she has
previously hedged her betting.
... ... ...
Can Warren beat Biden? If her trend of seriously closing the favorability gap
with Joe Biden is any indication, if her broad but incomplete acceptability to the Clinton and
the Sanders wings of the Democratic party is any indication, we would have to answer that
question with a fairly emphatic, "yes, she can."
Whether she will depends on a number of factors, some within, some beyond her control. In my
view, the most critical tasks within her control are finding a way to a coherent foreign policy
position and pivoting to an efficient answer on the DNA testing question that simultaneously
educates regarding and firmly rejects blood quantum theories of race.
"... Sanders and Warren are not what they claim to be. They are both updating Roosevelt's New Deal and more closely resemble the Social Democrats that have governed western European democracies for years, delivering higher standards of living than that experienced by Americans. ..."
"... In May 2009, the moderate Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, said: "The banks – hard to believe when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place." ..."
"... In the new book, Banking on the People , by Ellen Brown, readers can get an idea of the way large banks, insurers, and the giant shadow banking system – money market funds, hedge funds, mortgage brokers, and other unregulated financial intermediaries – speculate and shift deep risk and their failures onto Uncle Sam. These corporate predators gouge customers, and, remarkably, show a deep aversion for productive investment as if people matter. ..."
"... Control of our political economy is not a conservative/liberal or red state/blue state issue. When confronted with the specifics of the corporate state or corporate socialism, people from all political persuasions will recognize the potential perils to our democracy. No one wants to lose essential freedoms or to continue to pay the price of this runaway crony capitalism. ..."
"... The gigantic corporations have been built with the thralldom of deep debt – corporate debt to fund stock buybacks (while reporting record profits), consumer debt, student loan debt, and, of course, government debt caused by drastic corporate and super-rich tax cuts. Many trillions of dollars have been stolen from future generations. ..."
Trump Invites Debates over Omnivorous Crony Capitalism
Donald J. Trump's 2020 election strategy is to connect
his potential Democratic opponents with "socialism." Trump plans to use this attack on the
Democrats even if Senator Bernie Sanders, who proudly calls himself a "democratic socialist,"
doesn't become the presidential nominee (Sanders has been decisively re-elected in Vermont).
Senator Elizabeth Warren is distancing herself from the socialist "label." She went so far
as to
tell the New England Council "I am a capitalist to my bones."
Sanders and Warren are not what they claim to be. They are both updating Roosevelt's New
Deal and more closely resemble the Social Democrats that have governed western European
democracies for years, delivering higher standards of living than that experienced by
Americans.
The original doctrine of socialism meant government ownership of the means of production
– heavy industries, railroads, banks, and the like. Nobody in national politics today is
suggesting such a takeover. As one quipster put it, "How can Washington take ownership of the
banks when the banks own Washington?"
Confronting Trump on the "socialism" taboo can open up a great debate about the value of
government intervention for the good of the public. Sanders can effectively argue that people
must choose either democratic socialism or the current failing system of corporate socialism.
That choice is not difficult. Such an American democratic socialism could provide almost all of
the long overdue solutions this country needs: full more efficient Medicare for all;
tuition-free education; living wages; stronger unions; a tax system that works for the people;
investments in infrastructure and public works; reforms for a massive, runaway military budget;
the end of most corporate welfare; government promotion of renewable energies; and the end of
subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear power.
In my presidential campaigns I tried to make corporate socialism – also called
corporate welfare or crony capitalism – a major issue. Small business is capitalism
– free to go bankrupt – while corporate capitalism – free to get bailouts
from Washington – is really a form of corporate socialism. This point about a corporate
government was documented many years ago in books such as America, Inc. (1971) by Morton
Mintz and Jerry Cohen.
Now, it is even easier to make the case that our political economy is largely controlled by
giant corporations and their political toadies. Today the concentration of power and wealth is
staggering. Just six capitalist men have wealth to equal the wealth of half of the world's
population.
The Wall Street collapse of 2008-2009 destroyed eight million jobs, lost trillions of
dollars in pension and mutual funds, and pushed millions of families to lose their homes.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. government used trillions of taxpayer dollars to bail out, in
various ways, the greedy, financial giants, whose reckless speculating caused the collapse.
In May 2009, the moderate Senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, said: "The banks – hard
to believe when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created – are still
the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."
Is there a single federal government agency or department that can say its most powerful
outside influence is NOT corporate? Even the Labor Department and the National Labor Relations
Board are under more corporate power than union power.
Who better than Trump, on an anti-socialist fantasy campaign kick, can call attention to the
reality that Big Business controls the government and by extension controls the people? In
September 2000, a Business Week poll found over 70 percent of people agreeing that big
business has too much control over their lives (this was before the horrific corporate
crimes and scandals of the past two decades). Maybe that is why support in polls for
"socialism" against "capitalism" in the U.S. is at a 60 year high.
People have long experienced American-style "socialism." For example, the publicly owned
water and electric utilities, public parks and forests, the Postal Service, public libraries,
FDIC guarantees of bank deposits (now up to $250,000), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
etc.
What the public is not sufficiently alert to is that Big Business has been profitably taking
over control, if not outright ownership, of these public assets.
In the new book, Banking on the
People , by Ellen Brown, readers can get an idea of the way large banks, insurers, and
the giant shadow banking system – money market funds, hedge funds, mortgage brokers, and
other unregulated financial intermediaries – speculate and shift deep risk and their
failures onto Uncle Sam. These corporate predators gouge customers, and, remarkably, show a
deep aversion for productive investment as if people matter.
Moreover, they just keep developing new, ever riskier, multi-tiered instruments (eg.
derivatives) to make money from money through evermore complex, abstract, secret,
reckless, entangled, globally destabilizing, networks. Gambling with other people's money is a
relentless Wall Street tradition.
The crashes that inevitably emerge end up impoverishing ordinary people who pay the price
with their livelihoods.
Will the Democrats and other engaged people take Trump on if he tries to make "socialism"
the big scare in 2020? Control of our political economy is not a conservative/liberal or red
state/blue state issue. When confronted with the specifics of the corporate state or corporate
socialism, people from all political persuasions will recognize the potential perils to our
democracy. No one wants to lose essential freedoms or to continue to pay the price of this
runaway crony capitalism.
The gigantic corporations have been built with the thralldom of deep debt – corporate
debt to fund stock buybacks (while reporting record profits), consumer debt, student loan debt,
and, of course, government debt caused by drastic corporate and super-rich tax cuts. Many
trillions of dollars have been stolen from future generations.
No wonder a small group of billionaires, including George Soros,
Eli Broad , and Nick Hanauer, have just publicly urged a modest tax on the super wealthy.
As Hanauer, a history buff and advocate of higher minimum wages, says – "the pitchforks
are coming."
"... Connected to Trump as the 'winner', it was Tulsi Gabbard who stood out from the rest of the candidates. Interestingly, reliable polling data just out from the Drudge Report shows that Gabbard emerged as the winner of the debate on ideas and policies overall. She won some 40% of the vote, and when compared to the candidates whom the other 60% was divided, it was a landslide. ..."
"... Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses ..."
"... When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in 2016. ..."
"... Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic. ..."
"... Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida. ..."
"... There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in many generations, and the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in 2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded. ..."
"... At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position to that of Trump's. How can this be? ..."
"... To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional hegemon for the Americas. ..."
"... Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment. ..."
"... While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'. ..."
"... But this Marshall Plan for Latin America was already introduced by none other than Mexican President AMLO himself, in talks with Trump. ..."
"... What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration' approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires investment into Latin America. ..."
"... Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders, Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking. ..."
"... With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of support as the anti-war candidate. ..."
The single truth that many mainstream Democrats will have a very difficult time
acknowledging coming out of the June 26 th Democratic Party Presidential Debate, is
that Donald Trump's positions on China and Latin America have become a Democratic Party line.
Is this is a mere matter of pandering to the polling data on questions like Latin America and
China? Even if just that, it would be a Trump success in and of itself.
But it also raises whether Trump has indeed accomplished more – a tectonic shift, a
sea-change in elite policy formation focus from Russia and the Mid-east over to China and Latin
America. The ties between the DNC and China still appear too strong, and so the reality would
seem to tend to rotate around a pandering to the polling data.
From China to solving the migration problem through a 'Marshall Plan' for Latin America and
more, Trump's nominal views on these questions found expression as dominating themes in the
debate.
In the war of positions, this is a victory for Trump.
The June 26th Democratic Party Presidential Debate was astounding in its representation of a
major paradigm shift in the United States.
Before anyone dismisses Gabbard, it's critical to understand that mainstream media lost most
of its credibility over the lat election. This is the age of underdogs and dark horses
When the subject moved to Afghanistan and occupation, Gabbard was on confident and really on
fire. This is significant because while historically Gabbard's anti-imperialist line on
occupation would be associated with (normally later broken) Democratic Party talking points, it
was here that Trump defeated Clinton at the polls, when Trump won the anti-war vote in
2016.
Worth noting as well as that in the aftermath of the debate last night, Gabbard's new social
media campaign on Twitter features her name scrolling across the bottom of the screen in
undeniable Trump 2016 campaign font. Coincidence? Nothing in politics is coincidental –
nothing.
Gabbard destroyed Ryan on Afghanistan, and Booker's attempt to attack Gabbard fell
tremendously short and felt very artificial, saying that Gabbard's position on LGBTQ 'isn't
enough', but then switching incoherently to the subject of African Americans, Jim Crow, and
lynchings – a misfire and very much off-topic.
CHINA
Of the ten candidates debating, four responded that China was the primary threat to the US
– but this was the single-most consistent answer. Delaney, Klobuchar, Castro, and Ryan
all answered this way.
This was a win for Trump's entire line for the last thirty something years.
De Blasio stood out as the lone Russiagater, definitely representing the mindset of his New
York City electorate and the coastal media establishment.
Gabbard, meanwhile, was wise to name ecological threats as this helped her maintain her
position as an anti-war candidate.
The pivot to a focus on China is much less dangerous than the focus on Russia. TheUS does
not really believe it can challenge China in a military sense, and their anti-Chinese rhetoric,
while full of sword rattling and imperial bravado, amounts to noise and little more. There is
some hope in American quarters about curtailing China's economic strength, but the focus on
China appears more as a question of a state requiring the spectre of an anthropomorphized
threat in the abstract, in order to justify the existence of a state and a military budget, and
to make a foreigner responsible for matters of wealth disparity and a lack of employment
opportunities in the US – a prominent tactic and talking point in market-driven societies
based in private property norms.
But the pivot to a focus on China was tremendous and not expected, given the relationship
historically between China and the Democratic Party – a friendly one.
Until now, it's been just the conservative corners of the alt-light in the US-centric
internet who view the 'rising Chinese threat' as a serious concern for the US. This trope was
primarily focused on the twin threat of Chinese rising military prowess and its population
size, along with the US practice of outsourcing American jobs to China – a policy that
saw short term consumer savings, and mid-to-long term slashes to US wages and employment. It
created a trade imbalance which the US can only resolving by defaulting on and then drawing its
guns to force a new deal.
Taken all together, this means that whoever Trump gets into the big race with, it will not
be a question of 'whether' China is a threat, but how to 'best contain' the Chinese threat.
This is a victory from 'go' for Trump.
LATIN AMERICA
Here is another major subject where Trump's influence on the entire discourse has prevailed,
though it's a little less obvious and requires a minor bifurcation to reveal.
We are of course obliged to mention that the location of the debate in Miami Florida was
strategic given its representation of Latinos in the US – traditionally Cuban and more
recently Venezuelan Republicans as hardline anti-communists and cold-warriors, who see their
children increasingly becoming more 'center-left' as they have Americanized and become
'Latinos' in the US. They are still at odds geopolitically with Latinos, primarily
Mexican-Americans from the American southwest, who tend to be friendlier to socialist ideas and
have represented the far-left of the Democratic Party on economic issues as well as
anti-imperialism, even if sharing with Cuban-Americans some more socially conservative values.
This communitarian axis of Latinos in the US, however, has grown and become a real force of its
own.
Trump's hardline on Cuba and Venezuela is appealing to the Florida wing of the Latino
constituency (to the extent we can speak of a single constituency), and this is where the
Democratic Party understands it needs to fight in order to win Florida.
There hasn't been a Republican candidate to win the Presidency without winning Florida in
many generations, and
the Republican victory of Rick Scott in the state's most expensive senatorial race against
Democrat incumbent Bill Nelson in 2018 shows that Republicans are aiming to win Florida in
2020. The Democratic Party concern is palpable and well founded.
So we find the extraordinary focus on Latinos was represented in the ultimately surprising
display of whole Spanish language answers from both Beto O'Rourke and Cory Booker, and a few
questions wholly or partly in Spanish from the moderators. The entire debate was brought to
viewers not just by NBC but also by Spanish language network Telemundo.
At face value, Trump and Democrats seem to be 6's and 7's over immigration. But when we
really look at what the real deal is, we find yet another alignment of the Democrat's position
to that of Trump's. How can this be?
To understand this is to understand the overall trajectory now that the US empire is all but
finished. Its historical aim now is to be able to disentangle from the Mid-East, a prominent
Trump position which used to be Obama's until it wasn't, and on the Democratic side today is
only being carried forward by Tulsi Gabbard. The so-called neo-isolationism of the US isn't so
much that, as it is a return to the Monroe Doctrine. This author has written about this several
years before Trump took office, in the article ' From Pax Americana to
Pan Americana '. Here this author argued that the US must transform from a Sea Power
into a Land Power. This isn't isolationism, but a right-sized regional hegemon, a regional
hegemon for the Americas.
Trump's rhetoric on the immigration question and Mexico has never failed to mention that the
mid-to-long term solution is not only that Mexico enforces its own borders to its south, but
that the Mexican economy grows – and this requires investment.
The trade-offs are several fold. For one, the US goes back to its China position, and wants
Latin American countries to agree to reduce the
Chinese influence in exchange for real industrial capital investments from the United
States into Latin America.
This is not to say that the Democratic Party has ignored Latin America to date, far from it.
It was under Obama's two terms that the US worked the most to reverse the Pink Tide in Latin
America, and this came with a few 'own goals' when the ultimate consequence of the
regime-change operation in Honduras was to stoke a human wave migration crisis. This was, in
short, the American version of the Libya scenario.
While Trump is nominally strict on immigration, it was under Obama that the US deported the
most migrants in history. This is a fact that Democrats ignore in their talking points and
attacks on Trump's 'inhuman policy' that tears families apart. And so in a strange departure
from what might otherwise occur to us, it was Obama's policy that was worse by the numbers for
pro-migration advocates, and it's been Trump who has openly called for investment into Latin
America with a named reason being to stem the migration 'crisis'.
And it's this exact talking point that numerous Democratic Party candidates picked up on,
and a very telling term was introduced by Julian Castro – a Marshall Plan for Latin
America. Cory Booker stood beside and nodded in apparent agreement, and that the words came
from the token Latino (no, not Beto), Castro was both intentional and symbolically telling.
While Bolton and Pompeo have operated under the 'Monroe Doctrine' term, this is so entirely
distasteful for all of Latin America that it offends anyone and everyone, even the US's own
lackeys, puppets, and proxies in the region.
"Why it matters: AMLO has worked energetically since taking office to sell the White
House on a "Marshall Plan" of support to address the region's growing migrant crisis. The US
commitment is a preliminary sign that he's at least being heard
While he campaigned as a compassionate voice on immigration, Mexico's new left-wing
leader spied the need for a grand solution. The US funding will contribute to a $30 billion
aid package envisioned by AMLO
AMLO even dangled the prospect of Chinese investment to bring Trump to the table,
according to the NY Times -- reasoning that the US might be more willing to pay up if it
feared that China might try to expand its influence in the region by opening its
wallet."
Since them, numerous articles have popped up describing Trump's potential 'Marshall Plan'
for Central America.
WHAT NEXT? CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
What Tulsi Gabbard, the clear winner of the debate, will do next is to appropriate Julian
Castro's 'Marshall Plan' line on Mexico and Central America. It dog-whistles numerous Trump
talking points in relation to Mexico, as well as taking a 'less migration is good migration'
approach to what is no doubt a real problem, without engaging in reactionary attacks on the
migrants themselves. To get 'to the source' of the problem, as Castro explains, requires
investment into Latin America.
Gabbard will be well positioned to nominally attack Trump's policy implementation along
human rights grounds, while not being specific on anything except getting 'to the source of the
problem'.
Gabbard is the dark horse, and along with Yang (in the second night's debate) will no doubt
pull ahead of the conventionally pre-selected winners that were supposed to be Booker, Sanders,
Warren and especially Biden. We will see much more focus on Gabbard now in virtual spaces, even
while the mainstream media will continue to wrongly focus on Biden and Booker. Booker played
his left-most game in the debate, but as prospective voters sort him on questions as far and
ranging as Palestine, war, and labor (economy) – they will find him sorely lacking.
With 60% of American generally supporting Trump's approach to the economy, these are his
highest approval ratings, and ones which Americans care about and highly prioritize. Gabbard
would be wise to approach the question of distribution, winners and losers of the economic
boom, and focus on the 1% vs. the 99%. Doing so will help her move beyond her initial base of
support as the anti-war candidate.
This will angle the populist line, and position her well not only against all other
Democrats, but even against Trump himself should she win the nomination. It's a long shot, but
remember indeed: this is the age of underdogs and dark horses.
"Harris is smashing this debate, and she's the perfect tool to carry out oligarchic agendas:
charming, commanding, and completely unprincipled. Watch her campaign closely."
@caitoz on Bennet:
"Bennett says Russian memes are the greatest threat to US national security and isn't
laughed out of the building because people have been trained to believe such psychosis is
normal."
"... More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good. ..."
"... Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option. ..."
"... A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled " Non-Interventionism is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense. ..."
"... "Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing nations." ..."
"... "A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic consequences." ..."
"... Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia". ..."
"... Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq. ..."
"... All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." – Henry Kissinger ..."
"... Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents? ..."
"... instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. ..."
"... funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America. ..."
"... if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important ..."
"... As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong: I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's also the fact that she's a CFR member ..."
"... Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out. ..."
"... All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden. ..."
After getting curb stomped on the debate
stage by Tulsi Gabbard, the campaign for Tim "Who the fuck is Tim Ryan?" Ryan
posted a statement decrying the Hawaii congresswoman's
desire to end a pointless 18-year military occupation as "isolationism".
"While making a point as to why America can't cede its international leadership and retreat from around the world, Tim was
interrupted by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard," the statement reads.
"When he tried to answer her, she contorted a factual point Tim was making -- about the Taliban being complicit in the 9/11
attacks by providing training, bases and refuge for Al Qaeda and its leaders. The characterization that Tim Ryan doesn't know
who is responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is simply unfair reporting. Further, we continue to reject Gabbard's isolationism and
her misguided beliefs on foreign policy . We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators
like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad who used chemical weapons on his own people."
Ryan's campaign is lying. During an exchange that was explicitly about the Taliban in Afghanistan, Ryan plainly said "When we
weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings." At best, Ryan can argue that when he said "they" he had suddenly
shifted from talking about the Taliban to talking about Al Qaeda without bothering to say so, in which case he obviously can't legitimately
claim that Gabbard "contorted" anything he had said. At worst, he was simply unaware at the time of the very clear distinction between
the Afghan military and political body called the Taliban and the multinational extremist organization called Al Qaeda.
More importantly, Ryan's campaign using the word "isolationism" to describe the simple common sense impulse to withdraw from a
costly, deadly military occupation which isn't accomplishing anything highlights an increasingly common tactic of tarring anything
other than endless military expansionism as strange and aberrant instead of normal and good.
Under our current Orwellian doublespeak
paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer peace, but isolationism. This removal of a desirable
opposite of war from the establishment-authorised lexicon causes war to always be the desirable option.
This is entirely by design. This bit of word magic has been employed for a long time to tar any idea which deviates from the neoconservative
agenda of total global unipolarity via violent imperialism as something freakish and dangerous. In
his farewell address to the nation , war criminal George W Bush said the following:
"In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism
and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity
at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
A few months after Bush's address, Antiwar 's Rich Rubino wrote an article titled "
Non-Interventionism
is Not Isolationism ", explaining the difference between a nation which withdraws entirely from the world and a nation which
simply resists the temptation to use military aggression except in self defense.
"Isolationism dictates that a country should have no relations with the rest of the world," Rubino explained. "In its purest
form this would mean that ambassadors would not be shared with other nations, communications with foreign governments would be
mainly perfunctory, and commercial relations would be non-existent."
"A non-interventionist supports commercial relations," Rubino contrasted. "In fact, in terms of trade, many non-interventionists
share libertarian proclivities and would unilaterally obliterate all tariffs and custom duties, and would be open to trade with
all willing nations. In addition, non-interventionists welcome cultural exchanges and the exchange of ambassadors with all willing
nations."
"A non-interventionist believes that the U.S. should not intercede in conflicts between other nations or conflicts within
nations," wrote Rubino. "In recent history, non-interventionists have proved prophetic in warning of the dangers of the U.S. entangling
itself in alliances. The U.S. has suffered deleterious effects and effectuated enmity among other governments, citizenries, and
non-state actors as a result of its overseas interventions. The U.S. interventions in both Iran and Iraq have led to cataclysmic
consequences."
Calling an aversion to endless military violence "isolationism" is the same as calling an aversion to mugging people "agoraphobia".
Yet you'll see this ridiculous label applied to both Gabbard and Trump, neither of whom are isolationists by any stretch of the imagination,
or even proper non-interventionists. Gabbard supports most US military alliances and continues to voice full support for the bogus
"war on terror" implemented by the Bush administration which serves no purpose other than to facilitate endless military expansionism;
Trump is openly pushing regime change interventionism in both Venezuela and Iran while declining to make good on his promises to
withdraw the US military from Syria and Afghanistan.
Another dishonest label you'll get thrown at you when debating the forever war is "pacifism". "Some wars are bad, but I'm
not a pacifist; sometimes war is necessary," supporters of a given interventionist military action will tell you. They'll say this
while defending Trump's potentially catastrophic Iran warmongering or promoting a moronic regime change invasion of Syria, or defending
disastrous US military interventions in the past like Iraq.
This is bullshit for a couple of reasons. Firstly, virtually no one is a pure pacifist who opposes war under any and all possible
circumstances; anyone who claims that they can't imagine any possible scenario in which they'd support using some kind of coordinated
violence either hasn't imagined very hard or is fooling themselves. If your loved ones were going to be raped, tortured and killed
by hostile forces unless an opposing group took up arms to defend them, for example, you would support that. Hell, you would probably
join in. Secondly, equating opposition to US-led regime change interventionism, which is literally always disastrous and literally
never helpful, is not even a tiny bit remotely like opposing all war under any possible circumstance.
Another common distortion you'll see is the specious argument that a given opponent of US interventionism "isn't anti-war" because
they don't oppose all war under any and all circumstances.
This tweet by The Intercept 's Mehdi Hasan
is a perfect example, claiming that Gabbard is not anti-war because she supports Syria's sovereign right to defend itself with the
help of its allies from the violent extremist factions which overran the country with western backing. Again, virtually no one is
opposed to all war under any and all circumstances; if a coalition of foreign governments had helped flood Hasan's own country of
Britain with extremist militias who'd been murdering their way across the UK with the ultimate goal of toppling London, both Tulsi
Gabbard and Hasan would support fighting back against those militias.
The label "anti-war" can for these reasons be a little misleading. The term anti-interventionist or non-interventionist comes
closest to describing the value system of most people who oppose the warmongering of the western empire, because they understand
that calls for military interventionism which go mainstream in today's environment are almost universally based on imperialist agendas
grabbing at power, profit, and global hegemony. The label "isolationist" comes nowhere close.
It all comes down to sovereignty. An anti-interventionist believes that a country has the right to defend itself, but it doesn't
have the right to conquer, capture, infiltrate or overthrow other nations whether covertly or overtly. At the "end" of colonialism
we all agreed we were done with that, except that the nationless manipulators have found far trickier ways to seize a country's will
and resources without actually planting a flag there. We need to get clearer on these distinctions and get louder about defending
them as the only sane, coherent way to run foreign policy.
* * *
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing
list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything
I publish. My work is
entirely
reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on
Facebook , following my antics on
Twitter , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or
Paypal , purchasing some of my
sweet merchandise , buying my new book
Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone ,
or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click
here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
"If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led."
Fascinating belief, has he been to Libya lately, perhaps attended an open air slave Market in a country that was very developed
before the US decided to 'free' it.
When we weren't there, they flew planes into our buildings?
Excuse me mutant, but I believe we paid Israel our jewtax that year like all the others and they still flew planes into our
buildings. And then danced in the streets about it. Sick people.
All Wars Are Evil. Period. "Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." –
Henry Kissinger
Picture if you will Jesus. Seriously? Can you imagine Jesus firing a machine gun at a group of people? Can
you picture Jesus in an F-16 lobbing missiles at innocents?
Do you see Jesus piloting a drone and killing Muslims, other non-believers, or anyone for that matter? Can you picture Jesus
as a sniper?
Soooo,,, If my favorite evening activity, is to sit on the front porch steps, while the dog and the cats run around, with my
shotgun leaning up next to me,,, Is that Isolationist, or Protectionist,,,
instead of getting us out of Syria, Trump got us further in. Trump is driving us to ww3. we can't do **** if we're
glazed over in a nuclear holocaust. maybe Tulsi is lying through her teeth, but i am so pissed Trump went full neocon
funny how people, fresh from the broken promises "build that wall" etc, quickly forget all that and begin IMMEDIATELY
projecting trustworthiness on yet ANOTHER candidate. I'Il vote for Tulsi when she says no more Israeli wars for America.
If you read her positions on various issues, a quick survey shows that she supports the New Green Deal, more gun control (ban
on assault rifles, etc.), Medicare for all. Stopped reading at that point.
We refuse to be lectured by someone who thinks it's ok to dine with murderous dictators like Syria's Bashar Al-Assad
who used chemical weapons on his own people.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State. ~ Joseph Goebbels
The better educated among us know exactly as to who Goebblels was referring to. Even a dullard should be able to figure out
who benefits from all of our Middle East adventures.
"Under our current Orwellian doublespeak paradigm where forever war is the new normal, the opposite of war is no longer
peace, but isolationism. "
Under military might WAS the old world order... Under the new world order the strength is in cyber warfare .
If under technology the profiteers can control the masses through crowd control ( which they can-" Department of Defense has
developed a non-lethal crowd control device called the
Active Denial System (ADS) . The ADS works by firing a high-powered beam of 95 GHz waves at a target that is, millimeter wavelengths.
Anyone caught in the beam will feel like their skin is burning.) your spending power ( they can through e- commetce and digital
banking) and isolation cells called homes ( they can through directed microwaves from GWEN stations).... We already are isolated
and exposed at the same time.
That war is an exceptable means of engagement as a solution to world power is a confirmation of the psychological warfare imposed
on us since the creation of our Nation.
Either we reel it in and back now or we destroy ourselves from within.
"
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
if there's even a small chance Tulsi can get us out of the forever wars i will be compelled to vote for her, as Trump clearly
has no intention on doing so. yes, it is that important
Idiot, Tulsi is a sovereign nationalist on the left. You have just never seen one before. If you were truly anti-globalist
you'd would realize left and right are invented to divide us. The politics are global and national, so wake the **** up
""War Is the U.S. Racket!"" They are not good at it, there "great at it". My entire life 63yrs,they been fighting someone or
something. When times where rough in the 1800s,Hell! they fought themselves(Civil War. As I said b4 No one seems to ask, Where
does the gold go of the vanquished foe? Truly Is A Well Practiced Racket.
Good article with several salient points, thought I would ask "what's wrong with a little isolationism?" Peace through internal
strength is desirable, but good fences make good neighbors and charity begins at home!
The gradual twisting of language really is one of most insidious tactics employed by the NWO Luciferians. I think we'd all
like to see the traitorous Neocons gone for good. Better yet, strip them of their American citizenship and ill-gotten wealth and
banish them to Israel. Let them earn their citizenship serving in a front-line IDF rifle company.
As for this next election? Is Ron Paul running as an independent? No? Well then, 'fool me once...' Don't get me wrong:
I hope Gabbard is genuine and she's absolutely right to push non-interventionism...but the rest of her platform sucks. There's
also the fact that she's a CFR member and avowed gun-grabber, to boot. Two HUGE red flags!
She almost strikes me as a half-assed 'Manchurian Candidate.' So, if she's elected (a big 'if' at this point) I ask
myself 'what happens after the next (probably nuclear) false flag?' How quickly will she disavow her present stance on non-interventionism?
How quickly and viciously will the 2nd Amendment be raped? Besides, I'm not foolish enough to believe that one person can turn
the SS Deep State away from it's final disastrous course.
These word games were already in use looong ago. Tulsi Gabbard is using Obama's line about fighting the wrong war. She
would have taken out Al Qaeda, captured Bin Laden, and put a dog leash on him. So that she could make a green economy, a
new century of virtue signalling tyranny. No thanks.
Just as they did with Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Pat Buchanan, the MSM and the swamp have already effectively buried
Gabbard. It's unlikely that she'll make the next debate cut as the DNC and MSM will toss her out.
All the MSM is talking about post-debates, even on Faux Noise, is Harris's race-baiting of old senile Biden.
I went to some of the so-called liberal websites and blogs and the only mention of Gabbard is in the context of her being a
Putin stooge. This combined with the fact that virtually all establishment Republicans are eager to fight any war for Israel clearly
shows that it will take something other than the ballot box to end Uncle Scam's endless wars.
Caitlin
Johnstone is out of depth with this article. Completly out of depth.
Majority of her donations have come from financial interests including Wall Street, financial
industry lawyers, and real estate industry.
She has huge baggage due her mismanagement if Prosecutorial office in San Francisco and the
story probably gradually start leaking.
Her debating skills that Caitlin
Johnstone praises are not that great: she is too arrogant and try to bulli the opponent. That
works with weaker candidates but this will not work with Tulsi, Warren or Sanders. Also she is
playing "identity card" in a very dishonest way and if this is exposed she is a toast.
I am not sure that exposing herself as an arrogant bully attracts the voters. So in no way
she won the debates. Also there is a strong suspicion is that she got the questions in advance
and that was a prepared ambush.
She bought Russiagate fairy take and that a sign of political corruption. This statement
clearly demonstrate the level of her corruption and immaturity: "You asked what is the greatest
national-security threat to the United States. It's Donald Trump," Harris said. "You want to talk
about North Korea, a real threat in terms of its nuclear arsenal. But what does he do? He
embraces Kim Jong Un, a dictator, for the sake of a photo op. Putin. You want to talk about
Russia? He takes the word of the Russian president over the word of the American intelligence
community when it comes to a threat to our democracy and our elections."
In no way she she can attract former Trump voters -- she is limited to fraction of Hillary
base and as such her chances are not that strong.
Notable quotes:
"... Harris won the debate despite fully exposing herself for the corporate imperialist she is in the midst of that very debate. While answering a question about climate change she took the opportunity to attack Trump on foreign policy, not for his insane and dangerous hawkishness but for not being hawkish enough, on both North Korea and Russia. ..."
"... Harris is everything the US empire's unelected power establishment wants in a politician: charismatic, commanding, and completely unprincipled. In that sense she's like Obama, only better. ..."
"... Trump supporters like to claim that the president is fighting the establishment, citing the open revulsion that so many noxious establishment figures have for him. But the establishment doesn't hate Trump because he opposes them ; he doesn't oppose existing power structures in any meaningful way at all. ..."
"... The reason the heads of those power structures despise Trump is solely because he sucks at narrative management and puts an ugly face on the ugly things that America's permanent government is constantly doing . He's bad at managing their assets. ..."
"... Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of this. She'd be able to obliterate non-compliant nations and dead-end the left for eight years, and look good while doing it. She's got the skills to become president, and she'll have the establishment backing as well. Keep an eye on this one. ..."
"... Her story about racial segragation and discrimination were truly pathetic. She didn't even attend high school in the USA, and when in the USA, her parents lived in Berkeley, of all places. It is truly amazing the complete and utter ******** a preferred candidate can say, and the US mainstream media will not challenge them on it. ..."
"... Harris is an intersectionalisty, PC, indentity politicking, feminist, racial bully. She's never had a confrontation with any one who she wasn't able to bully down with this type of behaviour. ..."
"... The Democratic campaign issue of extending free health care to undocumented immigrants is a BIG loser (imo). No way are blue-collar voters in rust-belt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania and Michigan going to support that in any large numbers. ..."
"... Her attack on Biden re. school busing seemed well rehearsed. ..."
"... Completely unprincipled? She's a member of the CFR "Deep State", where being an "unprincipled money worshiper" is a pre-requisite. Everyone of them are, that's the problem. Only vetted whores need apply. Biden is an old whore, and female whores always do better than male whores in their profession. ..."
"... She's a female Obama. Never really accomplished anything but getting elected. When the going gets tough she will reveal herself as the vapid left coast liberal she is. ..."
"... She ignored sexual harassment in her own department as CA AG. She has a lot of scandals that make her look bad: Willie Brown, arresting and jailing pot smokers while she herself smoked pot and the whole Mnuchin thing. Jailing homeless mothers For their child's truancy from school. Her defense of the death penalty but not gay marriage while AG. ..."
"... Her family history in Caribbean slave trade needs to exposed more fully. Biden, should have responded ... 'I hear grandma was a slave plantation owner ? '. That woulda stopped the 'train'. ..."
"... Why should we believe the Presstitutes in 2020 after their lying flop in 2016'. Tulsi won. And they barely let her play ..."
"... Like Obama, who has Valerie Jarret to tell him what he thinks, she needs a handler. She is fundamentally clueless and will hand the media many a gaff in coming weeks. ..."
"... She does stumble over her thoughts in every un-canned interview I've seen, along with Booker ..."
California Senator Kamala Harris won the Democratic presidential debate last night. It was
not a close contest. She will win every debate she enters during this election cycle. If she
becomes the nominee, she will win every debate with Trump.
Night two of the debates was just as vapid and ridiculous as night
one . Candidates interrupted and talked over each other a lot, questions about foreign
policy were avoided like the plague to prevent NBC viewers from thinking critically about the
mechanics of empire, and Eric Swalwell kept talking despite everyone in the universe
desperately wanting him not to. Buttigieg and Gillibrand did alright, Bernie played the same
note he's been playing for decades, and everyone was reminded how bad Joe Biden is at talking
and thinking.
Biden has been treated kindly by polls and regarded as a "frontrunner" in this race
exclusively because for the last decade he hasn't had to do anything other than be associated
with Barack Obama . Now that he's had to step out of that insulated role and interact with
reality again, everyone's seeing the same old garbage right-wing Democrat who sucks at making
himself look appealing just as badly as he did in his last two presidential campaigns. By the
end of the night, even Michael
Bennet was slapping him around .
The moment
everyone's talking about was when Harris created a space for herself to attack Biden on his
citing his collaboration with segregationists as an example of his ability to reach across the
aisle and "get things done". Harris had not been called upon to speak, and once given the
go-ahead by moderator Rachel Maddow after interjecting went way beyond the 30 seconds she'd
been allotted in tearing Biden apart. She skillfully took control of the stage and engineered
the entire space for the confrontation by sheer dominance of personality, and Biden had no
answer for it.
That's the moment everyone's talking about. But Harris had already been owning the debate
prior to that.
The goal of a political debate is to make yourself look appealing and electable to your
audience. You can do that by having a very good platform, or you can do it with charisma and
oratory skills. It turns out that Kamala Harris is really, really good at doing the latter. She
made frequent and effective appeals to emotion, she built to applause lines far more skillfully
than anyone else on the stage, she kept her voice unwavering and without stammer, she made
herself look like a leader by admonishing the other candidates to
stop talking over each other, and she hit all the right progressive notes you're supposed to
hit in such a debate.
Unlike night one of the debates, night two had a clear, dominant winner. If you were a
casual follower of US politics and didn't have a favorite coming into the debate, you likely
went away feeling that Harris was the best.
This wasn't a fluke. Harris has been cultivating her debate skills for decades, first
in the
Howard University debate team where she is said to have "thrived", then as a prosecutor,
then as a politician, and she'll be able to replicate the same calibre of performance in all
subsequent debates. There's more to getting elected than debate skills, but it matters, and in
this area no one will be able to touch her. Harris won the debate despite fully exposing
herself for the corporate imperialist she is in the midst of that very debate. While answering
a question about climate change she took the opportunity to attack Trump on foreign policy, not
for his insane and dangerous hawkishness but for not being hawkish enough, on both North Korea
and Russia.
"You asked what is the greatest national-security threat to the United States. It's Donald
Trump," Harris said . "You
want to talk about North Korea, a real threat in terms of its nuclear arsenal. But what does
he do? He embraces Kim Jong Un, a dictator, for the sake of a photo op. Putin. You want to
talk about Russia? He takes the word of the Russian president over the word of the American
intelligence community when it comes to a threat to our democracy and our elections."
Harris is everything the US empire's unelected power establishment wants in a
politician: charismatic, commanding, and completely unprincipled. In that sense she's like
Obama, only better.
Harris was one of the 2020 presidential hopefuls who came under fire at the beginning of the
year
when it was reported that she'd been reaching out to Wall Street executives to find out if
they'd support her campaign. Executives named in the report include billionaire Blackstone CEO
Jonathan Gray, 32 Advisors' Robert Wolf, and Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly. It
was reported two
entire years ago that Harris was already courting top Hillary Clinton donors and organizers
in the Hamptons. She hasn't been in politics very long, but her campaign contributions as a
senator have come from numerous
plutocratic institutions .
... ... ...
Trump supporters like to claim that the president is fighting the
establishment, citing the open revulsion that so many noxious establishment figures have for
him. But the establishment doesn't hate Trump because he opposes them ; he doesn't oppose
existing power structures in any meaningful way at all.
The reason the heads of those power structures despise Trump is solely because he sucks
at narrative management and puts an ugly face on the ugly things that America's permanent
government is constantly doing . He's bad at managing their assets.
Kamala Harris is the exact opposite of this. She'd be able to obliterate non-compliant
nations and dead-end the left for eight years, and look good while doing it. She's got the
skills to become president, and she'll have the establishment backing as well. Keep an eye on
this one.
In this American's view, Kamala Harris is TOTALLY UNFIT to be POTUS. Her value set is COMPLETELY OUT OF STEP with America and WE THE PEOPLE. She is one of the most VILE CREATURES infecting our federal government system.
TRUMP WILL DEMOLISH HER IN 2020.
Be prepared for a MASSIVE LANDSLIDE FOR TRUMP if Harris is the Democratic nominee for
POTUS.
Like Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry famously said, "Do you feel lucky, punk? Go ahead...make
my day."
Her story about racial segragation and discrimination were truly pathetic. She didn't even
attend high school in the USA, and when in the USA, her parents lived in Berkeley, of all
places. It is truly amazing the complete and utter ******** a preferred candidate can say,
and the US mainstream media will not challenge them on it.
Harris is an intersectionalisty, PC, indentity politicking, feminist, racial bully. She's never had a confrontation with any one who she wasn't able to bully down with this
type of behaviour.
Well, until she gets across from Trump and she pulls this
ßƱ££$ĦĬŦ, except Trump just laughs it off, and punches
her in the face. She'll try to shame him, but he's shameless and will show everyone just who
she is.
The Democratic campaign issue of extending free health care to undocumented immigrants is
a BIG loser (imo). No way are blue-collar voters in rust-belt states like Ohio and
Pennsylvania and Michigan going to support that in any large numbers.
Those states are filled
with hard-working people who lost good-paying factory jobs and are scrambling to get by. They
are not going to line up en masse and volunteer to pay more taxes so undocumented immigrants
can get free health care. Harris and the whole sorry state of Commifornia are out of touch.
I
think Trump could beat Harris in a landslide (assuming the economy and/or stock markets don't
crash before then), and it shouldn't matter much who "wins" the debates. FWIW, I thought
Clinton was a better debator than Trump, but it didn't seem to matter that much.
BTW, the Harris campaign didn't wait very long to start selling "That Little Girl Was Me"
t-shirts:
She seems very mean-spirited. Her attack on Biden re. school busing seemed well
rehearsed. It also had a major flaw in that forced busing was widely regarded as a
failure, and it was reportedly unpopular with many minorities.
Completely unprincipled? She's a member of the CFR "Deep State", where being an
"unprincipled money worshiper" is a pre-requisite. Everyone of them are, that's the problem.
Only vetted whores need apply. Biden is an old whore, and female whores always do better than
male whores in their profession.
She's a female Obama. Never really accomplished anything but getting elected. When the
going gets tough she will reveal herself as the vapid left coast liberal she is.
Meet the NEW HILLARY, same as the old Hillary, but with an exciting dash of racial
intersectionality.
I've read that as DA she was absolute hell on wheels. Then there's the issue of being
WILLIE BROWN'S MISTRESS, evidently just a big joke in Cali....
Kamela's demeanor is like a smirking 'in crowd' kind of thing. Like Obama she hasn't been
in the Senate 5 minutes and now she's running for president, DISPLAYING ALL THE WORST
PSYCHOPATHIC POWER-LUST TENDENCIES THAT ARE ODDLY DESPISED IN HETEROSEXUAL WHITE MEN YET
CELEBRATED IN WOMEN.
The Left RUSHES to its own destruction, as always. History gives us a complete map of
where we are going if she achieved the levers of power. Think STALIN....
The real question anymore is will the badged white men with guns operating under color of
law side with their own destruction, thinking only of their sweet 20 year pensions? This is
cops, national guard, military.....
She ignored sexual harassment in her own department as CA AG. She has a lot of scandals
that make her look bad: Willie Brown, arresting and jailing pot smokers while she herself
smoked pot and the whole Mnuchin thing. Jailing homeless mothers For their child's truancy
from school. Her defense of the death penalty but not gay marriage while AG.
her staff recommended criminal indictments which she squashed in rhe Mnuchin bank fraud
case.
Harris has a listening disorder, she does not listen well, exp. her exchange with AG Barr
she does not hear a word he says.
Her family history in Caribbean slave trade needs to exposed more fully. Biden, should
have responded ... 'I hear grandma was a slave plantation owner ? '. That woulda stopped the
'train'.
She's also stupid, and her thuggishness, while popular with some, won't put her over the
top. Nope, the Dems are going to have to get somebody who is at least a little bit likeable
(get ready, Michelle, it's almost time to go back to work).
Dofing duffer Biden with a prepped & targeted zinger that he walked right into
..once...and winning the nomination is a different kettle of fish.
Flatfooted, off the cuff and on her own, she stinks. She's good in practice but on game day
when she puts on her cleats, she's a 2nd team flunkie. Just run her Kavanaugh hearing
bites.
Like Obama, who has Valerie Jarret to tell him what he thinks, she needs a handler.
She is fundamentally clueless and will hand the media many a gaff in coming weeks.
She does stumble over her thoughts in every un-canned interview I've seen, along with
Booker. And the article doesn't mention much about her nasty background, which will fester,
along with Booker's, if they are the nominees. Trump will eat all their lunches and they will
pay the tab.
"... To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach. ..."
"... What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike." ..."
"... D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them. ..."
"... D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular. ..."
"... It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran. ..."
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit -- the Iran Mission Center -- to focus attention on
the U.S. plans against Iran . The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration
came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas -- North
Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor -- Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)
-- continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This
was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian
diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington -- as one official told me -- that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no
special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.
Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy
of his National Security Adviser John Bolton .
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program,
and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly
controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile -- a man of a certain age, for
instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told
me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed
attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the
worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking
a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki -- who had
been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain
silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime
change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here.
These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran -- Kaplan said -- that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand
its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya,
which means prudence and not -- as Kaplan and others argue -- deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with
that group -- since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the
chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability
in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager
for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi -- a man with close links to the Saudi
monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are
capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important
role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the
dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their
water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on
Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter ,
a project of the Independent Media Institute.
"... India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose. ..."
"... Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants. ..."
leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 4:41pm In a surprise move, the EU special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran (INSTEX)
exercised its first trade today. The body was set up to facilitate exports of Iranian oil without U.S. dollars, avoiding a sanctions
regime imposed unilaterally by the U.S.
Instex is now operational despite U.S. threats to European banks and officials of reprisal sanctions if they violated Iran sanctions.
Bloomberg had reported on May 7 the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker,
issued a warning letter that Instex and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into
effect.
In defiance of U.S. pressure, Instex was set up by EU diplomats in January as a means to prevent total collapse of the Iranian
nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The first official trades occurred today, in the
shadow of the Group of 20 Summit meeting.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-claims-iran-deal-held-togethe...
A senior EU diplomat has said the first transactions were being made by a special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran at a
meeting of the remaining members of the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna.
Friday's meeting in Vienna featured "constructive discussions," Helga Schmid, the head of the EU diplomatic service said, confirming
the entity, named Instex, was making its first transactions.
"INSTEX now operational, first transactions being processed and more EU Members States to join. Good progress on Arak and Fordow
[fuel enrichment] projects," she posted.
The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) is designed to facilitate trade of essential goods, such as food and
medicine, mainly from the EU to Iran. A Chinese official said Beijing was open to using the facility.
The platform has been set up in France, with a German managing director in a coordinated European effort to counterbalance
the US economic power displayed by its sanctions policy.
President Donald Trump last year pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.
According to today's report:
As the talks kicked off on Friday, seven EU nations expressed support for Instex and the JCPOA, asking Iran "to abide by and
fully respect the terms and provisions of the nuclear agreement".
"We are working with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as with the European External Action Service and the European
Commission, to establish channels to facilitate legitimate trade and financial operations with Iran, one of the foremost of these
initiatives being the establishment of Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges," read the statement from Austria, Belgium, Finland,
the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Whether the declaration of support and first tranche of transactions will be enough to keep Iran committed to the 2015 nuclear
deal is still in question.
Crucial for INSTEX's success will be whether participating states also develop mechanisms for European companies and their
employees that protect them from the expected American sanctions and compensate for any damages incurred. The legislative instrument
for this exists: The EU's blocking statute. It just needs to be updated to meet the new requirements.
Read more: US welcomes German firms' compliance on Iran sanctions
International transactions independent of the dollar
The knowledge and experience gained in the process could later be transferred to other areas, such as European initiatives
in international monetary transactions. This expertise could then come in handy for establishing payment channels independent
of the American financial system and the dollar, which the US also uses as a lever in its sanctions policy.
Two pieces of good news in two days, Tulsi Gabbard winning acknowledgement and respect in the debate, and this encouraging
sign from Europe. A person could almost get used to thinking common sense is gaining ground. Thank you, leveymg, for posting
this.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this baffling
part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly
be for medicines and...food (?)
Right now, it's unclear which way this is going to go. If Europe bows to American power, again, it will turn out very badly
for everyone. Iraq times ten.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
...just fine. India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading
currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was
designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose.
Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding
behind Uncle Sams petticoat.
[edited to correct]
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did
before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement.
But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can
do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of
our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in
Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it
did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the
agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear
what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum
of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest
in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
We’ll see how neoliberal MSM will spin this, but I would say Sanders emerged unscathed, Harris attacked and "wounded" Biden, Biden
sounded like a lightweight, Gillibrand seems to be a very unpleasant person although different form Harris...
Notable quotes:
"... as if polling on donald trump and stuff is just so interesting ..."
"... Kamala Harris got more floor time than anyone else. Harris ended Biden's campaign. The debate is rigged against Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Did Harris get the debate questions in advance? ..."
"... Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage. ..."
"... Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala The Cop. ..."
Pathetic, the whole scene is pathetic. What a way to run a putative democracy, bring back the league of women voters to run
the debates and that idiot with the graphs during commercial breaks while watching this online, I want to break his freaking head
sorry.
I had the idea that your sensibilities were rather more refined than that, knowing anything about or not.
Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn’t care, doesn’t take the whole thing seriously. It’s like someone who
is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her having to be there. That’s what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying
from any leadership position. “Food fight”? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage.
FWIW, Boot Edge Edge’s prehensile sincerity was masterful in my view – shows some real talent.
I’m just observing this out of academic interest and hope we’ll all have a chance to vote for Bernie in the general. But from
tonight, Boot Edge Edge to me stood out as a talent – and everyone else (besides Bernie who was reliably on message and will keep
going more or less the same after this) was garbage or unnecessary (Biden is a disgrace), and the first debate was better.
Cal2, June 27, 2019 at 11:19 pm
In that case, Donald Trump gets our votes, as well as keeping all the potential crossovers, who had supported Trump last time,
and would have voted for Sanders-Gabbard.
Harris will alienate The Deplorables, the military, the White Working Class or even black people, who know her as Kamala
The Cop.
Sanders-Harris would be political suicide for the Democrats.
"... This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington. ..."
"... That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same. ..."
"... To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the Iranian regime. ..."
"... the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel). ..."
"... Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon (Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism. ..."
"... The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense, but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and similar weapons. ..."
"... For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan, India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports. ..."
"... In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not territorial self-defense ..."
"... When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war levels. ..."
"... Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US security and oil interests. ..."
"... Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against biological and chemical weapons. ..."
"... Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces – some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for nukes. ..."
"... However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs. ..."
"... Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too. ..."
This is just wanton shit-faced stupidity. We are referring to
the Trump Administration's escalation of sanctions on Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei and its foreign
minister, and then the Donald's tweet-storm of bluster, threats and implicit redlines when they
didn't take too kindly to this latest act of aggression by Washington.
That last point can't be emphasized enough. Iran is zero threat to the American homeland
and has never engaged in any hostile action on U.S soil or even threatened the same.
To the contrary, Washington's massive naval and military arsenal in the middle east is
essentially the occupational force of a naked aggressor that has created mayhem through the
Persian Gulf and middle eastern region for the past three decades; and has done so in pursuit
of the will-o-wisp of oil security and the neocon agenda of demonizing and isolating the
Iranian regime.
But as we have demonstrated previously, the best cure for high oil prices is the global
market, not the Fifth Fleet. And the demonization of the Iranian regime is based on lies
and propaganda ginned up by the Bibi Netanyahu branch of the War Party (that has falsely made
Iran an "existential" threat in order to win elections in Israel).
Stated differently, the American people have no dog in the political hunts of Washington's
so-called allies in the region; and will be no worse for the wear economically if Washington
were to dispense with its idiotic economic warfare against Iran's 4 million barrel per day oil
industry and allow all exporters in the region to produce and sell every single barrel they can
economically extract.
Viewed in the proper context, Iran's response to the new sanctions and intensified efforts
to destroy their economy was readily warranted:
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the new sanctions "outrageous and stupid." Mr.
Khamenei, while the political leader of Iran, also is one of the world's leading authorities
for Shia Muslims.
"Would any administration with a bit of wisdom [sanction] the highest authority of a
country? And not only a political authority, a religious, social, spiritual one, and not the
leader of Iran only, the leader of the Islamic revolution all over the world?" Mr. Rouhani said
in a speech broadcast on state television.
He said it was "obvious" that the US was lying about wanting to negotiate with Iran: "You
want us to negotiate with you again?" Mr. Rouhani said, "and at the same time you seek to
sanction the foreign minister too?"
Iran also said these sanctions closed the door on diplomacy and threatened global
stability, as American officials renewed efforts to build a global alliance against
Tehran.
Unfortunately, it didn't take the Donald long to upchuck what amounted to a dangerous
tantrum:
.Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement, put out today, only shows that they do not
understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great and
overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John Kerry
& Obama!
Those words are utterly reckless and outrageous. The Donald is carrying water for the
neocons, Bibi and the Saudis without really understanding what he is doing and in the process
is betraying America First and inching closer to an utterly unnecessary conflagration in the
Persian Gulf that will virtually upend the global economy.
Worst of all, as he escalates the confrontation with the Iranian regime, he espouses a pack
of lies and distortions that do no remotely comport with the facts. For instance, the following
tweet is absolutely neocon baloney:
.The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their leadership
spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The US has not forgotten Iran's
use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded many
more
The truth of the matter is that the Donald is referring to attacks on US forces by the
Shiite militias in Iraq during Washington's misbegotten invasion and occupation of that
woebegone nation during the last decades. The Shiite live there, constitute the majority of its
electorate, didn't want America there in the first place, and now actually run the government
that Washington placed in power and are totally opposed to Trump's confrontation with their
Shiite compatriots in Iran.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Better still, it is crucial to understand that this entire dangerous escalation is owing to
the fact that the Donald got into his thick head that utter nonsense that the Iran nuke deal
was some kind of disaster, and from there walked-away from the deal and restarted a brutal
economic war against Iran in the guise of sanctions.
But nothing could be further from the truth. The Donald's action to terminate the Iranian
nuclear deal was a complete triumph for the War Party.
It gutted the very idea of America First because Washington's renewed round of
sanctions constitute economic aggression against a country that is no threat to the US homeland
whatsoever.
In fact, Iran did not violate any term of the nuke deal, and as we demonstrate below,
scrupulously adhered to the letter of it. So the real reasons for Trump's abandonment of the
nuke deal have everything to do with the kind of Imperial interventionism that is the
antithesis of America First.
Trump's action, in fact, is predicated on the decades long neocon-inspired Big Lie that Iran
is an aggressive expansionist and terrorism-supporting rogue state which threatens the security
of not just the region, but America too.
But that's flat out poppycock. As we documented last week, the claim that Iran is the
expansionist leader of the Shiite Crescent is based on nothing more than the fact that Tehran
has an independent foreign policy based on its own interests and confessional affiliations
– legitimate relationships that are demonized by virtue of not being approved by
Washington.
Likewise, the official charge that Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism is not
remotely warranted by the facts: The listing is essentially a State Department favor to the
Netanyahu branch of the War Party.
The fact is, the Iranian regime with its piddling $14 billion military budget has no means
to attack America militarily and has never threatened to do so. Nor has it invaded any other
country in the region where it was not invited by a sovereign government host.
As Ron Paul cogently observed:
Is Iran really the aggressive one? When you unilaterally pull out of an agreement that
was reducing tensions and boosting trade; when you begin applying sanctions designed to
completely destroy another country's economy; when you position military assets right offshore
of that country; when you threaten to destroy that country on a regular basis, calling it a
campaign of "maximum pressure," to me it seems a stretch to play the victim when that country
retaliates by shooting a spy plane that is likely looking for the best way to attack.
Even if the US spy plane was not in Iranian airspace – but it increasingly looks
like it was – it was just another part of an already-existing US war on Iran. Yes,
sanctions are a form of war, not a substitute for war.
The point is Washington's case is almost entirely bogus. To wit:
Mr. Trump also reiterated his demands Monday at the White House: "We will continue to
increase pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
aspirations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement in and support for terrorism, fueling of foreign
conflicts, and belligerent acts directed against the United States and its allies."
Let's see about those "dangerous activities and aspirations".
In fact, Iran has no blue water navy that could effectively operate outside of the Persian
Gulf; its longest range warplanes can barely get to Rome without refueling; and its array of
mainly defensive medium and intermediate range missiles cannot strike most of NATO, to say
nothing of the North American continent.
Likewise, it has presumed to have an independent foreign policy involving Washington
proscribed alliances with the sovereign state of Syria, the leading political party of Lebanon
(Hezbollah), the ruling authorities in Baghdad and the reining power in the Yemen capital of
Sana'a (the Houthis). All these regimes except the puppet state of Iraq are deemed by Washington to be sources of
unsanctioned "regional instability" and Iran's alliances with them have been capriciously
labeled as acts of state sponsored terrorism.
The same goes for Washington's demarche against Iran's modest array of short, medium and
intermediate range ballistic missiles. These weapons are palpably instruments of self-defense,
but Imperial Washington insists their purpose is aggression – unlike the case of
practically every other nation which offers its custom to American arms merchants for like and
similar weapons.
For example, Iran's arch-rival across the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, has more advanced NATO
supplied ballistic missiles with even greater range (2,600 km range). So does Israel, Pakistan,
India and a half-dozen other nations, which are either Washington allies or have been given a
hall-pass in order to bolster US arms exports.
In short, Washington's escalating war on Iran is an exercise in global hegemony, not
territorial self-defense. It is a testament to the manner in which the historic notion of
national defense has morphed into Washington's arrogant claim that it constitutes the
"Indispensable Nation" which purportedly stands as mankind's bulwark against global disorder
and chaos among nations.
Likewise, the Shiite theocracy ensconced in Tehran was an unfortunate albatross on the
Persian people, but it was no threat to America's safety and security. The very idea that
Tehran is an expansionist power bent on exporting terrorism to the rest of the world is a giant
fiction and tissue of lies invented by the Washington War Party and its Bibi Netanyahu branch
in order to win political support for their confrontationist policies.
Indeed, the three decade long demonization of Iran has served one overarching purpose.
Namely, it enabled both branches of the War Party to conjure up a fearsome enemy, thereby
justifying aggressive policies that call for a constant state of war and military
mobilization.
When the cold-war officially ended in 1991, in fact, the Cheney/neocon cabal feared the kind
of drastic demobilization of the US military-industrial complex that was warranted by the
suddenly more pacific strategic environment. In response, they developed an anti-Iranian
doctrine that was explicitly described as a way of keeping defense spending at high cold war
levels.
And the narrative they developed to this end is one of the more egregious Big Lies ever to
come out of the beltway. It puts you in mind of the young boy who killed his parents, and then
threw himself on the mercy of the courts on the grounds that he was an orphan!
To wit, during the 1980s the neocons in the Reagan Administration issued their own fatwa
again the Islamic Republic of Iran based on its rhetorical hostility to America. Yet that
enmity was grounded in Washington's 25-year support for the tyrannical and illegitimate regime
of the Shah, and constituted a founding narrative of the Islamic Republic that was not much
different than America's revolutionary castigation of King George.
That the Iranians had a case is beyond doubt. The open US archives now prove that the CIA
overthrew Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 and put the utterly unsuited and
megalomaniacal Mohammad Reza Shah on the peacock throne to rule as a puppet in behalf of US
security and oil interests.
During the subsequent decades the Shah not only massively and baldly plundered the wealth of
the Persian nation. With the help of the CIA and US military, he also created a brutal secret
police force known as the Savak, which made the East German Stasi look civilized by
comparison.
All elements of Iranian society including universities, labor unions, businesses, civic
organizations, peasant farmers and many more were subjected to intense surveillance by the
Savak agents and paid informants. As one critic described it:
Over the years, Savak became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest, detain,
brutally interrogate and torture suspected people indefinitely. Savak operated its own prisons
in Tehran, such as Qezel-Qalaeh and Evin facilities and many suspected places throughout the
country as well.
Ironically, among his many grandiose follies, the Shah embarked on a massive civilian
nuclear power campaign in the 1970s, which envisioned literally paving the Iranian landscape
with dozens of nuclear power plants.
He would use Iran's surging oil revenues after 1973 to buy all the equipment required from
Western companies – and also fuel cycle support services such as uranium enrichment
– in order to provide his kingdom with cheap power for centuries.
At the time of the Revolution, the first of these plants at Bushehr was nearly complete, but
the whole grandiose project was put on hold amidst the turmoil of the new regime and the onset
of Saddam Hussein's war against Iran in September 1980. As a consequence, a $2 billion deposit
languished at the French nuclear agency that had originally obtained it from the Shah to fund a
ramp-up of its enrichment capacity to supply his planned battery of reactors.
Indeed, in this very context the new Iranian regime proved quite dramatically that it was
not hell bent on obtaining nuclear bombs or any other weapons of mass destruction. In the midst
of Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in the early 1980s the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa
against biological and chemical weapons.
Yet at that very time, Saddam was dropping these horrific weapons on Iranian battle forces
– some of them barely armed teenage boys – with the spotting help of CIA tracking
satellites and the concurrence of Washington. So from the very beginning, the Iranian posture
was wholly contrary to the War Party's endless blizzard of false charges about its quest for
nukes.
However benighted and medieval its religious views, the theocracy which rules Iran does not
consist of demented war mongers. In the heat of battle they were willing to sacrifice their own
forces rather than violate their religious scruples to counter Saddam's WMDs.
Then in 1983 the new Iranian regime decided to complete the Bushehr power plant and some
additional elements of the Shah's grand plan. But when they attempted to reactivate the French
enrichment services contract and buy necessary power plant equipment from the original German
suppliers they were stopped cold by Washington. And when the tried to get their $2 billion
deposit back, they were curtly denied that, too.
To make a long story short, the entire subsequent history of off again/on again efforts by
the Iranians to purchase dual use equipment and components on the international market, often
from black market sources like Pakistan, was in response to Washington's relentless efforts to
block its legitimate rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to
complete some parts of the Shah's civilian nuclear project.
Needless to say, it did not take much effort by the neocon "regime change" fanatics which
inhabited the national security machinery, especially after the 2000 election, to spin every
attempt by Iran to purchase even a lowly pump or pipe fitting as evidence of a secret campaign
to get the bomb.
The exaggerations, lies, distortions and fear-mongering which came out of this neocon
campaign are downright despicable. Yet they incepted way back in the early 1990s when George
H.W. Bush actually did reach out to the newly elected government of Hashemi Rafsanjani to bury
the hatchet after it had cooperated in obtaining the release of American prisoners being held
in Lebanon in 1989.
Rafsanjani was self-evidently a pragmatist who did not want conflict with the United States
and the West; and after the devastation of the eight year war with Iraq was wholly focused on
economic reconstruction and even free market reforms of Iran's faltering economy.
It is one of the great tragedies of history that the neocons managed to squelch even George
Bush's better instincts with respect to rapprochement with Tehran.
The Neocon Big Lie About Iranian Nukes And Terrorism
So the prisoner release opening was short-lived – especially after the top post at the
CIA was assumed in 1991 by Robert Gates. As one of the very worst of the unreconstructed cold
war apparatchiks, it can be well and truly said that Gates looked peace in the eye and then
elected to pervert John Quincy Adams' wise maxim by searching the globe for monsters to
fabricate.
In this case the motivation was especially loathsome. Gates had been Bill Casey's right hand
man during the latter's rogue tenure at the CIA in the Reagan administration. Among the many
untoward projects that Gates shepherded was the Iran-Contra affair that nearly destroyed his
career when it blew-up, and for which he blamed the Iranians for its public disclosure.
From his post as deputy national security director in 1989 and then as CIA head Gates pulled
out all the stops to get even. Almost single-handedly he killed-off the White House goodwill
from the prisoner release, and launched the blatant myth that Iran was both sponsoring
terrorism and seeking to obtain nuclear weapons.
Indeed, it was Gates who was the architect of the demonization of Iran that became a staple
of War Party propaganda after the 1991. In time that morphed into the utterly false claim that
Iran is an aggressive wanna be hegemon that is a fount of terrorism and is dedicated to the
destruction of the state of Israel, among other treacherous purposes.
That giant lie was almost single-handedly fashioned by the neocons and Bibi Netanyahu's
coterie of power-hungry henchman after the mid-1990s. Indeed, the false claim that Iran posses
an "existential threat" to Israel is a product of the pure red meat domestic Israeli politics
that have kept Bibi in power for much of the last two decades.
But the truth is Iran has only a tiny fraction of Israel's conventional military capability.
And compared to the latter's 100 odd nukes, Iran has never had a nuclear weaponization program
after a small scale research program was ended in 2003.
That is not merely our opinion. It's been the sober assessment of the nation's top 17
intelligence agencies in the official National Intelligence Estimates ever since 2007. And now
in conjunction with a further study undertaken pursuant to the 2015 nuke deal, the IAEA has
also concluded the Iran had no secret program after 2003.
On the political and foreign policy front, Iran is no better or worse than any of the other
major powers in the Middle East. In many ways it is far less of a threat to regional peace and
stability than the military butchers who now run Egypt on $1.5 billion per year of US aid.
And it is surely no worse than the royal family tyrants who squander the massive oil
resources of Saudi Arabia in pursuit of unspeakable opulence and decadence to the detriment of
the 30 million citizens which are not part of the regime, and who one day may well reach the
point of revolt.
When it comes to the support of terrorism, the Saudis have funded more jihadists and
terrorists throughout the region than Iran ever even imagined.
In fact, Iran is a nearly bankrupt country that has no capability whatsoever to
threaten the security and safety of the citizens of Spokane WA, Peoria IL or anywhere else in
the USA.
Its $460 billion GDP is the size of Indiana's and its 68,000 man military is only slightly
larger than the national guard of Texas.
It is a land of severe mountains and daunting swamps that are not all that conducive to
rapid economic progress and advanced industrialization. It has no blue water navy, no missiles
with more than a few hundred miles of range, and, we must repeat again, has had no nuclear
weapons program for more than a decade.
Moreover, Donald's incessant charge that the Obama Administration gave away the store during
the nuke deal negotiations that led to the JCPA is just blatant nonsense. In fact, the Iranians
made huge concessions on nearly every issue that made a difference.
That included deep concessions on the number of permitted centrifuges at Natanz; the
dismantlement of the Fordow and Arak nuclear operations; the virtually complete liquidation of
its enriched uranium stockpiles; the intrusiveness and scope of the inspections regime; and the
provisions with respect to Iran's so-called "breakout" capacity.
For instance, while every signatory of the non-proliferation treaty has the right to
civilian enrichment, Iran agreed to reduce the number of centrifuges by 70% from 20,000 to
6,000.
And its effective spinning capacity was reduced by significantly more. That's because the
permitted Natanz centrifuges now consist exclusively of its most rudimentary, outdated
equipment – first-generation IR-1 knockoffs of 1970s European models.
Not only was Iran not be allowed to build or develop newer models, but even those remaining
were permitted to enrich uranium to a limit of only 3.75% purity. That is to say, to the
generation of fissile material that is not remotely capable of reaching bomb grade
concentrations of 90%.
Equally importantly, pursuant to the agreement Iran has eliminated enrichment activity
entirely at its Fordow plant – a facility that had been Iran's one truly advanced,
hardened site that could withstand an onslaught of Israeli or US bunker busters.
Instead, Fordow has become a small time underground science lab devoted to medical isotope
research and crawling with international inspectors. In effectively decommissioning Fordow and
thereby eliminating any capacity to cheat from a secure facility – what Iran got in
return was at best a fig leave of salve for its national pride.
The disposition of the reactor at Arak has been even more dispositive. For years, the War
Party has falsely waved the bloody shirt of "plutonium" because the civilian nuclear reactor
being built there was of Canadian "heavy water" design rather than GE or Westinghouse "light
water" design; and, accordingly, when finished it would have generated plutonium as a waste
product rather than conventional spent nuclear fuel rods.
In truth, the Iranians couldn't have bombed a beehive with the Arak plutonium because you
need a reprocessing plant to convert it into bomb grade material. Needless to say, Iran never
had such a plant – nor any plans to build one, and no prospect for getting the requisite
technology and equipment.
But now even that bogeyman no longer exists. Iran removed and destroyed the reactor core of
its existing Arak plant in 2016 and filled it with cement, as attested to by international
inspectors under the JCPA.
As to its already existing enriched stock piles, including some 20% medical-grade material,
97% has been eliminated as per the agreement. That is, Iran now holds only 300 kilograms of its
10,000 kilogram stockpile in useable or recoverable form. Senator Kirk could store what is left
in his wine cellar.
But where the framework agreement decisively shut down the War Party was with respect to its
provision for a robust, comprehensive and even prophylactic inspections regime. All of the
major provision itemized above are being enforced by continuous IAEA access to existing
facilities including its main centrifuge complex at Natanz – along with Fordow, Arak and
a half dozen other sites.
Indeed, the real breakthrough in the JCPA lies in Iran's agreement to what amounts to a
cradle-to-grave inspection regime. It encompasses the entire nuclear fuel chain.
That means international inspectors can visit Iran's uranium mines and milling and fuel
preparation operations. This encompasses even its enrichment equipment manufacturing and
fabrication plants, including centrifuge rotor and bellows production and storage
facilities.
Beyond that, Iran has also been subject to a robust program of IAEA inspections to prevent
smuggling of materials into the country to illicit sites outside of the named facilities under
the agreement. This encompasses imports of nuclear fuel cycle equipment and materials,
including so-called "dual use" items which are essentially civilian imports that can be
repurposed to nuclear uses, even peaceful domestic power generation.
In short, not even a Houdini could secretly breakout of the control box established by the
JCPA and confront the world with some kind of fait accompli threat to use the bomb.
That's because what it would take to do so is absurdly implausible. That is, Iran would need
to secretly divert thousands of tons of domestically produced or imported uranium and then
illicitly mill and upgrade such material at secret fuel preparation plants.
It would also need to secretly construct new, hidden enrichment operations of such massive
scale that they could house more than 10,000 new centrifuges. Moreover, they would need to
build these massive spinning arrays from millions of component parts smuggled into the country
and transported to remote enrichment operations – all undetected by the massive complex
of spy satellites overhead and covert US ands Israeli intelligence agency operatives on the
ground in Iran.
Finally, it would require the activation from scratch of a weaponization program which has
been dormant according to the National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) for more than a decade.
And then, that the Iranian regime – after cobbling together one or two bombs without
testing them or their launch vehicles – would nevertheless be willing to threaten to use
them sight unseen.
So just stop it!
You need to be a raging, certifiable paranoid boob to believe that the Iranians can break
out of this framework box based on a secret new capacity to enrich the requisite fissile
material and make a bomb.
In the alternative scenario, you have to be a willful know-nothing to think that if it
publicly repudiates the agreement, Iran could get a bomb overnight before the international
community could take action.
To get enough nuclear material to make a bomb from the output of the 5,000 "old and slow"
centrifuges remaining at Natanz would take years, not months. And if subject to an embargo on
imported components, as it would be after a unilateral Iranian repudiation of the JCPA, it
could not rebuild its now dismantled enrichment capacity rapidly, either.
At the end of the day, in fact, what you really have to believe is that Iran is run by
absolutely irrational, suicidal madmen. After all, even if they managed to defy the immensely
prohibitive constraints described above and get one or a even a few nuclear bombs, what in the
world would they do with them?
Drop them on Tel Aviv? That would absolutely insure Israel's navy and air force would
unleash its 100-plus nukes and thereby incinerate the entire industrial base and major
population centers of Iran.
Indeed, the very idea that deterrence would fail even if a future Iranian regime were to
defy all the odds, and also defy the fatwa against nuclear weapons issued by their Supreme
Leader, amounts to one of the most preposterous Big Lies ever concocted.
There is no plausible or rational basis for believing it outside of the axis-of-evil
narrative. So what's really behind Trump's withdrawal from the JCPA is nothing more than the
immense tissue of lies and unwarranted demonization of Iran that the War Party has fabricated
over the last three decades.
Iran Never Wanted the Bomb
At bottom, all the hysteria about the mullahs getting the bomb was based on the wholly
theoretically supposition that they wanted civilian enrichment only as a stepping stone to the
bomb. Yet the entirety of the US intelligence complex as well as the attestation of George W.
Bush himself say it isn't so.
As we have previously indicated, the blinding truth of that proposition first came in the
National Intelligence Estimates of 2007. These NIEs represent a consensus of all 17 US
intelligence agencies on salient issues each year, and on the matter of Iran's nuclear weapons
program they could not have been more unequivocal:
"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear
weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is
keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We assess with moderate confidence Tehran
had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it
currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
"Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to
international pressure indicates Tehran's decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach
rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic and military
costs."
Moreover, as former CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted recently, the NIE's have not changed
since then.
An equally important fact ignored by the mainstream media is that the key judgments of
that NIE have been revalidated by the intelligence community every year since.
More crucially, there is the matter of "Dubya's" memoirs. Near the end of his term in office
he was under immense pressure to authorize a bombing campaign against Iran's civilian nuclear
facilities.
But once the 2007 NIEs came out, even the "mission accomplished" President in the bomber
jacket was caught up short. As McGovern further notes,
Bush lets it all hang out in his memoir, Decision Points. Most revealingly, he complains
bitterly that the NIE "tied my hands on the military side" and called its findings
"eye-popping."
A disgruntled Bush writes, "The backlash was immediate ."I don't know why the NIE was
written the way it was. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a
good one."
Spelling out how the Estimate had tied his hands "on the military side," Bush included
this (apparently unedited) kicker: "But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had
no active nuclear weapons program?"
So there you have it. How is it possible to believe that the Iranian's were hell-bent on a
nuclear holocaust when they didn't even have a nuclear weapons program?
And why in the world is the Donald taking America and the world to the edge of a utterly
unnecessary war in order to force a better deal when the one he shit-canned was more than
serviceable?
The answer to that momentous questions lies with the Bombzie Twins (Pompeo and Bolton) and
the malign influence of the Donald's son-in-law and Bibi Netanyahu toady, Jared Kushner.
Rarely have a small group of fanatics more dangerously and wantonly jeopardized the
security, blood and treasure of the American people.
It is interesting that Trump destiny now depends on geopolitical events he can't control namely actions of Iran and China.
Trump foreign policy appears to be driven by a combination of resentment and arrogance -- not a good combination for survival of
Trump and/or mankind
Was with Iran might result in high oil prices would kill the already anemic global growth and cause a recession (I guess
the volatility in oil prices will go through the roof at that point), Iran can destabilize the global economy by destroying most
of the oil production infrastructure around the gulf.
While Lyndon Johnson had chosen not running for reelection in 1968 because anti-war sentiment was high, G W Bush who was
reelected and the USA have now contractor army and casualties without draft does not matter much.
Notable quotes:
"... More likely they attack Saudi Arabia directly. Same impact, more justifiable if not outright popular. No one likes Prince Bone Saw. ..."
"... Iran could take those 10 million barrels a day away in 15 minutes. ..."
China will play a large roll in whether trump get re-elected.
If they decide they prefer his dysfunctional governance to his opponent, then they will engage
in a trade deal that will allow to trump to declare victory. It will likely be a very
superficial victory.
If they decide they would prefer to engage with a different administration, they will likely
refrain from a trade deal until after the election.
Have you asked yourself why Putin preferred trump? The answer is not pretty (for trump, or the
USA).
This is probably an absurd point of view. But in my opinion, it might be in Iran's interest
to drag the U.S into war, probably as indirectly as possible. That way they might
significantly reduce the chance of Trump being re-elected. (Obviously lives will be
sacrificed in this scenario)
The question is if it would work and would a Democrat president stop the war and go into the
same JCPOA deal again. Who knows. Very unpredictable.
Well, Mike, as absurd IMO is that Iran would risk self-destruction to get rid of Trump. He's
certainly a PITA for them, but closing the Strait of Hormuz to crash the global economy and
to blame it on Trump wouldn't work: Trump could blame it all on Iran while keeping on cooking
a controlled conflict with them, showing the world that the US doesn't depend on oil from any
other continent.
This would be a very difficult situation for a Democrat to step in and to
promise a better solution. The US would be relatively well off compared to Asia and Europe
and even could emerge out of such a constellation relatively more powerful.
But it could also
end up in a terrible mess. As you wrote: Who knows. Very unpredictable.
"... She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoing ..."
"... The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive. ..."
"... Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list. ..."
"... Maddow's question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most interesting, engaging, and enlightening exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan. ..."
"... Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is ready to do the job on day one. ..."
"... In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment, coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo! ..."
"... Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble, might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful. ..."
She is the only candidate who has made ending the wars a centerpiece
of her campaign, which will likely lead to her undoing
Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard during the first night of the the Democratic debate. (YouTube/NBC News/screenshot) Democrats, liberals,
progressives -- call them what you will -- don't really do foreign policy. Sure, if cornered, they'll spout a few choice talking
points, and probably find a way to make them all about bashing President Donald Trump -- ignoring the uncomfortable fact that their
very own Barack Obama led and expanded America's countless wars for eight long years.
This was ever so apparent in the first two nights of Democratic primary debates this week. Foreign policy hardly registered for
these candidates with one noteworthy exception: Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard -- herself an (anti-war) combat veteran and army
officer.
Now primary debates are more show than substance; this has long been the case. Still, to watch the first night's Democratic primary
debates, it was possible to forget that the United States remains mired in several air and ground wars from West Africa to Central
Asia. In a two-hour long debate, with 10 would-be nominees plus the moderators, the word Afghanistan was
uttered just nine
times -- you know, once for every two years American troops have been killing and dying there. Iraq was uttered just twice -- both
times by Gabbard. Syria, where Americans have died and still fight, was mentioned not once. Yemen, the world's worst humanitarian
disaster, courtesy of a U.S.-supported Saudi terror campaign didn't get mentioned a single time, either.
Night two was mostly worse! Afghanistan was uttered just three times, and there was no question specifically related to the war.
Biden did say, in passing, that he doesn't think there should be "combat troops" in Afghanistan -- but notice the qualifier "combat."
That's a cop-out that allows him to keep advisers and "support" troops in the country indefinitely. These are the games most Democrats
play. And by the way, all those supposedly non-combat troops, well, they can and do get killed too.
The only bright spot in the second debate was Senator Bernie Sanders's single mention of the word Yemen -- specifically ending
U.S. support for that war and shifting war powers back where they belong -- with Congress. Still, most of the candidates had just
about nothing to say on this or other war-related topics. Their silence was instructive.
Ironically, then, two more American soldiers were
killed in another meaningless firefight in the long meaningless war in Afghanistan on the day of the first Democratic presidential
primary debate. Indeed, were it not for this horrendous event -- the deaths of the 3,550th and 3,551st coalition troops in an 18-year-old
war -- Afghanistan might not have ever made it onto Rachel Maddow's debate questions list.
I mourn each and every service-member's death in that unwinnable war; to say nothing of the far more numerous Afghan civilian
fatalities. Still, in a macabre sort of way, I was glad the topic came up, even under such dismal circumstances. After all, Maddow's
question on the first night was one of precious few posed on the subject of foreign policy at all. Moreover, it spurred the most
interesting, engaging, and enlightening
exchange of either evening -- between Gabbard and Ohio Representative Tim Ryan.
Reminding the audience of the recent troop deaths in the country, Maddow asked Ryan, "Why isn't [the Afghanistan war] over? Why
can't presidents of very different parties and very different temperaments get us out of there? And how could you?" Ryan had a ready,
if wholly conventional and obtuse, answer: "The lesson" of these many years of wars is clear, he opined; the United States must stay
"engaged," "completely engaged," in fact, even if "no one likes" it and it's "tedious." I heard this, vomited a bit into my mouth,
and thought "spare me!"
Ryan's platitudes didn't answer the question, for starters, and hardly engaged with American goals, interests, exit strategies,
or a basic cost-benefit analysis in the war. In the space of a single sentence, Ryan proved himself just another neoliberal militarist,
you know, the "reluctant" Democratic imperialist type. He made it clear he's Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer rolled
into one, except instead of cynically voting for the 2003 Iraq war, he was defending an off-the-rails Afghanistan war in its 18th
year.
Gabbard pounced, and delivered the finest foreign policy screed of the night. And more power to her. Interrupting Ryan, she poignantly
asked:
Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in Afghanistan? Well, we just have to be
engaged? As a soldier, I will tell you that answer is unacceptable. We have to bring our troops home from Afghanistan We have
spent so much money. Money that's coming out of every one of our pockets We are no better off in Afghanistan today than we were
when this war began. This is why it is so important to have a president -- commander in chief who knows the cost of war and is
ready to do the job on day one.
In a few tight sentences, Gabbard distilled decades' worth of antiwar critique and summarized what I've been
writing for years -- only I've killed many trees composing more than 20,000 words on the topic. The brevity of her terse comment,
coupled with her unique platform as a veteran, only added to its power. Bravo, Tulsi, bravo!
Ryan was visibly shaken and felt compelled to retort with a standard series of worn out tropes. And Gabbard was ready for each
one, almost as though she'd heard them all before (and probably has). The U.S. military has to stay, Ryan pleaded, because: "if the
United States isn't engaged the Taliban will grow and they will have bigger, bolder terrorist acts." Gabbard cut him right off. "The
Taliban was there long before we came in. They'll be there long [after] we leave," she thundered.
But because we didn't "squash them," before 9/11 Ryan complained, "they started flying planes into our buildings." This,
of course, is the recycled and easily refuted
safe haven myth -- the notion
that the Taliban would again host transnational terrorists the moment our paltry 14,500 troops head back to Milwaukee. It's ridiculous.
There's no evidence to support this desperate claim and it fails to explain why the United States doesn't station several thousand
troops in the dozens of global locales with a more serious al-Qaeda or ISIS presence than Afghanistan does. Gabbard would
have none of it. "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," she reminded Ryan, "al-Qaeda did." It's an important distinction, lost on
mainstream interventionist Democrats and Republicans alike.
Ryan couldn't possibly open his mind to such complexity, nuance, and, ultimately, realism. He clearly worships at the temple of
war inertia; his worldview hostage to the absurd notion that the U.S. military has little choice but to fight everywhere, anywhere,
because, well, that's what it's always done. Which leads us to what should be an obvious conclusion: Ryan, and all who think
like him, should be immediately disqualified by true progressives and libertarians alike. His time has past. Ryan and his ilk have
left a scorched region and a shaken American republic for the rest of us.
Still, there was one more interesting query for the first night's candidates. What is the greatest geopolitical threat to the
United States today, asked Maddow. All 10 Democratic hopefuls took a crack at it, though almost none followed directions and kept
their answers to a single word or phrase. For the most part, the answers were ridiculous, outdated, or elementary, spanning Russia,
China, even Trump. But none of the debaters listed terrorism as the biggest threat -- a huge sea change from answers that candidates
undoubtedly would have given just four or eight years ago.
Which begs the question: why, if terrorism isn't the priority, do far too many of these presidential aspirants seem willing to
continue America's fruitless, forever fight for the Greater Middle East? It's a mystery, partly explained by the overwhelming power
of the America's military-industrial-congressional-media complex. Good old President Dwight D. Eisenhower is rolling in his grave,
I assure you.
Gabbard, shamefully, is the only one among an absurdly large field of candidates who has put foreign policy, specifically
ending the forever wars, at the top of her presidential campaign agenda. Well, unlike just about all of her opponents, she did
fight in those very conflicts. The pity is that with an electorate so utterly apathetic about war, her priorities, while noble,
might just doom her campaign before it even really starts. That's instructive, if pitiful.
I, too, served in a series of unwinnable, unnecessary, unethical wars. Like her, I've chosen to publicly dissent in not just strategic,
but in moral, language. I join her in her rejection of U.S. militarism, imperialism, and the flimsy justifications for the Afghanistan
war -- America's longest war in its history.
As for the other candidates, when one of them (likely) wins, let's hope they are prepared the question Tulsi so powerfully posed
to Ryan: what will they tell the parents of the next soldier that dies in America's hopeless Afghanistan war?
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major and regular contributor to The American Conservative. His work has also appeared
in Harper's, the Los Angeles Times, The Nation , Tom Dispatch, The Huffington Post, Truthdig and The Hill .
He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He co-hosts the progressive veterans' podcast " Fortress on a Hill ." Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet .
It wasn't surprising that Hawaii's Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken advocate of
realism in foreign policy, exploited every opportunity to highlight her opposition to what she
considers America's promiscuous warmaking policies of recent decades. She decried the country
"going from one regime-change war to the next. This insanity must end." But other Democrats
also echoed that sentiment, particularly with regard to the growing tensions between the Trump
administration and Iran. Bill de Blasio said he would oppose another Mideast war unless it is
authorized by Congress. He added, "We learned a lesson in Vietnam that we seem to have
forgotten." Sanders also decried the possible drift to war with Iran as well as America's
involvement in the civil war in Yemen. He expressed pride in his opposition to the Iraq war and
chided Biden for supporting that 2003 invasion.
Three candidates -- Klobuchar, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, and Gabbard -- criticized
Trump for getting out of the Iran nuclear deal. "I would sign back on," said Gabbard, saying a
war with Iran would quickly ignite the entire region and would be "far more devastating and
costly" than the Iraq war. When Ryan suggested we must remain engaged in the Middle East,
Gabbard called that "unacceptable" and added the United States has nothing to show for its
18-year mililtary campaign in Afghanistan. At the conclusion of the debate, Gabbard became the
most searched candidate on Google, according to a report on Fox News that cited Google Trends
data. Could this mean a gap persists between the foreign policy sentiments of many Americans
and the foreign policy activities of their government in Washington?
Tulsi Gabbard being interviewed by Tucker Carlson after the debate. During the debate, Tulsi
made clear she was against war with Iran and getting back to the JCPOA deal. In the interview
with Carlson, she makes clear that she opposes the sanctions on Iran.
The reason why is simple: the party is not about politics, nor is it about the will of the
people or anything else. It is about power and money. It is about keeping the donors happy.
It is ethically bankrupt. That is what their true purpose is. Sanders and Gabbard rock the
boat and the party establishment will never forgive them for that.
Gillebrand:
Capitalism is Okey-Dokey, but greed is bad?
Keynes:
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives
will somehow work together for the benefit of all."
Will neoliberal MSM "Ron Paul" Tulsi ? "Merchants of death" control Washington and they will fiercely attack
anybody who attempt to change the current neocon policies even one bit. Looks at color revolution launched against Trump
despite the fact that he folded three month after inauguration.
Notable quotes:
"... Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on stage. ..."
"... Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us to the brink of war with Iran." ..."
"... "The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11. That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the Taliban." ..."
"... By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being searched on Google. ..."
"... If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the second round of debates. ..."
"... If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November. ..."
"... Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver. ..."
"... Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this Cold War II? ..."
"... They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt. ..."
"... Does Pat Buchanan know? During a radio interview he assured me that his friend Dick Cheney wouldn't do something like that. I asked Pat's friend Paul Craig Roberts what he thought. Craig said Pat just can't go there or he'll never appear in the MSM again. Then Pat got purged anyway. https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/02/20/pat-buchanan-avoids-911-truth-gets-fired-anyway/ ..."
"... Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not air-tight. ..."
"... This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your otherwise astute insights. ..."
"... The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her anti-war message. Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening: ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway. ..."
"For too long our leaders have failed us, taking us into one regime change war after the
next, leading us into a new Cold War and arms race, costing us trillions of our hard-earned tax
payer dollars and countless lives. This insanity must end."
Donald Trump, circa 2016?
Nope. That denunciation of John Bolton interventionism came from Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
of Hawaii during Wednesday night's Democratic debate. At 38, she was the youngest candidate on
stage.
Gabbard proceeded to rip both the "president and his chickenhawk cabinet (who) have led us
to the brink of war with Iran."
In a fiery exchange, Congressman Tim Ryan of Ohio countered that America cannot disengage
from Afghanistan: "When we weren't in there they started flying planes into our buildings."
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11," Gabbard replied, "Al-Qaida attacked us on 9/11.
That's why I and so many other people joined the military, to go after al-Qaida, not the
Taliban."
When Ryan insisted we must stay engaged, Gabbard shot back:
"Is that what you will tell the parents of those two soldiers who were just killed in
Afghanistan? 'Well, we just have to be engaged.' As a solider, I will tell you, that answer is
unacceptable. We are no better off in Afghanistan that we were when this war began."
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were being
searched on Google.
Though given less than seven minutes of speaking time in a two-hour debate, she could not
have used that time more effectively. And her performance may shake up the Democratic race.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in the
second round of debates.
If she is, moderators will now go to her with questions of foreign policy issues that would
not have been raised without her presence, and these questions will expose the hidden divisions
in the Democratic Party.
Leading Democratic candidates could be asked to declare what U.S. policy should be -- not
only toward Afghanistan but Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jared Kushner's "Deal of
the Century," and Trump's seeming rejection of the two-state solution.
If she makes it into the second round, Gabbard could become the catalyst for the kind of
globalist vs. nationalist debate that broke out between Trump and Bush Republicans in 2016, a
debate that contributed to Trump's victory at the Cleveland convention and in November.
The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that, as was shown in the joust with Ryan, she
takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the
party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich.
Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy
Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in
2016 but has since failed to deliver.
We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an
aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We
are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to
negotiate to avoid a war.
Jared Kushner is talking up a U.S.-led consortium to raise $50 billion for the Palestinians
in return for their forfeiture of sovereignty and an end to their dream of a nation-state on
the West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital.
John Bolton is talking of regime change in Caracas and confronting the "troika of tyranny"
in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.
Rather than engaging Russia as Trump promised, we have been sanctioning Russia, arming
Ukraine, sending warships into the Black Sea, beefing up NATO in the Baltic and trashing arms
control treaties Ronald Reagan and other presidents negotiated in the Cold War
U.S. policy has managed to push our great adversaries, Russia and China, together as they
have not been since the first Stalin-Mao decade of the Cold War.
This June, Vladimir Putin traveled to Beijing where he and Xi Jinping met in the Great Hall
of the People to warn that in this time of "growing global instability and uncertainty," Russia
and China will "deepen their consultations on strategic stability issues."
Xi presented Putin with China's new Friendship Medal. Putin responded: "Cooperation with
China is one of Russia's top priorities and it has reached an unprecedented level."
At the end of the Cold War, we were the lone superpower. Who forfeited our preeminence? Who
bled us of 7,000 U.S. lives and $6 trillion in endless Middle East wars? Who got us into this
Cold War II?
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
They're already trying to 'Ron Paul' her, which means we should support her, CFR, and Zionist
associations notwithstanding. She's the only one saying 'Enough!' to the insanity of Eternal War, as America's
infrastructure crumbles, and our progeny are enslaved to trillions of un-payable debt.
Perhaps there's no way we can dislodge the Zionist fiend slurping from America's jugular,
but at least we can use our voice to say 'no' to it. And support the only person who's
willing to strike at the root, the Eternal Wars for Israel.
By debate's end, Gabbard was the runaway winner in both the Drudge Report and Washington
Examiner polls and was far in front among all the Democratic candidates whose names were
being searched on Google.
Which got the MIC to paint a giant target on her. The Atlantic Council is not going to be
happy with this kind of anti war shtick entering the debates, and their patrons own the
media.
Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"? I suspect she does,
and that her disgust with the big lie behind the 9/11-wars-for-Israel has something to do
with her anti-interventionism.
I would hope Gabbard has more sense than to accept any position in Trumps administration.
Trump is the kiss of death for any decent person who works for or with him.
Hi Kevin. I am a big fan of yours but I think that you should market your beliefs
about Israel's role in 911 a bit more modestly. While the evidence is compelling, it is not
air-tight.
This also applies to the Zio-Judaic role in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.
You posit (in your otherwise excellent article on the Raptors' proposed visit Israel) that
the Zions basically killed both Kennedys. While this position may be correct, it is an
allegation that, at present, cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your confidence
therefore seems excessive. This weakness might therefore turn off average folks to your
otherwise astute insights.
As for Tulsi Gabbard, who you suggest is "lying" about her belief in what/who caused 911,
I bet that she (like myself) rejects the Official 911 report but is unsure of what/who did
exactly what on Sept. 11, 2001. Mysteries remain. The puzzle is incomplete.
Allow me to respectfully advise you to stick with what you know for certain, as you do it
quite well.
As for the mysteries concerning 911 and Israel's role, it may be more fruitful to concede
that the evidence has not only been partially destroyed but that a coverup has occurred. And
yes, there's overwhelming evidence pointing to Israeli involvement. And no honest person can
deny that.
The media is so terrified of Tulsi that they digitally added a zit to her face during the
debate while she was discussing foreign policy to try to subliminally turn people off to her
anti-war message.
Here's an article on it showing videos of it happening:
@Robert
Dolan As if Hillary 'War with Russia' Clinton would have been different.
Trumps foreign policies in obedience to 'that shitty little country' are disgusting, no
doubt, but we would still have all of that and much worse under Hillary.
It's a charming idea; Pat Buchanan is ventilating. Tulsi Gabbard as Trump's national security
adviser; what a treat! But poor Tulsi, she wouldn't survive very long in the Zionist
environment, which dominates Trump's White House.
Tulsi Gabbard's foreign policy ideas are
anathema to the war-prone Washington establishment and the media class, not to speak of the
Israel firster. The anti-Gabbard slur is already underway.
Tulsi Gabbard was half right by saying that the Taliban didn't do 9/11, but Al-Qaida did,
which is false. None of them committed the murderous attack. Everybody with a clear mind can
see of the web of lies and inconsistencies that the 9/11 Commission Report has solidified.
The American people have to come to grips with the fact that it was an inside job, and those
responsible are still all alive and kicking. The problem with the whole truth is that nobody
can afford to tell it, because it would be his or her political death.
So, Tulsi Gabbard was wise sticking to the half-truth.
@Kevin
Barrett 'Does Tulsi know she's lying when she says "al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11"?'
She has been showing signs of hedging since her campaign began. I can't make up my mind
how bad that is. If she went on telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth
– such as that Mr Assad has done little or nothing to deserve the abuse heaped on him
– she might simply be ruling herself out as a candidate.
On the other hand, once a candidate starts telling herself, "Oh, it's worth one or two
little white lies to get myself elected, because I can do so much good then", it's the start
of a long slippery slope.
That specific statement can be justified, to my mind, with a little Jesuitical
equivocation. Because no one has ever really pinned down who or what "Al Qaeda" is – or
even whether such an organization exists at all.
If she said, "No one can be certain who was responsible for 9/11, but it's time we had a
really thorough, impartial investigation", she would alienate a huge section of the
voters.
There's almost always something like this tucked into Mr. Buchanan's columns. The other
day, he was still celebrating Uncle Sam's rescue of medical students from the "Marxist thugs"
in Grenada. That little "our" is the key. Pronoun propaganda is one of the ways that this
website's "Mr. Paleoconservative" helps to keep Americans identifying with Uncle Sam.
Another fundamental way that Mr. Buchanan actually supports the Establishment is by
channeling and harmlessly blowing off dissent through "Red v Blue" politics. Enjoy columns
like this one in the meantime, but keep in mind that he's also going to tell you to believe
the puppet show and vote (almost certainly GOP) in November 2020. Even if someone who says
things like Ms. Gabbard is elected, there will be ample drama in and about Washington to
excuse the lack of meaningful change and fire people up for the next Most Important Election
Ever in 2022.
And note this:
"For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign
policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver."
Oh, a mere logistical problem due to people like John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Elliot
Abrams somehow crashing the MAGA party? Mr. Buchanan should have written "the foreign policy
Donald Trump lied about in 2016." But that might lead people to doubt the system.
If she can rise a few points above her 1-2% in the polls, she could be assured a spot in
the second round of debates.
Oi Vey! If Tulsi starts to rise in the polls then then (((they'll))) create a new dossier
and claim she's colluding with Russia or the Taliban to steal the 2020 election. I wouldn't
be surprised if elements of Trump's administration did the very same things to Tulsi as
Obongo's did to Trump.
Was all this the doing of those damnable isolationists again?
Pat knows (((who))) but has lost the will to say it. But we know. The goyim know.
@mark
green We, we all have our opinions. I think you're most charitable to Mr. Barrett's
fictions. Zio-terrorists (I'm not using the word Zionist, since I am Zionist – sort of
-because I support the idea of Jewish nation-state as a democratic country) may have
contributed (just freely associating), say, max 30% to 9/11, while the possibility of their
involvement in the assassination of JFK is way below 5%.
"... We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now. ..."
Sanders performance in the first two Democratic Candidates Debate
was better than all the others in both debates by a mile.
Sanders absolutely nailed it, that unless we have the guts to take on the insurance
companies, oil companies, drug companies, etc, nothing will change.*
In the first debate, Warren was the winner, though Tulsi Gabbard made the best foreign
policy points against considerable pressure, and Tulsi is still my preferred candidate of the
two for her anti war positions. Despite not raising her hand regarding Insurance companies, a
big mistake IMO, Tulsi has a longer history of endoring Medicare for All than Warren. But it
was indicative of the slight hedging that weakened Tulsi's performance, leading me to declare
Warren the debate winner. Still, Warren lacked the force, still sounding a bit wonkish
(though--it was her best performance in that regards ever) rather than recognizing the identity
and strength of the forces arrayed against truly progressive proposals.
*Sanders has also been clear that he alone could not do this. But he has been committed to
fighting the corporations since the beginning of his career decades ago. In this regards, he is
by far the most trustworthy of all candidates. People who fear a Democratic Socialist
becoming President should grow beyond the McCarthy era, and realize the best of this country
was built by socialism, but socialism nowadays isn't democratic socialism, it's socialism for
the corporate elite.
We need to restore the vision of people like FDR, who proposed the Four Freedoms. If that
was conceivable then, it should be more conceivable now.
Sanders is the only one who comes close to showing the vison, the grit, and the
incorruptability of FDR, that made the first New Deal possible. And perhaps Sanders seems even
more knowledgable, experienced, and capable of helping us get the rest of the job started.
Also they never read Veblen. The rich have no desire to "mingle with the poors" ;-)
If state colleges and unis became free, I'm pretty sure the wealthy would literally build a
new elite set of tertiary education institutions to satisfy their need to differentiate
themselves from the proles
Those emotions erupted in the Thursday debate when Kamala Harris took on Biden for his earlier
remarks about the old days of the Senate when he could work collaboratively with Southern
segregationists such as Alabama's James Eastland. Harris said it was "very hurtful" to hear
Biden "talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputation and
career on the segregation of race in this country." She scored Biden also for working with such
senators in opposition to busing for racial balance in schools during the 1970s.
"Do you agree today, do you agree today that you were wrong to oppose busing in America
then? Do you agree?" she asked with considerable emotion in her voice. She added it was a
personal matter with her given that she had benefited from busing policies as a young girl.
Biden retorted: "A mischaracterization of my position across the board. I did not praise
racists." He added that he never opposed busing as a local policy arrived at through local
politics, but didn't think it should be imposed by the federal government. "That's what I
opposed," he said.
The exchange accentuated the extent to which racial issues are gaining intensity in America
and roiling the nation's politics to a greater extent than in the recent past. Biden's point,
as he sought to explain, was that there was a day when senators of all stripes could work
together on matters of common concern even when they disliked and opposed each other's
fundamental political outlook. That kind of approach could point the way, he implied, to a
greater cooperative spirit in Washington and to breaking the current political deadlock
suffused with such stark animosities. But that merely stirred further animosities, raising
questions about whether today's political rancor in Washington can be easily or soon
ameliorated.
Kamala Harris is a pure establishment candidate like Hillary was in 2016.
She is so well known to be the leasing establishment candidate that it look plausible that Biden might sacrifice himself to
promote Harris, playing a sheep dog role like Sanders played for Hillary in 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... caitlin johnstones article on harris - Kamala Harris Is An Oligarch's Wet Dream ..."
"... Sacrificing Biden to get somebody just as good for the apartheid Jewish state isn't something which surprises me. If K. Harris has any Presidential qualities worthy of notice, I've yet to see them. What I suspect is that the woman is a smiling and "nice" version of Hillary. ..."
"... she does not offer an end or even a restraint on the wars; that much should be clear to every American - so she really shouldn't stand a chance, no matter how good her debating skills, if Americans really want an end to the wars. ..."
Harris is against BDS, though like most of the other Democratic candidates from the
Senate was smart enough not to vote for the bill criminalizing it. She was "for" the Iran
agreement, but if my memory isn't flawed that was put in place as a holding action while
the destruction of Syria was brought to a conclusion.
Sacrificing Biden to get somebody just as good for the apartheid Jewish state isn't
something which surprises me. If K. Harris has any Presidential qualities worthy of notice,
I've yet to see them. What I suspect is that the woman is a smiling and "nice" version of
Hillary.
Ha, possibly I'm not good at sarcasm; I tend towards the literal.
The article about Kamala Harris was interesting. I've come across it before a year or so
ago. There's other stuff; I believe the most damning is a recording where she expresses
glee about prosecuting black American's and taking a hardline. What is interesting is how
this information is known but still kept hidden. She is not the shoo-in that CJ imagines
though; as I understand it, the black community have her number, so she won't achieve Obama
levels of support, that's her big weakness.
Whatever, she does not offer an end or even a restraint on the wars; that much should be
clear to every American - so she really shouldn't stand a chance, no matter how good her
debating skills, if Americans really want an end to the wars.
She's not a good person and that's what I hear from people who have worked for her. But she's agressive debater... .
Notable quotes:
"... As a lifetime Californian and witness to Kamala's incompetence in San Francisco. I, and at least12 of my friends, would vote for Trump again if the Democrats allow Harris anywhere on the ticket. ..."
You will not see a Harris presidency. If she's on any ticket, including as Bernie's V.P.,
Trump wins again.
I'm a rabid Bernie supporter (Twice). As a lifetime Californian and witness to Kamala's
incompetence in San Francisco. I, and at least12 of my friends, would vote for Trump again if
the Democrats allow Harris anywhere on the ticket.
Her boast:
"So as attorney general, and the chief law officer of the state of California, I issued a
directive to the sheriffs of my state that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers
"
"Suspect Edwin Ramos awaits trial in San Francisco County Jail, a system that released him
nearly three months before the slayings. Convicted twice on felony charges as a juvenile, he
was protected then from immigration officials because of the city's [Kamala's] sanctuary
policy .
Immigration activists have embraced the grieving family, using the June 22 deaths of Anthony,
Matthew and Michael Bologna to call for change."
Kamala; a fruiting body coming off the rot of Democratic Dynastic politics.
C'mon Lambert, seriously, a joint with Harris? I had the idea that your sensibilities were
rather more refined than that, knowing anything about or not.
Her manner of speaking is like someone who doesn't care, doesn't take the whole thing
seriously. It's like someone who is cheaply casually condescending on the whole thing, on her
having to be there. That's what I perceived. It is deeply disqualifying from any leadership
position. "Food fight"? We at that level now? That makes her cool? My god, what garbage.
FWIW, Boot Edge Edge's prehensile sincerity was masterful in my view – shows some
real talent.
I'm just observing this out of academic interest and hope we'll all have a chance to vote
for Bernie in the general. But from tonight, Boot Edge Edge to me stood out as a talent
– and everyone else (besides Bernie who was reliably on message and will keep going
more or less the same after this) was garbage or unnecessary (Biden is a disgrace), and the
first debate was better.
Looks like they really want Trump to be re-elected...
Notable quotes:
"... In the first debate, on Wednesday, only Ryan and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar expressed concerns about eliminating criminal statutes for illegal entry. On Thursday, when NBC moderators asked for a show of hands of those who wanted to "decriminalize" unauthorized crossings, only Colorado Senator Michael Bennet kept his hand down. ..."
"... Also on Thursday, several candidates decried the idea of deporting illegal immigrants who hadn't committed crimes in the United States, while no one expressed misgivings about such a policy. When it was pointed out by one NBC moderator that Obama had deported 3 million illegals during his presidency, California Senator Kamala Harris responded, "I disagreed with Obama on that." ..."
For years the effort to manage the issue centered on an elusive compromise concept that
included serious border security and a path to legality or citizenship for current illegals.
The problem for immgration restrictionists was that the last time such a compromise was struck,
in 1986, it didn't work. Amnesty was granted to illegals then in the country, but no serious
border security ensued. Instead the number of undocumented residents shot up to 11 million or
more.
The debates revealed that serious border security is not something most Democrats consider
worth mentioning. Instead, most railed against the fact that crossing the U.S. border illegally
is a criminal offense. They argued it should be merely a civil matter. "Don't criminalize
desperation," said Julian Castro, U.S. secretary of housing and urban development under Obama.
"What kind of country are we running here?" asked Ohio Representative Tim Ryan, with a
president stoking "hate and fear."
In the first debate, on Wednesday, only Ryan and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar
expressed concerns about eliminating criminal statutes for illegal entry. On Thursday, when NBC
moderators asked for a show of hands of those who wanted to "decriminalize" unauthorized
crossings, only Colorado Senator Michael Bennet kept his hand down.
Also on Thursday, several candidates decried the idea of deporting illegal immigrants
who hadn't committed crimes in the United States, while no one expressed misgivings about such
a policy. When it was pointed out by one NBC moderator that Obama had deported 3 million
illegals during his presidency, California Senator Kamala Harris responded, "I disagreed with
Obama on that."
And when the Thursday candidates were asked if they would provide health care for illegal
immigrants, all said they would. Also, no one at either debate expressed a concern about U.S.
border facilities being overwhelmed by asylum seekers traveling as families and entering the
United States illegally -- some 332,000 since October. Instead they railed against U.S.
officials struggling with the task of processing these people without adequate personnel or
facilities.
In short, judged by the debates, the New Democratic Party has abandoned the old compromise
concept of border security in exchange for a pathway to citizenship for current illegals. These
candidates made clear that they continue to insist on a citizenship pathway but don't care much
about border security.
Political discourse in an age of mass media degenerated into spinning stirring stories
Notable quotes:
"... it is clear he is losing his edge, his age is showing ..."
"... in the post-debate discussion, someone mentioned that biden's aides are finding it hard to keep his attention during debate prep – that's not good ..."
"... "it's all done with people" – and people are not rational animals, but rationalizing animals ..."
harris is up, and biden is down – and in my view biden is down not just because of
harris's effective attack, but also because it is clear he is losing his edge, his age is
showing
in the post-debate discussion, someone mentioned that biden's aides are finding it
hard to keep his attention during debate prep – that's not good
i didn't have that same impression about sanders – admittedly i'm a bernie bro from
last time, a leftist and progressive with the sanders donation receipts to prove it
facts, interpretive frameworks of facts, policy proposals – all these things which
intelligentsia like ourselves chew over – we must not lose sight of the fact that the
choice of a chieftain is primarily an emotional matter – and that political discourse
in an age of mass media consists of spinning stirring stories – as wavy gravy (hugh
romney) told his mirror one morning, "it's all done with people" – and people are
not rational animals, but rationalizing animals
"... Biden suddenly wants to hold big insurance and big pharma accountable . Wonder why he had no interest in doing so when he was in office. ..."
"... His idea of holding big insurance and big pharma accountable is the same as his idea of holding the big banks accountable, which means that they increase regulations that act as barriers to entry to competition and make it unlikely that small companies and startups can compete with the established firms. ..."
"... I have the impression that Biden is on some kind of drug regimen, he just seems kind of foggy. Robotic, almost. ..."
"... Biden refuses to see the connection between Obama's foreign policy (i.e. Honduras) and all these refugees. He also seems to think all those 3 million people deported during the Obama/Biden administration were criminals, since they otherwise shouldn't have been deported. ..."
"... Yeah, Biden's kind of an open borders guy, now, it seems. Trump will feast on that one. ..."
"... Bernie missed a chance to pound on Obama's pro-coup policy in Honduras and link that to the refugee problem. ..."
"... Bernie needs to pound on anti-militarism more in general, on every a available opportunity ..."
His idea of holding big insurance and big pharma accountable is the same as his idea of
holding the big banks accountable, which means that they increase regulations that act as
barriers to entry to competition and make it unlikely that small companies and startups can
compete with the established firms.
After watching a few recent appearances, I have the impression that Biden is on some kind
of drug regimen, he just seems kind of foggy. Robotic, almost.
Biden refuses to see the connection between Obama's foreign policy (i.e. Honduras) and all
these refugees. He also seems to think all those 3 million people deported during the Obama/Biden
administration were criminals, since they otherwise shouldn't have been deported.
Yeah, Biden's kind of an open borders guy, now, it seems. Trump will feast on that
one.
Bernie missed a chance to pound on Obama's pro-coup policy in Honduras and link that to
the refugee problem.
Senator Sanders, you don't bring military dictators to the table to discuss anything but
their resignation and transition to an elected government. Step it up! You know better!
Yes, Biden went completely incoherent for that whole response. Seemed back to form after
the break though, although too much Obama worship going on overall with him
Just before 9:30 break, Biden who was tossing his word salad , look desperately to
moderators and asked if his time was up.
I think his time was up a while back
At the same time, the administration has signaled in recent days that it plans to let the
New Start treaty, negotiated by Barack Obama, expire in February 2021 rather than renew it
for another five years. John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser, who met
with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, in Jerusalem this week, said before leaving
Washington that "there's no decision, but I think it's unlikely" the treaty would be
renewed.
Mr. Bolton, a longtime skeptic of arms control agreements, said that New Start was flawed
because it did not cover short-range tactical nuclear weapons or new Russian delivery
systems. "So to extend for five years and not take these new delivery system threats into
account would be malpractice," he told The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative outlet.
Like all of his complaints about arms control agreements, Bolton's criticisms of New START
are made in bad faith. Opponents of New START have long pretended that they oppose the treaty
because it did not cover everything imaginable, including tactical nuclear weapons, but this
has always been an excuse for them to reject a treaty that they have never wanted ratified in
the first place. If the concern about negotiating a treaty that covered tactical nuclear
weapons were genuine, the smart thing to do would be to extend New START and then begin
negotiations for a more comprehensive arms control agreement. Faulting New START for failing to
include things that are by definition not going to be included in a strategic arms reduction
treaty gives the game away. This is what die-hard opponents of the treaty have been doing for
almost ten years, and they do it because they want to dismantle the last vestiges of arms
control. The proposal to include China as part of a new treaty is another tell that the Trump
administration just wants the treaty to die.
The article concludes:
Some experts suspect talk of a three-way accord is merely a feint to get rid of the New
Start treaty. "If a trilateral deal is meant as a substitute or prerequisite for extending
New Start, it is a poison pill, no ifs, ands or buts," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive
director of the Arms Control Association. "If the president is seeking a trilateral deal as a
follow-on to New Start, that's a different thing."
Knowing Bolton, it has to be a poison pill. Just as Bolton is ideologically opposed to
making any deal with Iran, he is ideologically opposed to any arms control agreement that
places limits on the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The "flaws" he identifies aren't really flaws that
he wants to fix (and they may not be flaws at all), but excuses for trashing the agreement. He
will make noises about how the current deal or treaty doesn't go far enough, but the truth is
that he doesn't want any agreements to exist. In Bolton's worldview, nonproliferation and arms
control agreements either give the other government too much or hamper the U.S. too much, and
so he wants to destroy them all. He has had a lot of success at killing agreements and treaties
that have been in the U.S. interest. Bolton has had a hand in blowing up the Agreed Framework
with North Korea, abandoning the ABM Treaty, killing the INF Treaty, and reneging on the JCPOA.
Unless the president can be persuaded to ignore or fire Bolton, New START will be his next
victim.
If New START dies, it will be a loss for both the U.S. and Russia, it will make the world
less secure, and it will make U.S.-Russian relations even worse. The stability that these
treaties have provided has been important for U.S. security for almost fifty years. New START
is the last of the treaties that constrain the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and when it
is gone there will be nothing to replace it for a long time. The collapse of arms control
almost certainly means that the top two nuclear weapons states will expand their arsenals and
put us back on the path of an insane and unwinnable arms race. Killing New START is irrational
and purely destructive, and it needs to be opposed.
bolton is opposed to any treaty, to any agreement, whereby the other side can expect to
obtain equally favorable terms-he wants the other side on their knees permanently without
any expectation of compromise by the empire.
I'm about halfway through Putin's financial Times interview and suggest it be read by
all. There is much to be gleaned from it with a view to the 2020 Election Cycle and
candidate's positions. Just consider the following very small excerpt and its implications
for policy formulation by candidates:
"What we should be talking about is not how to make North Korea disarm, but how to ensure
the unconditional security of North Korea and how to make any country, including North Korea
feel safe and protected by international law that is strictly honoured by all members of
the international community . This is what we should be thinking about." [My
Emphasis]
Putin's insights into Trump's 2016 election strategy, IMO, is very enlightening and
essential reading as the conditions that contributed to Trump's victory have worsened under
his tenure and can be used against him if wisely pursued.
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
For 2024 let's just have cage fights, contestants show up naked with their names and
policy positions tattooed on their bodies, each gets a bucket of slime to smear on their
opponent to try and cover them up. Then Sergei Brin's computer chooses the winner
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
I don't know either. But it's been the main stream party line for a while now. "Bernie
should drop out because he's old, white, male, and his opinions are not unique. He's not even
a real Democrat. And he doesn't support the party. So why is he running for president as a
Democrat and picking fights with Biden/Warren/Beto?"
The one that gets me is Bernie the Bomber. Somehow when the pundit class talks about
Bernie and Tulsi, it's only to mention how they coddle dictators.
Coddle (the wrong) dictators. Real Dems coddle our CIA approved dictators. Bernie and
Tulsi coddle those filthy democratically elected "dictators" that want to retain natural
resources for the benefit of their own nations and not for the enrichment of multinationals.
They're monsters!
Seriously though, only the Dems would have a superstar like Bernie and put all their
efforts into sabotaging him. Even the RNC and right wing media was willing to suck it up and
get behind Trump when it was clear he was going to win and had a huge base of support. But,
as is said often now, "the Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a
progressive".
Is the CIA's purpose to protect national security or financial security? They seem
confused at times on their purpose and if they were disbanded would the country notice?
Doesn't the Defense Intelligence Agency do most of the heavy security lifting?
Looking at the CIA actions from the Dulles Brothers onwards, I would say that it is to
protect and support all members of the Oligarchy of Money from the 1% to Big Oil to Big
Finance from that pesky Democratic Government and the troublesome Rule of Law.
Actually protecting the United States and never mind Americans themselves is like #47 on
its to-do list.
Did you notice the shift in Bernie's message tonight? He said they needed to have the guts
to take on Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Pharma. I didn't hear him
complain about big banks. I think he's been compromised!
Elsewhere, British military intelligence ... erm, sorry, its mouthpiece The Fraudian
attacks Tulsi Gabbard over her supposed overlap with the Republican Party and her level of
wokeness which, not surprisingly, The Fraudian finds low and therefore starts worrying like a
dried-up dog mummy with teeth bites already all over it.
Bernie Sanders did well in the debate. Closing statement was by far the most effective.
Joe Biden not wanting to pass the torch was not a good look.
Kamala Harris did well and may have ended Jo Biden chance of being the candidate. Kamala's statement "I do not think you are
a racist" seemed to mean the exact opposite.
Joe Biden was shaken by Kamala Harris and didn't really recover.
Andrew Yang lost people, didn't do well.
Marianne Williamson came over as flakey.
Pete Buttigieg relied too much on his personal story.
"... "[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and trillions of dollars." ..."
"... "Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American people deserve better than that." ..."
"Sadly, the system in this country is rigged in favor of wealthy elites who have purchased
tremendous influence in our government."
"We have to put an end to the culture of selfishness and corruption that allows greedy
Wall Street banks and executives to rip off working people without any consequences."
"[We need] a Commander in Chief [who will stop] these failed interventionist wars of
regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives, untold suffering, and
trillions of dollars."
"Will you stand for the humanity of the Yemeni people? Will you stand against Saudi
Arabia's genocidal war? Or will you continue to support this war that has caused 22 million
Yemeni people to be in desperate need of humanitarian aid? To cause these 85,000 children to
have died from starvation, to have caused the dropping of U.S.-made bombs on innocent
civilians, killing tens of thousands of people. This is such an urgent action that must be
taken by the United States Congress to assert its authority and end United States support for
this genocidal war in Yemen."
"Trump Nikki Haley...Mike Pompeo... The people around John Bolton. These people are
advocating for strengthening our economy, and if the only way they can do that is by building
that economy based on building and selling weapons to countries that are using them to
slaughter and murder innocent people, then we need new leaders in this country. The American
people deserve better than that."
"I don't smoke marijuana. I never have... But I believe firmly in every person's freedom
to make their own choices, and that people should not be thrown in jail and incarcerated or
made into criminals for choosing to smoke marijuana whether it be for medicinal and
non-medicinal purposes.
There's no question that this overall war on drugs has not only been a failure, it has
created and exacerbated a number of other problems that continue to afflict people in this
country..."
Quoted in: For Tulsi Gabbard, Marijuana Sits At Nexus Of Good Policy And Smart Politics,
Forbes, nu Tom Angell (7 March 2019)
"We are in a situation today where we, here in the United States and the world, are at a
greater risk of nuclear catastrophe than ever before in history. My commitment in fighting to end these counterproductive regime change wars is based on
these experiences and my understanding [of] the cost of war and who pays the price.
Yes, it is our service members. It is our troops. It is our military families. It is the
people in these countries, where these wars are waged, whose suffering ends up far worse
after we launch these regime change wars... The skepticism, and the questions that I
raised, were very specific around incidents that the Trump administration was trying to use
as an excuse to launch a U.S. military attack in Syria.
I served in a war in Iraq, a war that was launched based on lies and a war that was
launched without evidence. And so the American people were duped... As a soldier, as an
American, as a member of Congress, it is my duty and my responsibility to exercise
skepticism any time anyone tries to send our service members into harm's way or use our
military to go in and start a new war."
Quoted by Kevin Gosztola in CNN Foreign Policy Gatekeepers Vilify Tulsi Gabbard for Her
Anti-Intervention Dissent, Mintpress News (13 March 2019)
"... Thanks for the posting b about how manipulated the public is by the MSM. ..."
"... Bravo Tulsi ! The msm will hit hard on you, as they will be forced to take the numbers into account. Consider it as stripes... ..."
"... It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they are bailed out and not put in jail again. ..."
"... What do you expect from the Warshington Post. ..."
"... Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it. ..."
"... This is a big big NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their purpose as shock troops for the US empire. ..."
"... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior [Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for being a superpower.'" ..."
"... It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed in office. ..."
"... I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a real contender because he had almost no chance of winning. Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media (let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him). ..."
"... It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by American standards). ..."
"... her first point was that we are spending enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for other programs. ..."
"... This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in Washington who are trustworthy. ..."
"... I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and mayhem at the same time. ..."
"... I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue. ..."
"... Maybe you should have a look at Tulsi Gabbards voting record. She is literally one of the very few who constantly votes against military funding. ..."
"... "Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc." ..."
"... When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions; delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line with political weaseling. ..."
"... I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well. Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians? ..."
"... While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance, I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's propaganda bullshit. ..."
The mainstream media seem to judge the Democratic primary debate last night quite
differently than the general public.
Quartz cites multiple polls which show that Tulsi Gabbard won
the debate :
[T]wo candidates seemed to pique a lot of interest among US voters, at least when judged by
who Americans searched for on Google: New Jersey senator Cory Booker and Hawaii
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard was lost for much of the debate. That may not have been her fault -- she wasn't asked
many questions -- ....
Duh!
The New York Timesmain piece
about the debate mentions Gabbard only once - in paragraph 32 of the 45 paragraphs long piece.
It does not reveal anything about her actual political position:
There was little discussion of foreign policy until near the end of the debate when two
little-known House lawmakers, Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Tim Ryan of Ohio, clashed over how
aggressively to target the Taliban.
The New York Times also has some 'experts' discussing
winners and losers. Gabbard is only mentioned at the very end, and by a Republican pollster, as
a potential candidate for Secretary of Defense.
NBC News
ranks the candidates' performance. It puts Gabbard on place 8 and inserts a snide:
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii: Seized an opportunity to highlight her military experience in
Afghanistan and her signature anti-intervention foreign policy views, without being tainted
by her past sympathetic comments on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Most of the above media have long avoided to mention Gabbard and to discuss her political
positions. It is quite evident that the mainstream media do not like her anti-regime-change
views and are afraid of even writing about them.
Tulsi Gabbard's campaign posted a video of her parts of the
debate. She received some good applause.
Posted by b on June 27, 2019 at 11:19 AM |
Permalink
She humiliated Tim Ryan when he asserted that the Taliban attacked the U.S. on 9/11, pointing
out that it was Al Qaeda. Ryan responded that the Taliban protected Al Qaeda. Gabbard then
said something to the effect, "Try Saudi Arabia."
I thought it was hypocritical that none of the other candidates thanked Gabbard for her
service because you know if it had been some guy who is a Major in the National Guard with a
bunch of commendations people would be elbowing each other out of the way to lick his
boots.
Tulsi - "You know who is protecting al-Qaeda right now? It's Saudi Arabia"
MSNBC time given to each candidate:
#1 Booker: 9.68 minutes
#3 Warren: 8.35 minutes
#7 Gabbard: 5.35 minutes
Tulsi was the only candidate to get a negative question directed at her, though she
handled it very well.
MSDNC also framed a trick question who is for the elimination of ALL private healthcare.
Tulsi didn't raise her hand because she is for private insurance for supplemental surgery
such as plastic surgery, like Bernie. Tulsi and Bernie are the only ones for true Medicare
for All. Warren raised her hand but previously has stated she would be for something like
combining a public option and medicare for all, so she is now for cosmetic elective plastic
surgery being covered under Medicare for All?
It is interesting how the NYTimes has now gone full in for Warren. They had at least three
positive opinion columns for her yesterday, plus a front page spread that could have been
written by the Warren campaign itself. This while having many negative Biden pieces, the last
few days. The neoliberals really wanted Biden, but see he is unelectable so have gotten
behind the next Obama. Looks like Wall Street is expecting a crash and want to make sure they
are bailed out and not put in jail again.
--
Tulsi served two tours of duty in the Middle East (Iraq / Kuwait)
In France main newspaper le Figaro, their Washington correspondent said it was Warren who won
the debate, and he only mentiones Tulsi Gabbard once, she stood out because of her red vest, he
wrote, nothing about content. So there you are.
Tulsi is against "regime change war" which she defines as essentially wars that USA lose.
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant
reductions in the military budget. She's not.
Tulsi has drunk the Kool-Aid about Russian interference in US elections. Her nominally
anti-war stance helps her to "sell" neo-McCarthyism to those that think her anti-regime
change war is "courageous".
Furthermore, she is very passive and "reasonable" about her views, making it easy for MSM
to ignore her because every candidate will say that they are for peace and against dumb
wars.
<> <> <> <> <>
Anyone looking to any duopoly candidate for salvation is deluded.
Tulsi Gabbard is allowed some brief MSM exposure.
To demonstrate that plurality of opinion is alive and well and going strong - toot toot!
rah rah! - in the Dem party. A show, a charade. She may be quite genuine and believe what she states, which seems like common sense, ok.
And she is good at it. Her opinions - tagged with Xtreme hopiness - will be shown to be
inconguent with the majority, etc.
In any case she can't win the nomination, she is an 'actor extra' on the fringes. From her promo site:
In this new century, everyone has clean water to drink, clean air to breathe and access
to nourishing food; everyone receives the medical care they need, has a roof over their head,
receives the education they need and is able to find good paying, fulfilling work. People
have financial security and don't have to worry about making ends meet in their old
age.
Our children, and children for generations to come, never worry again about nuclear war
and no parent has to wonder where they will hide their children when the missiles strike. Our
economy is not dependent on war, but is driven instead by innovation, green technology and
renewable industries.
Tulsi served in the Anbar province. She understands the difference between Sunni and Shia
which is why she is against war with Iran, Syria, and Libya. She also understands the corrupt
nature of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia and speaks out against it.
This is a big big
NO NO in DC. Saudi Arabia is seen as part of the empire. Al Qaeda and ISIS serve their
purpose as shock troops for the US empire.
If a few buildings have to come down and a few
thousand people killed that is a small price to pay for the US being a global hegemonic
empire... from counterpunch... Richard Shultz, a professor of international politics at Tufts
who's long been a key national security state intellectual, wrote in 2004 that "A very senior
[Special Operations Forces] officer who had served on the Joint Staff in the 1990s told me
that more than once he heard terrorist strikes characterized as 'a small price to pay for
being a superpower.'"
It is pretty clear to me that Tulsi doesn't believe this. This is why she is so hated by the
MSM. She is former military and largely believes in military spending and fighting Sunni
extremists including distancing the US from their sponsor Saudi Arabia and throwing out the
US traitors who also support them. I don't believe in US military spending myself but Tulsi
is the only honest person running. The rest of them are all completely corrupt. I do believe
she would change US foreign policy for the better. Of course this is why she won't be allowed
in office.
I forget the exact details, but I remember that in the last election, a TV network was asked
why it did not give more coverage to Bernie Sanders. The reply was that Sanders was not a
real contender because he had almost no chance of winning.
Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy if it's made by those in control of the media
(let's forget for a moment that his own party also conspired against him).
It will be interesting to see if Tulsi Gabbard can attract enough support that she cannot
be dismissed that easily. Funnily enough, by blocking the more centrist candidates like
Sanders, the Democrat leadership has made room for Gabbard who is much more radical (by
American standards).
I cringed when Tulsi launched into patriotic spiel about her service and could not bear to
watch as they went on to over-look her.
But then I realized that she had carefully considered the possibility that she may only be
asked one question and that that if there was one point to make that that was it - she unlike
most of the others has been willing to put herself at risk do do what she thought was the
right thing, serving her country at disadvantage to herself (though there may have been some
politics in it, but never mind) as opposed to say "pocahontes" lady for example. She's pretty
sharp and would represent us well I think.
@Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jun 27, 2019 1:01:12 PM | 15
Excellent point Zachary. In the first question they asked her about what she might do to
improve the economy for the benefit of the un-rich, her first point was that we are spending
enormous amounts of our tax dollars on unnecessary wars. Of course the media wanted instead
to hear about what new boondoggle programs they might propose, not something as mundane (and
unprofitable for some) as reducing military budget to reduce taxation and free up money for
other programs.
We're not allowed to consider candidates who would endeavor to make things better for the
majority at the expense of the minority, which is why Tulsi Gabbard will never be allowed to
the the nominee, regardless of how much her policy positions would resonate with voters were
they to actually be exposed to them.
The democrats are as as polluted as the republicans.
They refuse to see that Warren is far too hysterical to have any chance in a face to face
with Trump while Tulsi Gabbard will knock him Trump off.
The dems have been stupid enough to support Clinton that everybody disliked, now they will
redo the same mistake and lose again
If Tulsi were a serious anti-war candidate, she would be talking about significant
reductions in the military budget. She's not.
This is absurd. The things she talks about ALL THE TIME is how we're spending trillions on
regime change wars and how that money could be better used paying for health care, education,
the environment, etc. That is the entire focus of her campaign. And, by the way, she is the
*only* candidate to speak out against sanctions on Venezuela (and one of maybe two or three
to speak out against the US coup), saying that Venezuelans should determine their own future
without outside interference.
My first take on Tulsi's performance (the first hour) was not positive. I thought her early
spiel sounded too pro "soldier" and thus pro military, I was wishing she or someone would dig
deeper into the "border crisis" and explain the U.S. role in central America especially in
the 1980s, naming names (Abrams, North, etc)and telling the American people that most of the
refugees are coming from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, not Mexico. This morning I saw the clip of Gabbard taking apart Ryan and felt that she did pretty well
overall. I'm hopeful that interest in her will grow as I think she is one of very few in
Washington who are trustworthy.
Gabbard knows the primary race is rigged yet she stays in it and is remarkably measured as
she is both attacked and shunned by the "popular people". If the primary race bogs and she
stays in she could gain. I hope she is talking to Sanders.
As a Vietnam war veteran I found Tulsi Gabbard's antiwar war stance on target and thoroughly
refreshing. The only thing I am dismayed over was the short time she was given to make her
point.
I am sickened by the neocon chicken hawks, laptop bombardiers, armchair generals and
admirals who thank war veterans for their service while glorifying legalized murder and
mayhem at the same time.
There is a nauseating stench about war that cannot be dismissed nor
forgotten by anyone who has seen it and experienced it up close. Gabbard knows this from her
own tours of duty in Iraq and Kuwait. Nations do not become great by filling up their
cemeteries with the corpses of its potentially best and brightest.
I will eagerly vote for the first candidate to observe that U.S. lawmaking and U.S. elections
are hopelessly corrupt and worthless, and can't be used to fix themsleves or any other issue.
Unfortunately Tulsi Gabbard isn't that person, but she could not be ignored by the
Democrat oligarchs if she kept traveling and talking to foreign leaders, especially 'enemy'
ones. I hope she realizes that her 'Evil Assad lover' meeting is a gift that keeps on giving
to her. I doubt if I would even recognize her name today if that had never happened.
Can you imagine the heads that would explode if she went to China or Russia? Or went to
North and South Korea? And [sigh] Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel? Venezuela? She doesn't have
to do ANYTHING there. Just have a nice cup of tea with the leader and/or evil dictator and
listen for about half-an-hour, and then leave. Then come back and tell the NYT and WaPo that
she had a MOST interesting conversation with the leader but she would prefer not to discuss
details with the press. She would get instant 24x7 hate coverage by the MSM. Even
Trump would have to tweet about her.
Sometimes you just have to go guerilla in order to take on the 800 lb. swamp gorilla.
How would a media owned by munitions manufacturers behave any differently to someone whose
position threatens them making money off death and destruction? The 'national' media is owned
by the war industry, nothing more, nothing less.
Julian Castro, repeal of the federal law that makes "illegal entry"
Amy Klobuchar bashed Trump for saying he would bring down drug prices, something she said
the president has yet to do. "That's what we call at home all foam and no beer," Klobuchar
said.
Tulsi Gabbard, During a heated exchanged with Ryan, Gabbard pointed out that the Taliban
did not attack the World Trade Center on 9/11. "That's why I and other people joined the
military," she continued, "to go after Al Qaeda. Not the Taliban."
...and the losers, as:
Elizabeth Warren, seemed to disappear in the second half of the debate.
Tim Ryan, ran into Tulsi Gabbard
Beto O'Rourke, lacked substance in his answers.
----
Listened to the debate, too many issues that just allowed posturing without needing a real
policy response.
I like the part where Tulsi said that we can't say to the parents of the two US
service-men that had just been killed by the Taliban that we should just stay engaged, we
need to bring the troops home and, instead, spend the money on building up America.
-----
What is the biggest geo-politic threat facing America (framed as a specific foreign policy
question):
Delaney = China & Nuclear Weapons (no cheer)
Inslee = Donald Trump (biggest cheer)
Gabbard = Greatest risk of Nuclear War than ever before (no cheer)
Klobuchar = China & Iran (no cheer)
O'Rourke = Climate Change (modest cheer)
Warren = Climate Change (no cheer)
Booker = Nuclear proliferation & Climate Change (no cheer)
Castro = China & Climate Change (no cheer)
Ryan = China (half-hearted attempted applause)
De Blasio = Russia (2nd biggest cheer)
I think, Klobuchar noticed the response De Basio got and started to bash Russia later in
the debate.
-----
Closing statements:
Delaney (a bit spacey, wasn't paying attention, aspirational, American dream)
De Blasio (heart & soul of the party, track record, health care, working people first,
slogan = it matters)
Inslee (climate crisis, the only candidate to make this the top priority)
Ryan (oh, dear I won't even try)
Gabbard (against the rich & powerful, this must end, every single person gets the
health care they need, environment, well-paying jobs, justice for all)
Castro (immigrant story, health, jobs, slogan = adios to Donald Trump)
Klubacher (listens and acts, always wins, can beat Trump, not the establishment candidate,
not funded by corporate interests, slogan = govern for you)
Booker (rising to our best, he will beat Trump, best of who we are)
O'Rourke (emosh, for the children, new kind of politics)
Warren (emosh, great honour, modest background, American dream, we can make the country
work)
-----
I think Delaney and Ryan are toast. Unfortunately, De Blasio could go far on the anti-Russia dog whistle.
-----
Jackrabbit has a point about what can you expect from a single person being elected.
But he is wrong about Tulsi Gabbard's policy on military spending:
"Tulsi believes the United States would be far better off spending the trillions of
dollars wasted in interventionist wars on more pressing domestic issues in America, like
infrastructure, college debt, healthcare, etc."
The US is engaged in more conflicts than at any time since the end of WWII, at the same
time its military is beginning to fail, and its economy is on a precipice. There is no real
political movement anywhere in the US that is effectively addressing these issues.
I don't see Americans organising to take control of their government, to stop the wars or
anything like that.
The only hope that American's have is to send a message that the wars have got to stop, to
vote for a candidate that is committed and best able to stop those wars, and for those voters
to hold that candidate to account.
The only candidate that fits that bill is Tulsi Gabbard.
If you wish to opt-out, then organise, rise up and take control.....ehh, what's that?....I
thought not!
If all you are going to do is watch the TV, eat chips, drink beer and moan, then the very
least thing that you can do is vote for Tulsi Gabbard!
Tulsi Gabbard volunteered to go kill brown people on the other side of the world. If she
renounces her service to the Empire and regrets her part in mass murder, that would get my
attention.
But it doesn't matter. If she doesn't play ball she will get the Dennis Kucinich
treatment. Anybody remember him, or has he fallen down the memory hole? He loudly opposed
Uncle Sam's foreign policy and even introduced an impeachment bill against W Bush after the
2003 invasion of Iraq.
The Empire struck back by re-drawing congressional districts. That forced him to run
against another Dummycrat congressional incumbent in the primary, and he lost. All
politicians are required to get with the program; they are either co-opted or shoved out.
The only exception I can think of is Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting delegate in
Congress who represents the District of Columbia. The establishment can afford to ignore her
because her vote doesn't count, just like all the other D.C. residents.
The thirty-odd reactions here to Tulsi Gabbard are a perfect example of how & why the
left is so hopelessly fragmented.
People, for the umptieth time, it is impossible to ever find 100 point zero zero zero
percent overlap or coverage with any candidate for any office, ever.
But that fact does not justify throwing them all at the stake.
You are burning to ashes your own chances of ever seeing a society that even remotely
resembles your ideals.
Gotta love living in a Dollar Democracy where one dollar = one vote. Voting only legitimizes
an illegitimate regime. "None of the above" would be an interesting ballot option, and about
as realistic as retiring at age 55, which we were promised decades ago.
Hey, Trailer Trash. She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people. Also, to the claim that she has no policy positions: good grief, are you capable of
navigating a site? She has tons of clearly worded policy positions.
Finally, the VoteSmart site is clearly compromised if that's what it is saying about
Gabbard. Her positions are vastly different from those stated.
>She was a medic. She did not volunteer to go kill people.
> Posted by: Linda Hagge | Jun 27, 2019 3:14:41 PM | 48
The entire purpose of US War Department is to kill people and break things when vassals
refuse to obey. Everybody who signs up understands and accepts that basic fact. My nephew
actually stated to me that he signed up for the Marines so he could kill people legally.
People who want to patch up the sick and wounded sign up for Médecins Sans
Frontières or similar, not Uncle Sam's mass murder machine.
@Virgile (21) If you think that Sen. Warren is "hysterical" and would not have a chance
facing off against Trump, then I can only assume that you have not seen her in action. She is
incredibly well-informed, quick on her feet and unflappable. She would make Trump look like
the clown that he is.
I recommend that all Americans actually visit a party caucus at the county of district
level to see how the party bosses "select" their presidential candidate. It is a sobering but
depressing experience.
As for those who are waiting for the perfect leader - remember that such a leader would
likely be murdered by those who have money in the game.
When Gabbard is forthright and hits hard with well-informed, well-thought out positions;
delivered calmly and with composure; regardless of how far from the mainstream they fall; she
scores. This is a boxer who can win. But Gabbard has to resist the temptation to fall in line
with political weaseling.
Politicians are told that they must go where the voters' are,
triangulating so as not to offend, trying to cover all the bases, trying to confirm voters'
biases (heavily propagandized and managed biases, via media, etc., so that it becomes an easy
game for those in on the game): a real leader speaks to where he or she knows that the people
need to go, relying on the people to catch up, relying on some kind of faith to keep going
when that takes a while to happen.
The forthright and courageous Tulsi Gabbard wins minds and hearts.
I would without doubt prefer Tulsi over any of the other candidates on that stage, but I
still don't know how seriously to take her. Sure, she talks a good game about ending
régime-change wars, but she also seems to think that the 'War on Terra' (as Pepe
Escobar used to call it) is an actual thing, when in fact, it's just a big psy-op . We
all know that 9/11 was a false-flag that was staged to justify the serial destruction of all
the mid-east countries that refuse to bow down before Tel Aviv and Washington; and that 'Al
Qaeda' is really just a Saudi-funded, CIA-trained dupe-group used either to justify our
presence in the ME, or else to directly attack countries like Syria.
Does Tulsi really not know this? If she doesn't, then she's stupid. And if she does and
she's choosing to keep quiet about it for some reason, then who's she fooling? The neocons?
Or us?
So that's what bothers me about Tulsi. Still, I think she'd be preferable to four more
years of Zion Don (though I realize that isn't saying much).
I have been watching Gabbard for a long time now. As you mentioned there is no perfect
candidate. But she is the lesser evil at this point. The elephant in the room is as usual Israel. Did she sign that pledge when she got into
office? How much money has she received from AIPAC. Being a CFR member is a problem as well.
Where does she stand with respect to the Palestinians?
Once she repeats the line of "Israel has a right to defend itself" nonsense, it's all
downhill from there. You cannot make a new foreign policy direction once you signed that
pledge. You have to continue with the master plan. Obama was told that, so was Trump. That
has been proven and it's not up for debate.
Sadly, I still believe this is all a show for the masses. Nothing will change. The country
is doomed and the Empire will take its direction either good or bad, without any inputs from
the rest of us.
Several years ago, we placed on the ballot a referendum to stop Big Timber from
indiscriminately using helicopters or other contrivances to spray insecticides onto us, all
we own and our natural surround. Big Timber outspent us @10,000:1 and employed the usual
campaign of corporate lies to get us to vote against our health and other interests, which
included editorials in favor of Big Timber by the leading Oregon newspapers. At least we had
the opportunity to vote on the issue. When living in Santa Clara County, California during
the 1970s, we had no choice and got sprayed daily with Malathion insecticide to try and
destroy drosophila--the common fruit fly--which we all knew was an impossible task and would
have lost if put to a vote. We won at the ballot box and preserved our health and that of our
communities and the visitors we need to attract to survive in our tourism heavy economy.
The bottom line is voting matters! Arguments to the contrary only serve the interests
of the Current Oligarchy. And I grow oh so weary of reading that crap on this site, which
makes the people writing such tripe to have the appearance of Trolls!
sorry, I see my links are a b repeat -- but hey she deserves the headlines
exiled off mainstree , Jun 27, 2019 6:43:32 PM |
83
While I agree with those who state that it is all a sham and that she doesn't have a chance,
I still think that she is a test to show the extent to which the yankee populace has been suborned into the structure's
propaganda bullshit.
I think that if they do sideline her she
should stand as a third party candidate. I also suspect that the more people actually see her
and that the more intelligent element will support her. The better she does, the more
difficult it will be for the structure to maintain absolute power. After all there is little
significant difference between corporate democrats and corporate republicans.
I wanted Tulsi to be genuine but in doing some research I am sharing just a little of what I found: she is a current member of
the Counsel on Foreign Relations ...
If you want to know about and understand US foreign policy or have any hope of influencing
that policy you need to take an interest in the Council of Foreign Affairs.
I have frequently read and sought out articles on their journal, I would imagine b and
many commentators here have done so.
If you want a President that can deal with foreign affairs then they have to engage with
the foreign affairs establishment and do it before you become President otherwise you don't
stand a chance.
"She stressed that she co-sponsored a House resolution reaffirming US commitment to "a
negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution that re-affirms Israel's
right to exist as a democratic, Jewish state and establishes a demilitarized democratic
Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security."
That resolution also reaffirmed the US commitment to Israel and the US policy of vetoing
one-sided or anti-Israel UN Security Council resolutions, and condemned boycott and
divestment campaigns that target Israel."
Although she has condemned settlement activity, but sponsoring a bill to condemn BDS is a
nonstarter in my book. Too bad.
"... I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond counterproductive. ..."
"... Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and traitor. ..."
"Of all the candidates who are running for president, I'm the one who is most qualified to
fulfill that responsibility to walk into the Oval Office and serve as commander-in-chief.
And
I think you heard tonight some of the reasons why those who lack the experience, lack the
understanding, and conviction would, unfortunately, put our country in a place where we'd end
up waging more wars, costing us more lives and tax-payer dollars .
This is why I'm running
for president, to be that person, to be that change in our foreign policy and those
regime-change wars, new cold wars nuclear arms races and invest our precious dollars into
serving the needs of our people. "
I thought she would stand out from the field as she is the only candidate who seems to
GENUINELY think our "interventionist" foreign policy is madness, and beyond
counterproductive.
She also seems to not be backing down from her positions and appears capable of defending
her position in easy-to-understand and grasp sentences.
Now Ron Paul once stood out from the field in presidential debates, and also won all of
these Drudge Report polls. At some point, the Powers that Be decided enough with that and
succeeded in re-labeling him a kook, racist, pacifist, Russia lover, isolationist and
traitor.
The Most Qualified to be Prezzy would be the first of these cockbags to admit that
Obobo weaponized the government against his opponents. But none of them will. And by ignoring
the 800 pound gorilla in the room, they ALL prove that none of them are even close to
"qualified" to lead anything.
As they
take the stage for the first Democratic debates of the 2020 presidential campaign, the 20
participating candidates should be ready for one frequently asked question: How will you pay
for it? Democrats often pledge to finance their most ambitious plans -- Medicare for All,
debt-free college, a Green New Deal -- with tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.
That is both sensible and fair. But candidates hoping to distinguish themselves in the
limited time they will be allotted should also consider taking a stand against the United
States' bloated defense budget.
This month, the House Armed Services Committee
advanced a $733 billion defense budget on a mostly party-line vote. According to
Defense News , the lack of Republican support for the bill
illustrated "the stark divide in defense policy between the two parties." Yet that divide
is far narrower than you might think. The bill's price tag is just $17 billion less than the
$750 billion that
President Trump requested ; it still was, as Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) boasted,
the "largest" defense budget in history. There remains a near-universal commitment in both
parties to massive defense spending -- a case of Washington bipartisanship that the country
would be better off without.
A timely new
report from the Center for International Policy's Sustainable Defense Task Force offers
an alternative path forward. In the report, "A Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less
Spending," the nonpartisan group of military and budget experts outlines a strategy that it
says would save $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years without harming national-security
interests. In fact, through a sober reassessment of the biggest threats to the United States
in the 21st century, including climate change and cyberattacks, the proposal would keep the
country safer than an outdated approach that relies on perpetual spending increases.
One more century of warfare like the 20th century, and the USA might be bankrupt
Notable quotes:
"... So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course ..."
"... She can talk to her heart's content, but American forces won't go home as long as dollar is the world's favourite currency. ..."
"... If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that 'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe the Zio-Cons may let her live. ..."
While it would appear that the mainstream media has crowned Senator Elizabeth Warren the winner of
last night's first Democratic primary debate, on a more quantitative and objective level, it would
seem there was another female candidate that stood out to the American audience.
Before the debate, Warren was indeed the 'most-searched' Democratic candidate on Google...
But as the debate began and the clown-show escalated, one candidate dominated the search...
As Fox News reports,
Tulsi Gabbard, an Army National Guard veteran who served
in Iraq, grabbed the attention of the viewers every time she spoke about foreign policy and the
military.
During the debate, she called for scaling back of U.S. military presence abroad and accused
"this president and his chicken hawk cabinet have led us to the brink of war with Iran."
Gabbard's military experience gave her authority in a harsh exchange with Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan,
who said the U.S. must maintain forces in Afghanistan to ensure the Taliban is kept in check.
"When we weren't in there, they started flying planes into our buildings," Ryan said.
"The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11," Gabbard replied.
The data show that
the moment that generated the most search traffic for Gabbard was
when she was making her closing argument
.
"Assuming the Google "trend" isn't a manifestation of their algorithms then it
appears that most adults are interested in a calm, stoic, but non-clown like candidate"
Tulsi got some agenda correct 90% others 10% among 99 problems,
you can't compromise one after another nor give away your gun
right for some hotchpotch noises
They promise big and bigger
in campaign times yes?
So her sell point of getting rid USA from useless wars off
shore seems on pint but we all know that ain't gonna realized
except takes a hike in her time, if she got a chance of course
If Gabbard can stay with the brain-dead false narrative that
'Crazed Arabs' took down the towers and building 7 in perfect free
fall without taking months to plant and wire the bombs, then maybe
the Zio-Cons may let her live.
Her mentioning the Saudis, (Israels
secret partner) however, was a little risky, unless the Zionists
are getting ready to throw the Saudis under the bus?
While I fully agree with the idea, heck, FACT, that it wasn't a
bunch of Bedouins in street clothes that took down the towers
it also has to be taken into account that the CIA uses proxies
all the time. I upvoted you, though. The 9/11 story is a
truly fascinating one.
the CIA uses proxies all the time' ....... agree, but
nothing hit building '7' the 47 story Solomon building , so
who were the proxies for that free fall controlled demo?
And probably, if we just impeach the Walrus of Death nothing will change . Its a freight
train to war. It moves slowly at first but its hell to try and stop.
This awesome demonstration of American resolve was meant to be punishment for the vicious
slaughter of an expensive U.S. military drone, which was peacefully invading Iranian airspace,
and not at all attempting to provoke the Iranians into blowing it out of the sky with a missile
so the U.S. military could "retaliate."
The military-industrial complex would never dream of doing anything like that, not even to
further the destabilization and restructuring of the Greater Middle East that they've been
systematically carrying out the since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, which more on
that in just a moment.
"... For some odd reason, Donald Trump wants to be reelected president in 2020 in spite of the fact that he appears to be uncomfortable in office. A quick, successful war would enhance his chances for a second term, which is probably what Pompeo promised, but any military action that is not immediately decisive would hurt his prospects, quite possibly inflicting fatal damage. ..."
"... Trump apparently had an intercession by Fox news analyst Tucker Carlson, who may have explained that reality to him shortly before he decided to cancel the attack. Tucker is, for what it's worth, a highly respected critic coming from the political right who is skeptical of wars of choice, democracy building and the global liberal order. ..."
"... It is an interesting process to observe how Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson contribute tens of millions of dollars to the politicians who then in turn give the Jewish state taxpayer generated tens of billions of dollars in return. Bribing corrupt politicians is one of the best investments that one can make in today's America. ..."
The current foreign policy debate centers around what Washington's next moves in the Middle
East might be. The decision-making will inevitably involve the US and its "close allies" Israel
and Saudi Arabia, which should not surprise anyone. While it is clear that President Donald
Trump ordered an attack on Iran before canceling the action at the last minute, exactly how
that played out continues to be unclear. One theory, promoted by the president himself, is that
the attack would have been disproportionate, killing possibly hundreds of Iranian military
personnel in exchange for one admittedly very expensive surveillance drone. Killing the
Iranians would have guaranteed an immediate escalation by Iran, which has both the will and the
capability to hit high value targets in and around the Persian Gulf region, a factor that may
also have figured into the presidential calculus.
Trump's cancelation of the attack immediately produced cries of rage from the usual
neoconservative chickenhawk crowd in Washington as well as a more subdued reiteration of the
Israeli and Saudi demands that Iran be punished, though both are also concerned that a massive
Iranian retaliation would hit them hard. They are both hoping that Washington's immensely
powerful strategic armaments will succeed in knocking Iran out quickly and decisively, but they
have also both learned not to completely trust the White House.
To assuage the beast, the president has initiated a package of "major" new sanctions on
Iran which will no doubt hurt the Iranian people while not changing government decision making
one iota. There has also been a leak of a story relating to US cyber-attacks on Iranian
military and infrastructure targets, yet another attempt to act aggressive to mitigate the
sounds being emitted by the neocon chorus.
To understand the stop-and-go behavior by Trump requires application of the Occam's Razor
principle, i.e. that the simplest explanation is most likely correct. For some odd reason,
Donald Trump wants to be reelected president in 2020 in spite of the fact that he appears to be
uncomfortable in office. A quick, successful war would enhance his chances for a second term,
which is probably what Pompeo promised, but any military action that is not immediately
decisive would hurt his prospects, quite possibly inflicting fatal damage.
Trump apparently had an intercession by Fox news analyst Tucker Carlson, who may have
explained that reality to him shortly before he decided to cancel the attack. Tucker is, for
what it's worth, a highly respected critic coming from the political right who is skeptical of
wars of choice, democracy building and the global liberal order.
The truth is that all of American foreign policy during the upcoming year will be designed
to pander to certain constituencies that will be crucial to the 2020 presidential election. One
can bank on even more concessions being granted to Israel and its murderous thug prime minister
Benjamin Netanyahu to bring in Jewish votes and, more importantly, money. John Bolton was
already in Israel getting his marching orders from Netanyahu on the weekend and Pence was
effusive in his praise of Israel when he spoke at the meeting in Orlando earlier in the week
launching the Trump 2020 campaign, so the game is already afoot.
It is an interesting process to observe how Jewish oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson
contribute tens of millions of dollars to the politicians who then in turn give the Jewish
state taxpayer generated tens of billions of dollars in return. Bribing corrupt politicians is
one of the best investments that one can make in today's America.
Trump will also go easy on Saudi Arabia because he wants to sell them billions of dollars'
worth of weapons which will make the key constituency of the Military Industrial Complex (MIC)
happy. And he will continue to exert "maximum pressure" on Iran and Venezuela to show how tough
he can be for his Make America Great audience, though avoiding war if he possibly can just in
case any of the hapless victims tries to fight back and embarrass him.
So, there it is folks. War with Iran is for the moment on hold, but tune in again next week
as the collective White House memory span runs to only three or four days. By next week we
Americans might be at war with Mongolia.
"...as Stratfor, put it, "Trump, fearing a much bigger escalation, got cold feet."
One is reminded of the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a General in the Joint
Chiefs comments disparagingly about Kennedy for keeping his finger "on the chicken switch"
with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Lyndon Johnson in the White House with Henry Cabot Lodge in 1963 declares: "Gentlemen, I
want you to know I'm not going to let Vietnam go the way China did. I'm personally committed.
I'm not going to take one soldier out of there 'til they know we mean business in Asia (he
pauses) You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war ."
Another question exists: should the US resist the allure of military action against Iran,
what can Iran do?
US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war. Iran can bust sanctions up to some point
-- but for how long? Will Iran suffer half a million dead children & elderly people as
Iraq did in the 90's ? SHOULD Iran have to suffer such a criminally imposed loss of life?
Where is the way out of this insanity?
Iran won't negotiate with the US for the very good reason that the US clearly wants to
sterilize Iranian sovereignty (ie the US won't accept ANY Iranian missiles -- that is, Iran
has no right to self defense).
Sad to say, Trump does not need to launch military action against Iran, merely continue to
economically terrorise Iran until it has NO choice but to initiate military action against
its tormentors.
The war on Iran will continue till kingdom come, until it falls. Its clear as day that both
Russia and China back their Iranian allies against US provocations. China hasn't flinched
under US threats to embargo Iranian crude, and continues to purchase it, and Russia has an
oil swap agreement with Iran, where it buys Iranian oil and sells it as Russian on the
international market. This must be a severe irritation to the imperialists in Washington and
London as it renders their Iran sanctions regime practically toothless.
The imperialists are not backing down in their quest for subduing Iran. Seems like the idea
here is to put as many large ships in harms way as possible....and provoke Iran to attack one
of these......This will ensure the probability of miscalculation and/ or accidents becomes
almost unavoidable. There must be regime change in Tehran, on the road to Beijing and Moscow:
Iran has every right to defend itself from US imperialisms constant violence, as is the case
with China and Russia. It is also pleasing to see the almighty war machine get a bloody nose.
But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is always the working class that
suffers the most in terms of death, injuries and destitution.
End all wars!
End production for profit and the Nation state upon which it is built!
America's history demonstrates that loss of (foreign) life is of little concern to those in
power.
The Manhattan Project was established, and mightily financed because of reasonably well
established fears that Nazi Germany was on track to build its own A-bombs.
With the defeat of Germany that fear was gone. Nevertheless, knowing full well that Imperial
Japan had no such program, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vapourised. A clear demonstration that
they, atomic weapons, WMD, worked and a warning to the Soviet Union that it too could be
annihilated.
Robert Oppenheimer and others refused to take part in building an H-bomb for class and humane
reasons. This fell on Truman's deaf ears.
American Imperialism is indifferent to death and destruction of billions.
As WSWS has stated, Trumps announcement that the loss of 150 Iranian lives is the the reason
he pulled backs so much bilge.
Trump is in a catch 22. When push has come to shove , he simply cannot sell another war to
the US working class, and he knows it , and he's been well and truly spooked by the Iranian
response.
All the US garbage of itself as ''victim'', all the 'good cop bad cop' routines are
wearing thin. Nobody is buying it anymore , especially from a gangster.
Perhaps a predicted massive spike in global temperatures will clear out the collective
cobwebs further.
Good point about the possibility of Iran sinking a carrier. The Chinese have developed
advanced anti-ship weapons that, if the results of a RAND corporation war game can be
believed, will be able to neutralize carriers. This highlights the fact that, whatever the
salesmen of advanced weaponry might say, it will not win wars alone. All of the smart weapons
in the world have not ended the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in the favour of American
imperialism.
We can see an historical precedent in the British development of the dreadnought, the
modern battleship, in the arms race that preceded WWI. Dreadnoughts were supposed to be the
decisive super weapons of the day, but the British and German battle fleets remained in their
moorings for most of the war for fear that these expensive ships would fall prey to torpedos.
The sinking of the HMS Formidable in 1915 is a case in point. The only major engagement
between dreadnoughts was at Jutland and it was inconclusive.
For all of the contemporary bluster about super weapons and the fetishism of smart bombs
and cyber weapons, they will not decisively win a war alone. As in the world wars of the last
century, the bourgeoisie will be forced to mobilize society for a war. This will mean
bringing the working class - against its will - into the maelstrom.
Yet again the WSWS demonstrates the incredible foresight and clarity of Marxist analysis. I
would like to extend my thanks to Comrade Andre and the editors of the WSWS for their
indefatigable efforts to impart Marxist consciousness to the masses. For all of the naysayers
who have attacked the WSWS as "sectarian" or as not involved in "practical work," need we
point to anything other than the WSWSs explanation of the connection between eruption of
American imperialism and the decline of the productive forces of that nation state? That
analysis has placed the WSWS in the position of being better prepared politically for the
consequences of war than the imperialists, as the latest farce in the Middle East
demonstrates.
A quote from Trotsky will further emphasize my point:
"We will not concede this banner to the masters of falsehood! If our generation happens to
be too weak to establish Socialism over the earth, we will hand the spotless banner down to
our children. The struggle which is in the offing transcends by far the importance of
individuals, factions and parties. It is the struggle for the future of all mankind."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system. So the question is, if the stealth advantage of
the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth
using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues. Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of
navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water
in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be
entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the
straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is
something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians
have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no
subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below). Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and
financial crisis of immense proportions around the world. The financial and speculative house
of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down. The amount of
derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is
estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or
$1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a
billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See
"World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight
Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at
<
https://www.globalresearch.... >). Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various
elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world
production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps
less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American
ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic
global consequences, including for the United States itself."
The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates
conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal
corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and
geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.
However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral
hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with
economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the
warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian
Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major
war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.
What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering
stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States
came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously
examined.
In light of these dangerous events it is obvious that a faction of the American ruling class
circles including Trump were not prepared to face the consequences of a strike against Iran.
That is precisely why Trump aborted the mission last Friday. Just yesterday Trump himself
admitted for the first time that if it was up to John Bolton then we would be fighting the
whole world. Today Pompeo has been sent to Middle East to broaden his alliance with Gulf
Monarchical regimes most notably Saudi Arabia and UAE. It is aimed to prepare the ground for
possible confrontation with Iran.
Trump's comment re Bolton that the US "would fight the whole world" sums up what the US is
really about. Take it from me, The US hates virtually every country save one: Israel. Illegal
US Sanctions regimes now extend to almost 50% of the world's population. The US does not even
like the advanced countries such as Europe and Japan. They tolerate them because of
diplomatic support and large investment and trade ties. Outside that they have no affinity or
connection. Until we all realise the true nature of The US and its exclusive cultural mindset
[NFL, NBA, MLB etc etc], populations will merely continue to enable the US to attack and
sanction everybody and anyone of their demented choosing. The tragedy is that if the other
countries became united and were committed to ending this US terror by eg dumping the US
Dollar as international reserve currency and sanctioning all US corporations, the US would
face severe turmoil and its reign of endless terror brought to a sudden end.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
I believe things simple didn't go as planned as an airplane was threatened to be taken
down. Bolton was in Israel after that to most likely assure Netanyahu that a new attack would
be conducted, Bolton Warned Iran Not to 'Mistake U.S. Prudence and Discretion for
Weakness'...
There needs to be a correction in the article on the older Raad system not having been used
but instead the newer, 'Third of Khordad' system which brought down the MQ-4C Triton.
Pictures/ Info on the Third of Khordad reveals that it is in effect an Iranian version of the
Soviet Buk-M2 of the MH-17 downing fame which the western backed Kiev junta used from its
hand me down Soviet weapons arsenal, to shoot down the ill fated Malaysian Airliner over the
Ukraine. The system also is stark evidence of the close defense relationship between the
Russians and the Iranians, confirming the suspicions in the west that whatever weaponry Putin
transfers to Syria or Iraq is by default also available to Iran.
Not to be outdone by his failure to bring Iran to its knees, Trump ordered a massive cyber
attack on Iran's missile batteries and its command and control centers after rescinding the
military order to physically attack Iran for downing the drone. The Iranians today announced
the failure of this desperate US cyber attack:
This is in addition to the CIA placing an agent within the Iranian oil ministry for
conducting sabotage. She has been arrested and faces the death penalty for espionage:
The deep State in the US will not stop trying to subdue Iran until it capitulates. Iran
must fall to Washington in order for the US to effectively counter and sabotage both Putin's
Eurasian Integration and president Xi's BRI projects.
Trump's alterration at this moment can be due to Iran's internal coherence against American
imperialism. With santions being reinforced, one can anticipate more and more impovershment
and quality of life geting lower unabated to the point that the basis for internal coherence
gets eroded substantially. We saw working class uprisings in Iran recently and leadership
accused imperialist as rabble-rousers to find a way out.That is why we need building
SEP/IYSSE in Iran to hatch revolutionary force in Iran for Iran to join the peer in the rest
of the world. Morsi in Egypt was overthrown by Sisi with the backing of US imperialism headed
by Obama at that time. So is the imperialism and it will continue to work to weaken Iran as a
force successfully confronting imperialism in the middle east currently. Let us therefore
empower international working class to empower it to overthrow imperialism on one hand and
Stalinism on the other hand. Russia too depend largely on its arms sale to maintain its
economy. But human needs, not wepons, but basic needs including clean environment. Long live
the socialist revolution in Iran and internationally. Death to imperialism. Thank you comrade
Andre Damon.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
Economically it would be Armageddon. Although some think America does not rely on Mideast
oil, the world economy does and America is a part of that despite what nationalists dream.
Bolton is making threats from Israel and clearly some believe they stand to gain from war but
militarily too it would be Armageddon. The Pentagon would answer the sinking of a carrier by
nuking Iran to preserve American "credibility" i.e. fear. China and Russia would have to
react, China at least to keep its oil supplied. India pushed against China could add more
mushroom clouds not to mention Pakistan. Israel itself with Tel Aviv bombarded from Lebanon
and maybe invaded unable to stop this might nuke Lebanon and maybe Tehran if any of it
remains and Damascus besides. Just as ww1 started because military train timetables had to be
followed there are nukewar plans in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing that won't take long. So
world workers need to start our plan before others begin. Preemptive general strikes, antiwar
and socialist revolutionary agitation and propaganda within imperialist rank and files and
human blockades of war material networks should happen at an early date like now. Now also
WikiLeaks should put out whatever it hasn't while people exist to read it. The rich are
determined to kill Assange anyway and full wartime censorship is not far off.
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles
at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a
barrel. The article also notes that:
"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a
strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."
Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and
thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously
wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would
land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no
consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the
deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the
lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start
a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a
malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or
perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping
500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United
States.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their
officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would
otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and
millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill
everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist
After Hezballah had booted Zionist colonizers out of Lebanon, Zionist apartheid had lost its
image of "invincibility".
Now even ghetto Gaza is fighting back.
The CIA payrolled press whores like CNN's Christiane Amanpour for example a prime warmonger
and there are countless others embedded in every western media source.
Ironically, Amanpour is Iranian background, an avowed revolution hater and a devoted Iranian
Pahlavi monarchist. She's on the record for saying that she wants to see the Shah's exiled
son back on the throne in Iran, serving US imperialism for the 'benefit of the Iranian
nation'.
The sinking of an aircraft carrier, especially one as well known as the USS Lincoln, would
have been one of the biggest PR disasters for both Trump and the military. It probably would
have sparked demands from the people to know how, despite pouring trillions of dollars into
the mouths of greedy defense contractors for decades, a supposedly inferior military could so
easily take down one of our ships.
Khrushchev once said of the Sverdlov class cruisers built in the early 1950's that their only
practical purpose was as targets for anti ship missile training because of how outdated they
where considering they where armed with guns.
Maybe the anti-ship missile now stands at the point where it can make carriers obsolete
similar to how the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier.
There are some who argue that surface navies became obsolete in the 1950's with the advent of
long range missiles. For many years now, China has been helping to build up Iranian area
defences...
Cold war weapons are unsuitable for countering Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine. A dozen or
two highly advanced US warships are no match for a thousand missile boats and thousands of
Iranian anti-ship missiles in the narrow confines of the shallow gulf.
Minutes or hours, or Trump never signed on to them, as the accounts from different US media
outlets and Trump have differed at several points. Fog of war indeed.
That's good line of attack on Trump. People do not want yet another war and they are against
overinflated military expenditures. and Trump essentially behaves like a rabid subservant to
Israel neocon in those area. So he might share the Hillary destiny in 2020
The Dem debaters want the failed JCPOA back, except one wants a more punitive one. So it's
Obama/Trump redux with all of them, worthless people. We're less safe with Iranians . .
.under the bed!
McClatchy
Klobuchar said that Trump's strategy on Iran had "made us less safe," after debate
moderators took note of increased military tensions in the Strait of Hormuz last week.
Washington has accused Iran of targeting shipping vessels, and Tehran acknowledged it shot
down an unmanned U.S. drone on Thursday, nearly prompting Trump to order a retaliatory
military strike. The 2015 nuclear deal "was imperfect, but it was a good deal for that
moment," Klobuchar stated, characterizing the agreement's "sunset periods" – caps on
Iran's enrichment and stockpiling of fissile material set to expire five to 10 years from
the next inauguration– as a potential point of renegotiation.
The Democratic field has roundly criticized Trump for his approach to Iran. Many of the
leading candidates said last week's military confrontation spawned from a crisis of the
president's own making, precipitated by his withdrawal from that landmark accord.
But up until now, the Democratic candidates have not specified how they would salvage a
deal that continues to fray – and that may collapse completely under the weight of
steadily broadening U.S. sanctions by the time a new president could be sworn in.
Few Democrats had thus far hedged over adopting the agreement entirely should they win
the presidency even if the deal survives that long. Leading candidates have characterized
the nuclear agreement as "imperfect" and in need of "strengthening," suggesting subtle
distinctions within the field over the potential conditions of U.S. re-entry into a pact. .
. here
I've got a deal for them to salvage, get off your GD pedestals and say hello to the real
world! . . .There, I feel better now.
"... If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region, not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and Iran. ..."
"... Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S. government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution. ..."
"... OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running. ..."
If I were a particularly cynical analyst, it might look to me like global capitalism,
starting right around 1990, freed by the collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it
wanted, more or less immediately started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout
the Greater Middle East. My cynical theory would kind of make sense of the "catastrophic policy
blunders" that the United States has supposedly made in Iraq, Libya, and throughout the region,
not to mention the whole "Global War on Terror," and what it is currently doing to Syria, and
Iran.
Take a good look at
this Smithsonian map of where the U.S.A. is "combating terrorism." Note how the U.S.
military (i.e., global capitalism's unofficial "enforcer") has catastrophically blundered its
way into more or less every nation depicted. Or ask our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Israel,
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and so on. OK, you might have to reach
them in New York or London, or in the South of France this time of year, but, go ahead, ask
them about the horrors they've been suffering on account of our "catastrophic blunders."
See, according to this crackpot conspiracy theory that I would put forth if I were a
geopolitical analyst instead of just a political satirist, there have been no "catastrophic
policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is
proceeding exactly according to plan. The regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those
who wouldn't have been regime-changed, or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime
change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have been
a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people or the
"sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful. Global
capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open for
business or not.
Take a look at that map again. What you're looking at is global capitalism cleaning up after
winning the Cold War. And yes, I do mean global capitalism, not the United States of
America (i.e., the "nation" most Americans think they live in, despite all evidence to the
contrary). I know it hurts to accept the fact that "America" is nothing but a simulation
projected onto an enormous marketplace but seriously, do you honestly believe that the U.S.
government and its military serve the interests of the American people? If so, go ahead, review
the history of their activities since the Second World War, and explain to me how they have
benefited Americans not the corporatist ruling classes, regular working class Americans, many
of whom can't afford to see a doctor, or buy a house, or educate their kids, not without
assuming a lifetime of debt to some global financial institution.
OK, so I digressed a little. The point is, "America" is not at war with Iran. Global
capitalism is at war with Iran. The supranational corporatist empire. Yes, it wears an American
face, and waves a big American flag, but it is no more "American" than the corporations it
comprises, or the governments those corporations own, or the military forces those governments
control, or the transnational banks that keep the whole show running.
This is what Iran and Syria are up against. This is what Russia is up against. Global
capitalism doesn't want to nuke them, or occupy them. It wants to privatize them, like it is
privatizing the rest of the world, like it has already privatized America according to my
crackpot theory, of course.
if I were a geopolitical analyst, I might be able to discern a pattern there, and
possibly even some sort of strategy.
Sounds good.
Some other people did it before, wrote it down etc. but it's always good to see that
stuff.
it might look to me like global capitalism, starting right around 1990, freed by the
collapse of the U.S.S.R. to do whatever the hell it wanted, more or less immediately
started dismantling uncooperative power structures throughout the Greater Middle East.
.there have been no "catastrophic policy blunders," not for global capitalism. The
Restructuring of the Greater Middle East is proceeding exactly according to plan. The
regional ruling classes are playing ball, and those who wouldn't have been regime-changed,
or are being regime-changed, or are scheduled for regime change.
Sure, for the actual people of the region, and for regular Americans, the last thirty years
of wars, "strategic" bombings, sanctions, fomented coups, and other such shenanigans have
been a pointless waste of lives and money but global capitalism doesn't care about people
or the "sovereign nations" they believe they live in, except to the extent they are useful.
Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not.
Spot on.
Now .there IS a bit of oversight in the article re competing groups of people on top of
that "Global capitalist" bunch.
It's a bit more complicated than "Global capitalism".
Jewish heavily influenced, perhaps even controlled, Anglo-Saxon "setup" .. or Russian
"setup" or Chinese "setup".
Only one of them can be on the top, and they don't like each other much.
And they all have nuclear weapons.
"Global capitalism" idea is optimistic. The global overwhelming force against little
players. No chance of MAD there so not that bad.NOPE IMHO.
There is a chance of MAD.
That is the problem . Well, at least for some people.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
I was a union man in my youth. We liked Capitalism. We just wanted our fair share of the
loot. The working class today knows nothing about organizing. They don't even know they are
working class. They think they are black or white. Woke or Deplorable.
ALL OF US non billionaires are coming up on serious hard times. Serious enough that we
might have to put aside our differences. The government is corrupt. It will not save us.
Instead it will continue to work to divide us.
Another great article by C J Hopkins.
Hopkins (correctly) posits that behind US actions, wars etc lies the global capitalist
class.
"Global capitalism has no nations. All it has are market territories, which are either open
for business or not"
This is correct -- but requires an important caveat.
Intrinsic to capitalism is imperialism. They are the head & tail of the same coin.
Global capitalists may unite in their rapacious attacks on average citizens the world over.
However, they will disunite when it comes to beating a competitor to a market.
The "West" has no (real) ideological differences with China, Russia & Iran. This is a
fight between an existing hegemon & it's allies & a rising hegemon (China) & it's
allies.
In many ways it's similar to the WW I situation: an established imperial country, the UK,
& it's allies against a country with imperial pretensions -- Germany (& it's
allies)
To put it in a nice little homily: the Capitalist wolves prefer to eat sheep (us) -- but,
will happily eat each other should they perceive a sufficient interest in doing so.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of
monopolies.
In most key sectors, competition ends up producing monopolies or their near-equivalent,
oligopolies. The many are weeded out (or swallowed up) by the few . The
situation is roughly the same with democracy, which historically has always resulted in
oligarchy, as occurred in ancient Rome and Athens.
Globalists are not Capitalists. There is no competition. Just a hand full of monopolies.
These stateless corporate monopolists are better understood as Feudalists. They would have
everything. We would have nothing. That's what privatization is. It's the Lords ripping off
the proles.
You are right in expecting that in Capitalism there would be competition – the
traditional view that prices would remain low because of competition, the less competitive
removed from the field, and so on. But that was primitive laisser-faire Capitalism on a fair
playing field that hardly existed but in theory. Occasionally there were some "good"
capitalists – say the mill-owner in a Lancashire town who gave employment to the
locals, built houses, donated to charity and went to the Sunday church service with his
workers. But even that "good" capitalist was in it for the profit, which comes from taking
possession for himself of the value added by his workers to a commodity.
But modern Capitalism does not function that way. There are no mill-owners, just absentee
investor playing in, usually rigged, stock market casinos. Industrial capitalism has been
changed into financial Capitalism without borders and loyalty to worker or country. In fact,
it has gone global to play country against country for more profit.
Anyway, the USA has evolved into a Fascist state (an advanced state of capitalism, a.k.a.
corporatocracy) as Chomsky stated many years ago. Seen from abroad here's a view from the
horse's mouth ( The Guardian is official organ of Globalist Fascism).
"... The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war that deserved retaliation. ..."
"... The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views? ..."
"... Iran is preparing to breach the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more generally. ..."
"... Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting Saudi and American domination of the region. ..."
"... Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." ..."
"... They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right. ..."
Iran predictably claimed that the drone was within its airspace. American officials asserted
that it was in international airspace. Reported by The New York Times :
"a
senior Trump administration official said there was concern inside the United States government
about whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, or even the P-8A manned
aircraft flown by a military aircrew, actually did violate Iranian airspace at some point. The
official said the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike."
The point is worth repeating. The military was prepared to blast away when it wasn't even
certain whether America was in the right. The episode brings to mind the 1988 shootdown of an
Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes .
Initially the U.S. Navy justified its action, making a series of false claims about Iran Air
Flight 655, which carried 290 passengers and crew members. Eventually Washington did admit that
it had made a horrific mistake, though the Vincennes captain was later decorated.
The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false
pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy
advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from
pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war
that deserved retaliation.
The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into
a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he
further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to
surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views?
Presumably the president believes that he can control his war-happy subordinates, using them
as he sees fit. However, his overweening hubris ignores their power to set the agenda and
influence his choices. Consider the basic question of objectives regarding Iran. Trump now says
all he wants to do is keep nukes out of Tehran's hands: "Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon,"
he intoned after halting the proposed reprisal, adding that "restraint" has its limits. But the
nuclear accord was drafted to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is preparing to breach
the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is
evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more
generally.
Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far
more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to
abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting
Saudi and American domination of the region.
These mandates were an obvious non-starter -- what
sovereign nation voluntarily accepts puppet status? In fact, Pompeo admitted that he didn't
expect Iran to surrender, but instead hoped for a popular revolution. In recently stating that
the administration would negotiate without preconditions, he added that Washington expected
Iran to act like "a normal nation," meaning behaving just as he'd demanded last year. (Notably,
there was no offer for America to act like a normal country.)
Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist
backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be
rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is
practically excluded."
Once it became evident that no one would willingly back down and conflict was likely,
Germany's Kaiser and Russia's Tsar tried to halt the rush to war. However, they found
themselves hemmed in by the war plans created by their nominal subordinates. With
Austria-Hungary mobilizing against Serbia, Russia had to act to protect the latter. Germany
then faced a two-front war. Thus, to aid its ally in Vienna, the Germans had to mobilize
quickly in an attempt to defeat France before Russia could put its massive army into the field.
No one had sufficient time for diplomacy.
However, cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas did engage in a last minute "Willy-Nicky"
exchange of telegrams. Wilhelm warned Nicholas that general Russian mobilization would require
Germany to act, with war the result. In response, the tsar switched from general to partial
mobilization. But he was soon besieged by his top officials who insisted that the entire army
had to be called up.
Understanding that general mobilization meant war, the tsar observed: "Think of the
responsibility you are asking me to take! Think of the thousands and thousands of men who will
be sent to their deaths." But he gave in, approving mobilization on the evening of July 30.
Nicholas's concern was warranted. More than 1.7 million Russian soldiers, along with hundreds
of thousands of civilians, died in the conflict. The ensuing Russian Civil War was even more
deadly, indeed far more so for noncombatants, among them the tsar and his family.
Kaiser Wilhelm was equally at the mercy of the "France-first" Schlieffen Plan. To wait would
be to invite destruction between the French and Russians, so he approved German mobilization on
August 1. He predicted the war would lead to "endless misery," and so it did. In 1918, he was
forced to abdicate and he lived out his life in exile.
Pompeo, Bolton, and like-minded officials tried and failed to force another war last week.
Next time they may succeed in leaving the president with no practical choice but the one they
favor. In which case he will find himself starting the very conflict that he had declared
against.
Ongoing administration machinations -- exacerbated by the opportunity to manipulate a
president -- offer an important reminder as to the Founders' wisdom. Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention made clear their intention to break with monarchical practice,
minimizing the president's authority. Congress was assigned the powers to raise armies, decide
on the rules of war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and ratify treaties. Most
importantly, the legislative branch alone could declare war.
As commander-in-chief, the president could defend against attack, but he could not even
order a retaliatory strike without congressional authority. Wrote James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson: "The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that
the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature." Delegate James
Wilson insisted that the Constitution was intended to "guard against" being hurried into war:
"It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such
distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
Most important, placing the war power with Congress ensured that the people would be heard.
Of course, even that is not enough today. Presidents have adeptly concocted "evidence" and
misled the public, such as during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private
conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right.
However, the Iraq debacle has resulted in greater skepticism of presidential claims. The
Trump administration's unsupported judgment that Iran was behind attacks on oil tankers was
greeted at home and abroad with a demand for more evidence. People were conscious of having
been repeatedly played by Washington and did not want a repeat. Many found the U.S. government
no more trustworthy than Iranian authorities, a humbling equivalence. And given the doubts
apparently voiced by Pentagon officials out of public view, such skepticism was
well-founded.
Last week, Donald Trump declared, "I want to get out of these endless wars." Unlike his
predecessors, the president apparently recognizes the temptation to sacrifice lives for
political gain. However, alone he will find it nearly impossible to face down the bipartisan
War Party. The best way to get out of endless wars is to not get in them in the first place.
And that requires changing personnel and respecting the constitutional limits established by
the nation's Founders.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire
Unfortunately, the President is attempting to walk a tight-rope between peace and the most
prominent funders of the GOP. Sheldon Adelson and his ilk are bent on the destruction of any
nation that stands in the way of Israeli expansion. And of course military contractors need
constant growth in tax-payer funding to support their margins and shareholder value. Hence
the blustering to appease the aforementioned and keep the bribes flowing, while backing down
to appease the base.
It would of course be in the interests of the base to oppose the bribe-taking to begin
with, but I assume that must be beyond their intellectual capacity. Or perhaps they're simply
in favor of it for ideological reasons.
We might as well be honest about it. All politicians over simplify, shade the truth, and
occasionally lie. But Trump's falsehoods are so continuous and extensive that there is no
reason to believe anything he says - everything needs to be validated against external
authorities - which is why he is so intent on tearing down all authorities that could
contradict him.
This is another in the long line of stories we are reading here (and in other places) that
Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a war but is being manipulated by Bolton, Pompeo
and the national security apparatus. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo. Even somebody as apparently dimwitted as Trump could not
possibly have failed to notice that they were warmongers. Indeed, Bolton is probably the most
extreme warmonger around: he has an extensive public record of advocating war with Iran for
about two decades now. I cannot believe that even Trump was unaware of this. And even if he
was, why hasn't he fired them? He doesn't need anybody's permission to do that. Let's get
real: Trump is every bit the warmonger as the people he hires. His statements to the contrary
are just more additions to his endless string of lies.
What's more, he has another way to avoid being cornered into starting a war. All he has to
do in that circumstance is acknowledge that the constitution doesn't grant him that authority
and toss the decision making to Congerss, where it legally belongs. But he has done nothing
that suggests he acknowledges that constitutional delegation of authority--even though it
could provide him a way out if he felt he needed one.
So, no. I don't believe for a minute that Trump wants to avoid war. Actions speak louder
than words, especially Trump's words.
You're falling for the "official" report that he called off the attack merely because 150
lives were at stake? Since when did he all of a sudden grow a conscious after the inexcusable
defense he gave for our irresponsible military and intelligence ventures? He even bypasses
Congress itself by his illegal presidential will to give weapons to the SAUDIS. The
tyrannical, radical, scourge of humanity tribal savages turned psychopathic oligarchs that is
the House of Saud.
Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, Tucker Carson (a f*cking tv show host of all
people) convinced a US president to not commit to another illegal war. Not because lives were
at stake, heavens no. It's because going into a disastrous war with Iran would gauruntee his
chances of not getting re-elected.
The American government is a living parody with no hope of redemption.
The President's almost daily outpouring of gibberish gives one little confidence that the
notion of 'the truth' holds any importance for him or his crew. Who needs historical
precedents to establish a feeling of mistrust when even the simplest statements from the
White House are so often needlessly loaded with misapprehensions, distortions and out right
BS?
" He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so
at variance with his views?"
I get this, position. You present an incredibly tough front as you press an entirely
different goal. The problem is that the president has presented a very tough front himself.
So when it appears to to actually be tough, he comes across as "not so much". It even
provides opportunity to grand him fearful. In the scenario that I think is being played out
or made to appear to play out --- the good cop, the reasonable cop has to sound reasonable
all the time. He has to claim to be holding back the forces of evil that threaten to consume
the target. But the president has been leading the way as "bad cop" so in the mind the
targets, there are no good cops.
But in my view, all of this hoollla baaaloooey about Iran is a distraction to the real
threat
the border. And the only common ground to be had is to enforce the law. That is why I
think the president is weak. For all of the tough talk --- he folded -- again on immigration.
Pretending to get concessions that is by agreement already expected from Mexico is the such
naked weakness that launching hypersonic missiles obliterating Tehran would just give him
sandals.
Uhhhh, no. I don't regret my vote. And and I still want the wall built and the laws
enforced and the sovereignty of the US respected by guests and citizens alike,.
Arms Dealers and Lobbyists Get Rich as Yemen Burns See the Top 4 U.S. contractors' profits explode, all while their
weapons have been used against civilian targets for years. •
June
25, 2019
And make no mistake: U.S. defense contractors and their lobbyists and supporters in government are getting rich in the process.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said
to CNBC in February. But his statement vastly understates the role that defense contractors and lobbyists play in Washington's
halls of power, where their influence on policy directly impacts their bottom lines. Since 2015, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates have waged war against Yemen, killing and injuring thousands of Yemeni civilians. An estimated
90,000 people have been killed, according
to one international tracker.
Nearly 90
coalition airstrikes have hit
homes , schools, markets,
hospitals, and mosques since 2015, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2018, the coalition bombed a wedding, killing 22 people, including
eight children. Another strike hit a
bus , killing at
least 26 children.
American-origin munitions produced by companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon were identified at
the site of over two dozen attacks throughout Yemen. Indeed, the United States is the single largest arms supplier to the Middle
East and has been for decades, according to a report by
the Congressional Research Service. From 2014 to 2018, the United States supplied 68 percent of Saudi Arabia's arms imports, 64 percent
of the UAE's imports, and 65 percent of Qatar's imports. Some of this weaponry was subsequently stolen or sold to
al-Qaeda linked groups in the Arabian Peninsula
, where they could be used against the U.S. military, according to
reports . The Saudi use of
U.S.-made jets, bombs, and missiles
against Yemeni civilian centers constitutes a war crime. It was an American laser-guided
MK-82 bomb that killed the children
on the bus; Raytheon's technology killed the 22 people attending the wedding in 2018 as well as a family traveling in their car;
and another American-made MK-82 bomb
ended the lives of at least 80 men, women, and children in a Yemeni marketplace in March 2016. Yet American defense contractors
continue to spend millions of dollars to lobby Washington to maintain the flow of arms to these countries.
"Companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and other defense contractors see countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE as huge
potential markets," Stephen Miles, director of Win Without War , told
TAC . "They see them as massive opportunities to make a lot of money; that's why they're investing billions and billions of dollars.
This is a huge revenue stream to these companies." Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have all highlighted business with Saudi
Arabia in their shareholder reports.
"Operations and maintenance have become a very profitable niche market for U.S. corporations,"
said Richard Aboulafia, a vice president at Teal Group. He added that defense contractors can make as much as 150 percent more profit
off of operations and maintenance than from the original arms sale. U.S. weapons supply
57 percent of the military aircraft used by the Royal
Saudi Air Force, and mechanics and technicians hired by American companies repair and maintain their fighter jets and helicopters.
In 2018 alone, the United States made $4.5 billion worth of arms deals to
Saudi Arabia and $1.2
billion to the United Arab
Emirates , a report by William Hartung and Christina Arabia found.
From the report
: "Lockheed Martin was involved in deals worth $25 billion; Boeing, $7.1 billion in deals; Raytheon, $5.5 billion in deals; Northrop
Grumman had one deal worth $2.5 billion; and BAE systems had a $1.3 billion deal." "Because of the nature of U.S. arms control law,
most of these sales have to get government approval, and we've absolutely seen lobbyists weighing in heavily on this," Miles said.
"The last time I saw the numbers, the arms industry had nearly 1,000 registered lobbyists.
They're not on the Hill lobbying Congress about how many schools we should open next year. They're lobbying for defense contractors.
The past 18 years of endless wars have been incredibly lucrative for the arms industry, and they have a vested industry in seeing
these wars continue, and not curtailing the cash cow that has been for them." The defense industry
spent $125 million on lobbying
in 2018. Of that, Boeing spent
$15 million on lobbyists, Lockheed Martin spent
$13.2 million , General Dynamics
$11.9 million , and Raytheon
$4.4 million ,
according to the Lobbying
Disclosure Act website.
Writes Ben Freeman:
According to a new report firms registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act have reported receiving more than $40 million
from Saudi Arabia in 2017 and 2018. Saudi lobbyists and public relations professionals have contacted Congress, the executive
branch, media outlets and think tanks more than 4,000 times. Much of this work has been focused on ensuring that sales of U.S.
arms to Saudi Arabia continue unabated and blocking congressional actions that would end U.S. support for the Saudi-led coalition
in Yemen. Lobbyists, lawyers and public relations firms working for the Saudis have also reported doling out more than $4.5 million
in campaign contributions in the past two years, including at least $6,000 to Trump. In many cases, these contributions have gone
to members of Congress they've contacted regarding the Yemen war. In fact, some contributions have gone to members of Congress
on the exact same day they were contacted by Saudi lobbyists, and some were made to key members just before, and even on the day
of, important Yemen votes.
Over a dozen lobbying firms employed by defense contractors have also been working on behalf of the Saudi or Emiratis, efficiently
lobbying for both the arms buyers and sellers in one fell swoop .
One of these lobbying firms, the McKeon Group, led by former Republican congressman and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
Howard McKeon, represents both Saudi Arabia and the American defense contractors Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Orbital ATK,
MBDA, and L3 Technologies. Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are the biggest suppliers of arms to Saudi Arabia. In 2018, the McKeon
Group took $1,697,000 from 10 defense
contractors " to, among
other objectives, continue the flow of arms to Saudi Arabia," reports National Memo. Freeman
details multiple examples where lobbyists working on behalf of the Saudis met with a senator's staff and then made a substantial
contribution to that senator's campaign within days of a key vote to keep the United States in the Yemen war.
American Defense International (ADI) represents the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia's coalition partner in the war against
Yemen, as well as several American
defense contractors, including General Dynamics, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, L3 Technologies, and General Atomics.
Not to be outdone by the McKeon Group, ADI's lobbyists have also aggressively pursued possible swing votes in the U.S. Senate
for the hefty sum of $45,000 a month, paid for by the
UAE . ADI lobbyists discussed
the "situation in Yemen" and the "Paveway sale to the UAE," the same bomb used in the deadly wedding strike, with the office of Senator
Martin Heinrich, a member of the Armed Services Committee, according to FARA
reports .
ADI's lobbyists also met
with Congressman Steve Scalise's legislative director to advise his office to vote against the congressional resolution on Yemen.
For their lobbying, Raytheon paid ADI
$120,000 in 2018. In addition to the
overt influence exercised by lobbyists for the defense industry, many former arms industry executives are embedded in influential
posts throughout the Trump administration: from former Airbus, Huntington Ingalls, and Raytheon lobbyist Charles Faulkner at the
State Department, who pushed Mike Pompeo
to support arms sales in the Yemen war ; to former Boeing executive and erstwhile head of the Department of Defense Patrick Shanahan;
to his interim replacement Mark Esper, secretary of the Army and another former lobbyist for Raytheon.
The war in Yemen has been good for American defense contractors' bottom lines. Since the conflict began, General Dynamics' stock
price has risen from about $135 to $169 per share, Raytheon's from about $108 to more than $180, and Boeing's from about $150 to
$360, according to In
These Times. Their analysis found that those four companies have had at least $30.1 billion in Saudi military contracts approved
by the State Department over the last 10 years. In April, President Donald Trump vetoed a resolution that would have ended American
support for the Saudi-UAE coalition war against Yemen. Such efforts have failed to meet the 60-vote veto-proof threshold needed in
the Senate. There are a few senators who didn't vote for the War Powers resolution "that will probably vote for the Raytheon sales,"
Brittany Benowitz, a lawyer and former adviser to a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told TAC. "I think you'll
continue to see horrific bombings and as the famine rages on, people will start to ask, 'Why are we a part of this war?' Unfortunately,
I don't think that will start to happen anytime soon." Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
Yes indeed, we are the #1 arms exporter and very proud about it. Meanwhile, Rubio, Pompeo, et. al. are also proud about how they
are finally clamping down on the nefarious arrangement that Venezuela and Cuba have to prop up their regimes.
Venezuela gives Cuba low cost oil and Cuba sends them about 25,000 doctors for free medical care to help prop up Maduro. Hmm
... sounds like one is exporting medical services in return for energy, pure, unabridged evil. Our second best export is misinformation
and lies.
I know, someone will give the State Dept line that the doctors are underpaid and the oil is below market price. The point is
that both countries export what they have more of in order to get what they need. This is the basics of any trade relationship.
Both countries are better off after the transaction and now both countries are suffering because of our benighted intervention.
I keep wondering when God is going to punish us for our appalling arrogance, pride, and our unwavering faith in our own righteousness.
God is certainly punishing me. I wish I was one of the blissfully ignorant.
The biggest business of America is war. The symptom of how all pervasive this has become is there is a new definition of defeat:
the only war that is lost, is one that ends. The new victory is now war without end.
If the Saudis have not yet routed the Houthis, I am doubt they ever will. Without invading the country and holding ground, I am
unclear of the point of constantly bombing.
The Houthis won their civil conflict, best allow them to constitute a government and deal with it.
The Saudis have invaded Yemen, but they and their mercenaries keep getting ambushed and ganked. The Yemeni tribes have a very
long and successful history of guerrilla warfare.
Admittedly, it's mostly the mercenaries, as the Saudis don't like a centralized military in particular and don't like fighting
opponents who can shoot back in general.
"Our role is not to make policy, our role is to comply with it," John Harris, CEO of defense contractor Raytheon International,
said to CNBC in February.
Yeah and Wells Fargo were just practicing "innovation" that the financial companies have told us they need to do.
The Republic is a total failure. It cares nothing for the Constitution the representatives are sworn to uphold and abide by. It's
all about the symbiosis of power in gov. and money in business. Those two factions exchange what they other needs to gain more
power and money at the expense of the taxpayers and countries abroad being destroyed. It's pretty simple if you ask 'cui bono'
and then follow the money. This time following the money may take the USA/world to thermo-nuclear war which psychos like Bolton,
Pompeo, Pence, Netanyahu, the MIC and all the other neo-cons want. Currently the war policy against Iran seems to be tied up in
Christian-Zionist eschatology to bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ. Does it get any more loony than this? Metaphysics
driving political and foreign policy is really a recipe for a disaster and may actually bring about loosing the Four Horseman
of the Apocalypse on the world, but that's OK I guess because Wash. sees the 'big picture.'
"... Warren's announcement of her presidential candidacy made clear that she considers Trump to be merely a symptom of this larger problem – the detritus of a crumbling democracy. Just cleaning up the garbage is not going to solve the systemic problem of plutocracy from which he emerged. If not systemically fixed today with more than cosmetics, Warren understands, the corrupt plutocracy is capable of generating even more toxic products tomorrow. ..."
Sanders, by contrast, was not a troublemaker at all. He talked about his blue-sky political
ideals as something he believed in passionately, but he separated that idealism from his
practical legislative work, which was grounded in vote counts." In other words Warren put
principles over party in the interest of advancing the issues she cared about, like a true
progressive. Sanders' messaging "revolution" was all talk and bluster but no show. Warren has
been praised
for "picking strategic battles she won with a specific set of political skills. 'I would say
she's the best progressive Democratic politician I've seen since Bobby Kennedy,'" reports the
political writer Robert Kuttner. Before she went into electoral politics Warren had already
received credit from Obama and others for establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) a progressive half-billion dollar New Deal-type agency. Can another person be named who
has been responsible for establishing a comparable key regulatory agency in recent decades? By
contrast the not easily dismissed explanation about
Sanders' lack of such accomplishments is "in a business where personal relations count, Sanders
is viewed as a brusque and inflexible loner."
Which then is the true WaPo "Revolutionary?" The tame lion who talks a good game or the
principled brinkswoman who plays a good game? It is Warren who complained to the NYT: " Democrats have been unwilling to get out there and fight." Warren did fight during
her campaign for and service in the Senate, even acquiring a reputation
(among
males , at least) for "stridency" as she was learning the ropes for coping with a
systemically corrupt political order. We should doubt anyone within such a system who is not as
strident or angry as Warren. That stance tended to enhance her power to change the system, at
least until she decided to campaign for president as a way to acquire more power to reform it.
She then appropriately revealed
"a folksier, more accessible side that wasn't always apparent in her role" in the Senate.
Former congressman Barney Frank, always a sharp observer of such matters, said of Warren,
after she had barely completed two years of her brand new "strident" career in electoral
politics: "Right now, she's as powerful a spokesperson on public policy as you could be in the
minority . She has an absolute veto over certain public-policy issues, because Democrats are
not going to cross her . Democrats are afraid of Elizabeth Warren." Can anything remotely
similar be said of Sanders after his 30 years in Washington? Indeed, Frank expressed what
Politico reported as a consensus view
that "[Sanders'] legislative record was to state the ideological position he took on the left,
but with the exception of a few small things, he never got anything done . He has always talked
about revolution, but on Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, he left the pitchfork at home and joined the
Democrats."
Warren acquired power to make change. After two more years she was so powerful that the
Clinton establishment unsuccessfully pressured her to endorse Clinton in the primaries, and
Sanders' acolytes would blame her for not making Sanders the victor by performing as his
unsolicited super-endorser. It takes exceptional strategic and other political skills, focus
and commitment to gain such power in such a short time. Unlike Sanders, even Warren's enemies
do not claim she is ineffective.
Warren, no less than Sanders, has clearly stated that the reason for her candidacy is to
fight "against a small group that holds far too much power, not just in our economy, but also
in our democracy." She says her purpose is not "to just tinker around the edges --
a tax credit here, a regulation there. Our fight is for big, structural change" of
plutocracy, "a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone
else." WaPo must have missed these parts of Warren's presidential
announcement speech which promised this challenge to the power of the systemically corrupt
plutocracy. It is the central motif of her campaign. And of course, "she has a plan for that"
– her first plan. It is her
bill S.3357. 15 th Cong. – the "Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity
Act."
Warren's announcement of her presidential candidacy made clear that she considers Trump to
be merely a symptom of this larger problem – the detritus of a crumbling democracy. Just
cleaning up the garbage is not going to solve the systemic problem of plutocracy from which he
emerged. If not systemically fixed today with more than cosmetics, Warren understands, the
corrupt plutocracy is capable of generating even more toxic products tomorrow.
Therefore, from the very start of her highly effective campaign Warren positioned herself in
opposition not just to Trump but to the economically "rich and powerful [who] have rigged our
political system as well. They've bought off or bullied politicians in both parties to
make sure Washington is always on their side." Like Sanders at his best , she calls this system by its proper name. "When
government works only for the wealthy and well-connected, that is corruption --
plain and simple. Corruption is a cancer on our democracy. And we will get rid of it
only with strong medicine -- with real, structural reform. Our fight is to
change the rules so that our government, our economy, and our democracy work for
everyone." She emphasized to Emily Bazelon, writing for the NYT: " It's structural change that interests me." She
toldTIME "If we want to make real change in this country, it's got to be systemic
change."
Ignoring the fetid distraction of Trump to focus her advocacy instead on the necessary
systemic reforms is a winning progressive strategy. Establishment Democrats will again
predictably
ignore this strategy, as they did in 2016, at their peril. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has already
accurately
predicted the result of sending what Naomi Klein calls ,
"tepid centrists carrying the baggage of decades of neoliberal suffering" to battle against
mobilized totalitarians: "We have a very real risk of losing the presidency to Donald Trump if
we don't have a presidential candidate that's fighting for true transformational change in
lives of working people in the United States."
Warren has taken on the task of defeating, not appeasing, the corrupt establishment which is
willing in 2020 as it was in 2016 to take just that risk in order to preclude a progressive
revival. Warren's plan is, "First: We need to change the rules to clean up Washington. End the
corruption." This is not an opportunistic aspersion by a political con-artist, like Trump's
totally phony "drain the swamp" slogan, soon belied by his own most corrupt administration in
recent history. With Trump second to none in pandering to plutocrats, even a broad section of
his own base has abandoned the remaining mere 23% of
Americans who think he has made any progress on this central campaign promise. In Warren's
case, according to a New Yorkerprofile , "her agenda
of reversing income inequality and beating back the influence of corporate power in politics .
are issues that Warren has pursued for three decades." Her mission has nothing to do with
political calculation. It constitutes hard-earned strategic wisdom about priorities.
Once the systemic corruption is ended all the other crises from climate change and energy to
health and food policy and much more can finally all respond to currently disempowered
majorities. Systemic anti-corruption reform sustains itself first through the watchdog agencies
it creates; solutions for these other issues are not similarly sustainable once the corrupt
plutocracy refocuses its purchased influence on any modest measures that may filter through its
defenses in singular and usually highly constricted moments of reform. For example Obama's
singular unambiguous reform – the Iran nuclear deal – and other more modest Obama
reforms have been killed or wounded by Trump, because Obama left the MIC, Big
Pharma, Wall Street and the other components of the corrupt plutocracy with even
more power than he found them. Through his strategic malfeasance, for motives that
historians will need to pick over, Obama's 8 years were therefore not just unproductive, but
counterproductive for democracy and social justice.
For Warren this issue of the corrupt plutocracy is not just a majoritarian favorite adopted
to boost a political campaign. Obama campaigned
as one "tired of business as usual in Washington" who would "overcome all the big money and
influence" there and get the "lobbyists [who] dominate our government system in Washington" and
their "undue influence" out of "our way." But he woke up president not so "tired of business as
usual in Washington"after all. Refreshed by record-setting campaign cash from the Wall Street
plutocracy he did the opposite
of what many thought to be his central campaign promise. Roger D. Hodge, Mendacity of Hope:
Barack Obama and the Betrayal of American Liberalism (2010) ( Obama
"the best friend Wall Street could hope for").
Warren does not seem to be just another mendacious politician on this priority issue of the
day. It is one for which Warren's prior expertise and activism drew her into politics. This is
uniquely her
own issue, emergent from a highly successful academic and policy career which brought her
into contact with the corruption which then shaped her views about its centrality. It is less
that Warren needs to be president in the mode of the usual megalomaniacal career politician
than that this paramount issue calls her to bring to the presidency her unique skills acquired
during an extraordinarily successful career outside of electoral politics. Warren herself
confides : "I know why I'm here. I have ideas for how we bring systemic change to this
country. And we're running out of time." As a University of Chicago economist told the
NYT ,
"Wall Street and its allies are more afraid of her than Bernie because when she says she'll
change the rules, she's the one who knows how to do it." Such knowledge is a relevant strategic
distinction, unlike WaPo's "Revolution versus Reform" nonsense, for the very reason that
progressive failure has for two generations been driven by lack of competent strategy not lack
of motivational ideology.
Zach Carter's
argument quoted above can be interpreted to suggest another answer than WaPo's misguided
theory for this key question of the difference between Sanders and Warren. Some claim their
differences are merely symbolic, "differences of temperament, style," " and
world views," much in the same manner as the other candidates who are mining the plutocratic
wing's war-chest of symbolic and diversionary identity politics, and single issue politics,
while at the same time they raise
money from plutocrats to seed and foster those divide and conquer divisions and strategic
errors among progressives. That argument goes that these are just different flavors of
progressivism, wholly unrelated to strategic success. But to deny the existence of objectively
important – indeed decisive strategic – differences between the two progressives in
the race would also be just as wrong as the ridiculous and disputable subjectivity of the
"Revolution versus Reform" distraction marketed by WaPo and others. It invites progressives to
distribute themselves randomly according to the subjective appeal of various styles and smiles
rather than be guided by disciplined thoughtful strategic choice which has become the decisive
factor for recovering democracy.
In the face of such distracting theories of difference, it is important for progressives to
debate and answer this question for themselves, well before the primaries, so as not to
squander their resources of time, finances and conviviality fighting
among themselves over largely subjective triggers during the important lead-up to the primary
elections. For the primaries they must be strategically united in order to win against a
plutocracy which rarely finds itself strategically impaired. I have argued at length
elsewhere that the contemporary uniquely extended failure of democracy in America since
Buckley – which can be quantified by the metric of rising economic inequality
– is fundamentally due to the failure of progressives over two generations to unite
behind effective strategy to fight the corrupt plutocracy as their priority. At those times of
similarly profound crises in the past, progressives have successfully formulated and united
behind effective strategy. In the United States, due to its own systemic cultural legacy of
racist slavery, genocide, and imperialism, joined by more universally shared issues of
patriarchy and plutocracy, there will always be fertile soil for the emergence of latent
anti-democratic elements into a totalitarian mobilization when an authentic and competent
opposition is laking. This was understood from early days, such as Franklin's famous
qualification "if you can keep it."
Trump is the direct and predictable product of the progressive failure to have forged an
effective opposition to corrupt plutocracy by the time of that strategic moment when popular
trust has been lost in the plutocratic "
center ." Lack of a unifying progressive strategy meant that volatile and highly
manipulable proto-totalitarian element would look elsewhere. As Slavoj Zizek, Trouble in
Paradise (2014) 115, posits: "The rise of Fascism is not only the Left's failure, but also
proof that there was a revolutionary potential, a dissatisfaction, which the Left was not able
to mobilize." Proto-totalitarian Trumpism is what arises when progressives are unable to unite
strategically.
The Plutocracy and its propagandists take a keen and well-financed interest in prolonging
this division among progressives. They now back Biden, or Trump. Recent reliable polling shows
Biden 30% – Sanders 19% – Warren 15%. This current data shows that supporters of
the two progressives, if united, would defeat the
plutocracy 's
status quo candidate. As the progressive choice between Sanders and Warren lingers through
the summer of 2019 in a mere contest of subjective tastes it will aggravate yet another in a
series of historical failures by progressives to unite strategically and competently at a time
when the stakes are now the highest. Continued progressive failure to act strategically for
decisively wresting control of the Democratic Party from its corrupt plutocratic establishment
will only move the country further in the direction of totalitarianism. Sanders failed at this
task in 2016 though progressives provided him resources and support to do the job. Yet another
progressive failure to organize strategically behind a competent progressive in the 2020
primaries could be terminal. The likes of WaPo will not do it for them. The necessary exercise
of their own strategic judgment in this choice needed to prevail in 2020 will be a useful
exercise of an unexercised muscle by progressives. To elect a strategist progressives must
master the strategy.
The purpose of this article is to discuss four issues for which there is evidence of an
objectively salient strategic difference between these two leading alternatives to Biden beyond
those already discussed. Though the " eminently
beatable" Biden currently leads the plutocracy's large stable of compromised candidates, it is
difficult to imagine Biden not tripping fatally over his own serial, legendarily tone-deaf and
unrepented gaffes. The plutocracy may need to draw on its deep bench in later innings.
Progressives need be prepared. The objective evidence below can assist progressives in making
the necessary early strategic choice between the two progressives for opposing the plutocracy's
eventual candidate which will help them to resist predictable distractions. The alternative to
such a strategic decision is bickering over subjective, standard-free, factually contested
assertions that too often seem to belie unattractive motivations if not actual bot
provocateurs.
Some might object that 2019 is too early for progressives to rely on polls or even to make
such a choice. My own experience in authoring a long 2015 Huffington Post article strongly
supporting Sanders is that discerning use of early polling data can provide a reliable guide to
what will remain as the decisive factors through to the end of the campaign cycle, and even
beyond. The present piece is offered in the same spirit as my 2015
article which remains relevant as an example of how early the disastrous outcome of the
establishment Democrats' 2016 status quo approach could be predicted. Since the decisive
factors are now discernible there is no advantage and great risk in delaying the inevitable
choice that progressives will make.
I disclose my personal views at the outset, if they are not already clear. Though I
supported Sanders extensively through advocacy and as a state delegate for Sanders in 2016,
lending a good deal of my time and even some money to the effort, my experience produced high
regard for self-organizing Sanders supporters but quite the opposite for the man himself.
Certainly by the time of his craven speech
at the Democratic Convention in July, if
notearlier , I had
concluded he was an incompetent
betrayer of the important role and opportunity he had been granted by his supporters, which
he wasted at a crucial moment in American history. When he is compared to Elizabeth Warren, I
now find Sanders to be
unreliable , inauthentic, and wrongly motivated as a career politician with no other
relevant skill base. This perspective has been elaborated at greater length by Jeffrey St.
Clair (2016), as referenced below.
Sanders is concededly good at expounding majoritarian policies and his nominal independence
allows him rhetorical distance from the plutocratic wing of the Democrats, which creates guilt
by association and a fat target
for the proto-totalitarian (also called "populist") right-wing. I do not deny the sincerity of
his progressive views. He has a role. That role is not a leadership role. The problem with
Sanders is execution. Chris Smith
makes a similar point in Vanity Fair when he observes that Sanders "is very good at
raising money .what Sanders was less good at in 2016 was spending his large pile of money to
win votes. Particularly the crucial Democratic primary votes of women and African-Americans.
Sanders is showing little sign that he's going to get it right this time around." Marketing
strategy is not political strategy. Sanders ran a both lucrative and wasteful 2016 campaign in
these respects and also in his failure to elaborate detailed strategy to support his big
themes, which also drew justifiable criticism of his competence.
If Bernie Sanders has not, Elizabeth Warren clearly has learned each of these lessons from
Sanders' flawed campaign. She has been generating detailed policy at such a fast pace it is
difficult to see anyone catching up to her, though Sanders has tried by feebly issuing a less
nuanced version of Wilson's college debt plan. Warren has demonstrated her ability to run a
highly effective campaign on limited funds. Spending money effectively is a strategic skill.
There do not seem to be any third-string cronies around her siphoning off funds into useless
sideshows. One imagines that if Warren possessed Sanders' 2016 mostly wasted pile of loot she
would already have reorganized the Inauthentic Opposition party – as Sheldon Wolin described the Democrats
in 2008 – into a true opposition party that it was designed by Martin Van Buren
to be at its inception.
As for Sanders' problem with reaching African-Americans, according to Rev. Al
Sharpton his progressive rival has no such problem. Of course, "Kamala [Harris] connects
with black-church audiences. Cory Booker, too," says Sharpton. "And I'll tell you who surprised
me: Liz Warren. She rocked my organization's convention like she was taking Baptist preacher
lessons." Warren thus readily solves the biggest demographic problem Sanders had and still has:
black women, particularly in the south. And this Oklahoma woman might also surprise with her
ability to use "
southern charm " to flip the script for white women still living under the South's
unreconstructed patriarchy. Her primary-election campaign strategy has been preparing her with
the experience to play an unprecedented role in American political history in the 2020 general
election.
An establishment Democratic Congressman offered
a similar observation about Warren's potential: "If she can make the leap to being a candidate
that played in the rural Midwest it could be really interesting to watch." By comparison
Sanders, used to "giving the same stump speech at event after event, numb to the hunger of the
beast he had awakened," St. Clair (2016) 8, brings a known and dated turn to the stage, which
like Biden's has little potential to surprise on its up side potential among new demographics
in this manner. The sooner Warren becomes the acknowledged front runner in the party, the
sooner she can use her proven networking skills within the party to bring some order to the
crowded primary field for purposes of deploying them effectively to reach various such
disaffected demographics. She is the person most capable of turning the lemon of an overcrowded
field of contenders into lemonade. Organizing such cooperation is something foreign to Sanders'
experience, which was demonstrated in his shutting out potential allies from his campaign. Yet
it is a significant potential strategic factor that Warren can uniquely bring for the essential
redefinition of the Democratic Party in 2020.
We already know Sanders capitulated to the plutocracy in 2016 for no
reason that he could credibly
explain . After promising his supporters to carry the fight to the Convention floor he
folded long prior to the Convention. What exactly is to be gained by progressives in trusting
Sanders not to do the same thing again? We now have the alternative of Warren who gives us no
reason to doubt and some reason to trust that she will " persist " with strategic intelligence rather
than capitulate under similar circumstances. She combines the unique qualities of a true policy
expert with the ability to communicate. But most important she is someone who has not been a
career politician, and therefore is not, like Sanders, "year after year: a politician who
promises one thing and delivers, time and again, something else entirely." St. Clair (2016) 18.
In 2016 this habit, in the form of deference to the plutocracy he campaigned against, delivered
Trump.
Having disclosed this general point of view toward the two progressives, I try to remove
these subjective understandings largely derived from my involvement in 2016 on behalf of
Sanders' effort from the analysis below of four objective factors that distinguish Sanders'
from Warren based on opinion polling of their supporters. Those with a different experience
than mine can nevertheless use these objective factors to make a strategic progressive choice.
The issue raised here is not so much about the contested fact-based considerations above, but
about the necessity for progressives to made a strategic decision based on uncontested
objective facts. The argument is that there is no reason to delay making that strategic
choice.
... ... ...
If it is true that Warren is attracting support on her merits and not for her
gender, the men who are supporting Sanders in excess numbers and at the same time prioritized a
progressive victory in 2020 should make a primary choice only after they a) get better informed
about Warren, b) read the writing of polling trendlines on the wall, c) not be fooled by
Sanders' "socialism" gambit, and d) eschew even the appearance of gender bias by immediately
unifying progressive support behind Warren.
2016 was then, 2020 is already now. Warren is not remotely a Clinton.*
* This article is based in part on the author's book, "Strategy for Democracy: From
Systemic Corruption to Proto-Totalitarianism in the Second Gilded Age Plutocracy, and
Progressive Responses" which is currently available as a free ebook .
Rob Hager is a public interest litigator who filed an amicus brief
in the Montana sequel to Citizens United and has worked as an international consultant on
anti-corruption policy and legislation.
"... Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake. ..."
"... There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII. ..."
"... Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president. ..."
"... Fix the potholes first. ..."
"... Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass. ..."
Trump basically acknowledges Bolton as warmonger on NBC, that has hawks and doves in his
administration 'likes to hear both sides'.
So here Trump plays politics by trying to appease two camps, the AngloZionists, as well as
Americans that bought into his 'Middle East' wars were a mistake.
Trump has become pure politician no longer the outsider, he's dancing on both sides when
he needs to like now in a re-election mode.
There has never been a war won by air power alone, If Trump bombs Iran, they will fight
back and it will take a ground invasion to subdue them. While that war will compete with
Bush’s invasion of Iraq as being America’s stupidest war ever, it will be much
more costly in American blood and treasure and could easily turn into WWIII.
Instead of starting a war no one wants over Iran merely acting like a sovereign nation, we
should remove all the sanctions and just leave them alone. Our meddling everywhere needs to
stop.
Yeah, sorry Trump, I support you but you are not going to sell me on war with
Iran....HORRIBLE idea. HORRIBLE. One of the worst things you could do as president.
Sorry I voted for Trumpster. He Flip-Flopped on almost everything he campaigned on. Now he
is DEEP STATE. SA sponsors most the terrorism but gets a pass.
"In 1944, FDR proposed an economic bill of rights but died a year later and was never able
to fulfill that vision. Our job, 75 years later," Sanders said, "is to complete what Roosevelt
started."
He then set forth his vision of a 21st Century Economic Bill of Rights, which would
recognize that all Americans should have:
The right to a decent job that pays a living wage
The right to quality health care The right to a complete education The right to affordable
housing The right to a clean environment The right to a secure retirement
Sanders listed Democratic presidents vilified by the oligarchs of their time for their
programs of alleged "socialism." Lyndon Johnson was attacked for Medicare, Harry Truman's
proposed national health care program was dubbed "socialized medicine," and Newt Gingrich
called Bill Clinton's health care plan "centralized bureaucratic socialism."
Although none of the other leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidates has embraced
socialism, the party's base has. Candidate John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado, was
roundly
booed at the California Democratic convention earlier this month when he said, "If we want
to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the answer."
Thomas Piketty, author of " Capital in the Twenty-First
Century ," argues, "Without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult
to unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins within the same coalition and to
deliver a reduction in inequality."
Keith A. Spencer, writing at Salon ,
cites Piketty for the proposition that "nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to
class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting."
Moreover, a 2018 Gallup
poll determined that a majority of young Americans have a positive opinion of socialism.
According to a
recent Axios poll , 55 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 54 would prefer to live
in a socialist country.
Sanders said the U.S. and the rest of the world face two different political paths. "On one
hand," he noted, "there is a growing movement towards oligarchy and authoritarianism in which a
small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part
of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country. On the
other hand, in opposition to oligarchy, there is a movement of working people and young people
who, in ever increasing numbers, are fighting for justice."
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of
the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent
book is
"Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues ."
"... The Democratic Party, thanks largely to the Clintons and their DLC nonsense, has certainly moved to the right. So far right that I haven't been able to call it the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Every Democrat should sign on to FDR's 1944 Economic Bill of Rights speech. It is hardly radical, but rather the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, or at least was before being abrogated by the "new Democrats." Any Dem not supporting it is at best one of the "Republican-lights" who led the Dem party into the wilderness. It would also behoove the party to resurrect FDR's Veep Henry Wallace's NY Times articles about the nature of big businesses and fascism, also from '44. Now that was a party of the people. 7 Replies ..."
In its most recent analysis, Gallup
found that from 1994 to 2018, the percentage of all Democrats who call themselves liberal more
than doubled from 25 percent to 51 percent.
Over the same period, the percentage of Democratic moderates and conservatives fell
steadily, with the share of moderates dropping from 48 to 34 percent, and of conservatives
dropping from 25 to 13 percent. These trends began to accelerate during the administration of
George W. Bush and have continued unabated during the Obama and Trump presidencies.
... ... ...
The anti-establishment faction contributed significantly to the large turnout increases in
Democratic primaries last year.
Pew found that from 2014 to 2018, turnout in House primaries rose from 13.7 to 19.6 percent
of all registered Democrats, in Senate primaries from 16.6 to 22.2 percent and in governor
primaries from 17.1 to 24.5 percent.
... ... ...
The extensive support among prospective Democratic presidential candidates for
Medicare for All , government-guaranteed jobs and a higher minimum wage reflects the
widespread desire in the electorate for greater
protection from the vicissitudes of market capitalism -- in response to "increasingly
incomplete risk protection in an era of dramatic social change," as the political scientist
Jacob Hacker put it in "
Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy
Retrenchment in the United States ." Support for such protections is showing signs of
becoming a litmus test for candidates running in the 2020 Democratic presidential
primaries.
... ... ...
Sawhill looks at the ideological shifts in the Democratic electorate less from a historical
perspective and more as a response to contemporary economic and social dislocation. Among both
conservatives and liberals, Sawhill argued, there is "an intellectual awakening about the flaws
of modern capitalism" -- a recognition of the failings of "neoliberalism, the idea that a
market economy with a few light guardrails is the best way to organize a society." This
intellectual climate may result in greater receptivity among voters to more radical
proposals.
These "big, bold leftist ideas" pose a strategic problem for liberals and the Democratic
Party," (sigh). Here we go again. I am an older guy (Caucasian). I attended Texas A&M
University from 1978 to 1982. My tuition payments during that entire time was $4 per credit
hour. Same for every Texas resident during that time. Roughly $128 per year. Had Texas
A&M not offered education at this modest entry point financially, I would still be
working in the Holiday Inn kitchen washing dishes. Like I was in high school. So, I don't
understand why older guys who went to school on the cheap, like me, and probably like Mr.
Edsall, are writing articles about "radical" proposals like "free" or at least "affordable"
education for Americans. We could achieve this very easily if America refocused on domestic
growth and health and pulled itself out of its continuous wars. America has spent $6 Trillion
dollars on war since 2001. For what? Nothing. Imagine how much college tuition we could have
paid instead. Imagine how that would change America. What is radical is killing people of
color in other countries for no goal and no reason. Let's refocus on domestic USA issues that
are important. Like how to get folks educated so they/we can participate in the US economy.
Mr. Edsall, what did you pay to
go to school per year? Was that "radically" cheap? For me, it was not radical to pay $128 per year. It was a blessing.
Bruce Rozenblit Kansas City, MO
Jan. 23 Times Pick
To the conservative, liberal means socialist. Unfortunately, they don't know what socialism
is. They think socialism is doing nothing and getting paid for it, a freeloader society.
Socialism is government interference in the free market, interference in production.
Ethanol
is socialism. Oil and gas subsidies are socialism. Agricultural price supports are socialism.
Tax breaks and subsidies are socialism. The defence industry is socialism. All of these
socialist policies greatly benefit big business. What liberals want is socialism of a similar
nature that benefits people. This would include healthcare, education, public transportation,
retirement, and childcare. Currently, people work their tails off to generate the profits
that pay for corporate socialism and get next to nothing in return. Daycare costs as much as
many jobs pay.
Kids graduate from college $50,000 in debt. Get sick and immediately go
bankrupt. They have to work past 70. Pursuing these policies is not some far out leftist
agenda. They are the norm in most industrialized nations.
It's hard to live free or die if
you don't have anything to eat. It's easy to be a libertarian if you make a million bucks a
year. Liberals are not advocating getting paid for doing nothing. They want people to have
something to do and get paid for it. That is the message that should be pushed. Sounds pretty
American to me. 27 Replies
This old white (liberal) man regrets that I was born too late for the FDR New Deal era and
too early to be part of this younger generation taking us back to our roots. I lived in
America when we had a strong middle class and I have lived through the Republican
deconstruction of the middle class, I much preferred the former.
Economic Security and FDR's second bill of rights is a very
good place for this new generation to pick up the baton and start running. 4 Replies
Are these really moves to the left, or only in comparison to the lurch further right by the republicans. What is wrong with
affordable education, health care, maternal and paternal leave, and a host of other programs that benefit all people? Why
shouldn't we have more progressive tax rates? These are not radical ideas. 6 Replies
As a senior, who has been a healthcare provider for decades, I hope that people will not be
afraid if they get sick, that people will not fear going bankrupt if they get sick, that they
do not have to fear they will die needlessly if they get sick, because they did not have
proper access to haeathcare treatment. If a 29 year old woman from Queens, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, can fulfill my hopes and dreams, and alleviate these fears, just to get humane
healthcare - then I say "You Go Girl!" What a wonderful world that would be..... 9 Replies
Moving to the left??? I'm 64 years old. I started out on the left and haven't moved leftward
in all these years. I'm just as far left now as when I registered to vote as a Democrat when
I was 18. We called it being liberal and the Democratic Party reflected my beliefs.
The
Democratic Party, thanks largely to the Clintons and their DLC nonsense, has certainly moved
to the right. So far right that I haven't been able to call it the Democratic Party. So far
right that I have seriously considered changing my party affiliation. Right now, the only
think keeping me in the party is this influx of vibrant new faces. One thing that will make
me leave is any ascendancy of the corporate lapdog "New Democrat Coalition" attempting to
keep my party in thrall to the Republicans. No. The electorate has not shifted sharply
leftward. We've been here all along. Our party went down a wrong path. It had better get back
on track or become a footnote. 12 Replies
I work with young adults in a university setting. The university I work for used to be really
inexpensive. It is still relatively inexpensive and still a bargain. Most of the students
have student loans. They can not make enough money in the summer or during the term to pay
for tuition, fees, housing, and food. They need jobs that will pay enough to pay for those
loans. They also need portable health care. As the employer based health insurance gets
worse, that portable health care becomes a necessity so they can move to where the jobs are.
So if a livable wage and universal health care are far left ideas then so be it. I am a
leftist. 1 Reply
Every Democrat should sign on to FDR's 1944 Economic Bill of Rights speech. It is hardly
radical, but rather the foundation of the modern Democratic Party, or at least was before
being abrogated by the "new Democrats." Any Dem not supporting it is at best one of the
"Republican-lights" who led the Dem party into the wilderness. It would also behoove the
party to resurrect FDR's Veep Henry Wallace's NY Times articles about the nature of big
businesses and fascism, also from '44. Now that was a party of the people. 7 Replies
@Michael. Pell grants and cheap tuition allowed me to obtain a degree in aerospace
engineering in 1985. I'd like to think that that benefited our country, not radicalized it.
I don't think that's entirely accurate, and even if true, leaving students to
the predations of private lenders isn't the answer. Although I'm willing to entertain your
thesis, soaring tuition has also been the way to make up for the underfunding of state
universities by state legislatures.
At the same time, there's been an increase since the 70s
in de luxe facilities and bloated administrator salaries. When administrators make budget
cuts, it isn't for recreational facilities and their own salaries -- it's the classics and
history departments, and it's to faculty, with poorly paid part-time adjuncts teaching an
unconscionable share of courses. So universities have been exacerbating the same unequal
division between the people who actually do the work (faculty) and the people who allocate
salaries (administrators) -- so too as in the business world, as you say.
I have a friend who lives on the West Coast and is constantly posting on social media about
"white privilege" and how we all need to embrace far left policies to "even the playing
field" for minorities. I always bristle at this, not because I don't support these policies,
but because this person chooses to live in a city with actually very few minorities. She also
lives in a state that's thriving, with new jobs, new residents and skyrocketing real estate
values. I, by contrast, live in a state that's declining....steadily losing jobs, businesses
and residents....leaving many people feeling uneasy and afraid. I also live in a city with a
VERY high minority crime rate, which also makes people uneasy and afraid. Coastal liberals
like my friend will instantly consider anyone who mentions this a racist, and hypocritically
suggest that our (assumed) racism is what's driving our politics. But when I look around here
and see so many Trump supporters (myself NOT included), I don't see racists desperately
trying to retain their white privilege in a changing world. I see human beings living in a
time and place of great uncertainty and they're scared! If Dems fail to notice this, and fail
to create an inclusive message that addresses the fears of EVERYBODY in the working/middle
class, regardless of their skin color, they do so at their own peril. Especially in parts of
the country like mine that hold the key to regaining the WH. Preaching as my friend does is
exactly how to lose. 5 Replies
A majority of Americans, including independent voters and some Republicans favor Medicare for
all, a Green New Deal, and higher taxes on the rich. While Trump has polarized voters around
race, Ocasio-Cortez is polarizing around class -- the three-fourths of Americans working
paycheck to paycheck against the 1 percenters and their minions in both parties. Reading the
tea leaves of polls and current Democratic Party factions as Edsall does, is like obsessing
about Herbert Hoover's contradictory policies that worsened the Depression. If Ocasio-Cortez
becomes bolder and calls for raising the business taxes and closing tax incentives,
infrastructure expansion, and federal jobs guarantee, she'll transform the American political
debate from the racist wall meme to the redistribution of wealth and power America needs. 1
Reply
Labels such as 'liberal" fail to characterize the political agenda articulated by Bernie
Sanders. By style and substance, Sanders represented a departure from the hum-drum norm. Is
something wrong about aspiring to free college education in an era when student debt totals
$1.5 trilliion? His mantle falls to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her followers. One hundred
years ago, American progressivism was spawned by Robert La Follette. As governor and senator
from Wisconsin, and as failed third party candidate for president, La Follette called for
laws to protect youth from horrendous labor practices. He called for laws to protect civil
rights. In time, many of La Follette's positions became mainstream. Will history repeated
itself? Maybe. The rise of "liberalism" in the Democratic Party is therapeutic, as evidenced
by youthful audiences who attended the Sander's rallies. Increasing voter turnout will take
back government from a minority that undermines the essence of a democratic system. A
Democratic counterbalance to the Republican "Freedom Caucus" may appear divisive to some. To
others, it offers a path to the future. 4 Replies
Ok, from the perspective of a rural white midwest retiree independent with post graduate
education, the issues weren't the democrats moving to the left, it was the Republican party
turning right (and they show no signs of stopping). Who is against an equal opportunity for
an equal quality education for everyone? My college costs years ago could be met with a
barely minimum wage job and low cost health insurance provided by the school and I could
graduate without debt even from graduate school. Seeing what years of Republican rule did to
our college and university systems with a raise in tuition almost every year while
legislative support declined every year, who is happy with that? Unions that used to provide
a majority of the apprenticeships in good jobs in the skilled were killed by a thousand tiny
cuts passed by Republicans over the years. The social safety net that used to be a hand up
became an ever diminishing hand out. What happened is those that had made it even to the
middle class pulled the ladder up behind them, taking away the self same advantages they had
in the past and denying future generations the opportunity. The young democrats and
independents coming along see this all too clearly. 1 Reply
These so-called liberal and progressive ideas aren't new. They work now in other countries
and have so for many, many years, but the rich keep screaming capitalism good, socialism bad
all the while slapping tariffs on products and subsidizing farmers who get to pretend that
this is somehow still a free market. It's fun to watch my neighbors do mental gymnastics to
justify why subsidizing soy bean farmers to offset the tariffs is a strong free market, but
that subsidizing solar panels and healthcare is socialism AKA the devil's work. All of this
underscores the reality that, much like geography, Americans are terrible with economics.
The tensions between progressive and moderate positions, liberal and conservative positions
in the Democratic Party and in independents, flow from and vary based on information on and
an understanding of the issues. What seems to one, at first glance, radically
progressive/liberal becomes more mainstream when one is better informed. Take just one issue,
Medicare for all, a progressive/liberal objective. At first glance people object based on two
main points: costs and nefarious socialism. How do you pay for Medicare for all? Will it add
to the debt? Will socialism replace our capitalist economy? People who have private medical
insurance pay thousands in premiums, deductibles, co-pays each year. The private insurance is
for profit, paying CEO's million dollar salaries and returns to stockholders. People paying
these private insurance premiums would pay less for Medicare and have more in their own
pockets. Medicare for all is no more nefariously socialistic than social security. Has social
security ended capitalism and made America a socialist country? I think not. Is social
security or Medicare adding to the national debt? Only if Congress will continue to play
their tribal political games. These programs are currently solvent but definitely need
tweaking to avoid near term shortfalls. A bipartisan commission could solve the long term
solvency issues. The more we know and understand about progressive/liberal ideas, the less
radical they become. The solution is education. 17 Replies
@Bruce Rozenblit Absolutely correct. According to the Bible of Saint Reagan, Socialism for
corporations and the rich: Good. Socialism for the poor and working class: bad.
@Michael - cheaper tuition starts with getting the Federal Govt out of the student loan
business, it's as simple as that. Virtually unlimited tuition dollars is what drove up
tuition rates. Higher Ed is a business, make no mistake.
@Bruce, have you ever considered creating a new "reality" network where the truth about
things could be told? You're quite good at articulating and defining how the world works,
without all the usual nonsense. I really appreciate your comments.
Can we please, please stop talking about AOC? Sure, she's young and energetic and is worthy
of note, but what has she accomplished? It's easy to go to a rooftop- or a twitter account-
and yell "health care and education for all!' But please, AOC, tell us how you are going to
not only pay for these ideas but actually get them through Congress and the Senate? It's just
noise, until then, and worse, you're creating a great target for the right that will NOT move
with you and certainly can label these ideas as leftist nutism- which would be fine, if we
weren't trying to get Trump out of office ASAP.. Dreams are great. Ideals are great. But
people who can get stuff actually done move the needle...less rhetoric, more actual plans
please.. 10 Replies
Its ok for a far right bigoted clown to be elected to the president and a tax cut crazy party
that wants to have a full scale assault against the environment and force more medical
related bankruptcies to be in charge? The safe candidate protected by 800 superdelegates in
2016 was met with a crushing defeat. The Democratic establishment wants a safe neo con
corporatist democrat. Fair taxation and redistribution of wealth is not some far out kooky
idea. The idea that the wealthiest Americans getaway with paying tax at 15%, if at all, is
ruinous to the country. Especially since there is an insane compulsion to spend outlandish
trillions on "national security". Universal health care would save the country billions of
dollars. Medicare controls costs much more effectively than private insurers. As with defense
the US spends billions more on health care than other countries and has worse medical
outcomes. Gentrification has opened fissures in the Democrats. The wealthy price out other
established communities. The problems of San Francisco and Seattle and other places with
gentrification need to be addressed before an open fissure develops in the party. 2 Replies
@Midwest Josh It's time for higher education to stop being a business. Likewise it's time to
stop electing leaders who are businessmen/women. 38 Replies
One could argue that many of these ideas are not that far left - rather it's a result of more
and more Americans realizing that WE are not the problem. Clean water and air, affordable
health care and affordable education are not that radical.
@Midwest Josh Hmmm, how old are you Midwest Josh? There were student loans back in the 1970s
when college cost me about $400 a year. Maybe something happened when that failed Hollywood
actor spouted slogans like "Government is not the solution, government is the problem" (and,
no, it was not taken out of context, he most definitely DID mean that government is the
problem - look it up) www.remember-to-breathe.org 38 Replies
You are studying this like it represents some kind of wave but in fact it is just a few
districts out of 435. These young women seem extraordinarily simply because the liberal media
says they are extraordinary. If the media attention on these new representatives were to
cease, no one except their families, their staff, and maybe Stephen Colbert would notice. 9
Replies
Finally, the left came out of its hibernation. We have spent the last decade or more either
sleeping or hiding, while at the same time, the Tea Party, the Freedom Caucus, Trump, and his
minions were taking over our government---It is such a breath of fresh air to finally listen
to airwaves filled with outrage over CEO's making millions of dollars an hour, of companies
that have become monopolies, of tax plans that bring back the middle class---it took us a
while, but we are back. 2 Replies
For so long (40+ years) the political spectrum has been pulled wildly and radically to the
right across so many issues. The Democratic party has for the most part ''triangulated''
their stances accordingly to essentially go along with republicans and corporate interests
for a bargain of even more tax/corporate giveaways to hold the line on social issues or
programs. It has now gotten to the point that continuous war has been waged for two (2)
decades and all the exorbitant costs that go along with that. There has been cut, after cut
after cut whereas some people and businesses are not paying any taxes at all now.
Infrastructure, social spending and education are all suffering because the cupboard is now
bare in the greatest and most richest country in the world. It just came out the other day
that ONLY (26) people have as much wealth as the bottom half of the entire world's
population. That amount of wealth in relation to dwindling resources of our planet and
crushing poverty for billions is abjectly obscene on so many levels. Coupled with all of the
above, is the continued erosion of human rights. (especially for women and dominion over
their own bodies) People are realizing that the founding fathers had a vision of a secular
and Progressive nation and are looking for answers and people that are going to give it to
them. They are realizing that the Democratic party is the only party that will stand up for
them and be consistent for all.
Democrats just don't like to win presidential elections. Go ahead. Move left. But remember,
you are not taking the rest of the country with you. As a NeverTrump Republican, I'll vote
for a moderate Democrat in 2020. No lefties. Sorry. Don't give the country a reason to give
Trump four more years. Win the electoral college vote instead of complaining about it. The
anti-Trump is a moderate. 5 Replies
"These "big, bold leftist ideas" pose a strategic problem." No they don't. The Real Problem
is the non-thinking non-Liberal 40% of Democrats and their simpatico Republicans who are
programmed to scream, "How will we pay for all that?" Don't they know all that money will
just be stolen? They were silent when that money was stolen by the 0.1% for the Tax Giveaway
(they're now working on tax giveaway 2.0) and by the military-industrial complex (to whom
Trump gave an extra $200,000,000,000 last year), various boondoggle theft-schemes like the
Wall, the popular forever Wars (17 years of Iraq/Afghanistan has cost $2,400,000,000,000 (or
7 times WW2)), and the Wall Street bailouts. Don't those so-called Democrats realize whose
money that was? First of all, it's our money. And second, our money "spent" on the People is
a highly positive investment with a positive ROI. Compare that to money thrown into the usual
money pits which has no return at all - except more terrorists for the military, more income
inequality for the Rich, and Average incomes of $422,000 for Wall Street. When the People's
money is continually stolen, how can anyone continue to believe that we're living in a
democracy?
Bruce, a succinct summary of your post is this: What we have now is socialism for the wealthy
and corporations (who, as SCOTUS has made clear, are people, too) and rugged individualism
for the rest of us. What we're asking for is nothing more than a level playing field for all.
And I hope that within my lifetime SCOTUS will have an epiphany and conclude that, gosh,
maybe corporations aren't people after all. We can only hope. 27 Replies
Edsall writes with his normal studious care, and makes some good points. Still, I am growing
weary of these "Democrats should be careful and move back to the center" opinions. Trump
showed us that the old 'left-right-center' way of thinking is no longer applicable. These
progressive policies appeal to a broad majority of Americans not because of their ideological
position, but because so many are suffering and are ready to give power to representatives
who will finally fight for working families. Policies like medicare for all are broadly
popular because the health insurance system is broken and most people are fed up and ready to
throw the greedy bums out. We've been trying the technocratic incrementalism strategy for too
long, with too little to show for it. Bold integrity is exactly what we need. 1 Reply
@Bruce Rozenblit Thank you; as others have commented already, this is so well said. To build
on your point: just yesterday, a commenter on a NYT article described AOC as a communist.
Incredible. The extent to which decent, pragmatic and, in a bygone era, mainstream, ideas are
now painted as dangerous, extreme, and anti-American is both absurd and disturbing. 27
Replies
If Hillary were President, there would never have been a shutdown. That is the lesson that
Mrs. Pelosi, AOC and Democrats should carry forward to 2020. 5 Replies
@LTJ No one is promoting ''free stuff'' - what is being proposed is that people/corporations
pay into a system Progressively upwards (especially on incomes above 10,000,000 dollars per
year) that allowed them and gave them the infrastructure to get rich in the first place. I am
sure you would agree that people having multiple homes, cars, and luxury items while children
go hungry in the richest nation in the world is obscene on its face. Aye ?
@Ronny Respectfully, President Clinton had a role in the deconstruction of the middle class.
My point is many of the folks in the news today were in congress that far back. Say what you
will about President Trump and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez,I believe they both have exposed
the left,the right,the press for what they are. Please choose your own example. I don't agree
with all of her positions, but I can't express how I enjoy her making the folks that under
their watch led us to where we find ourselves today squirm and try to hide their anger for
doing what she does so well. I've been waiting 55 years for this. Thank you AOC.
@Bruce Rozenblit Bruce, spot on. The point of the New Deal was not to replace capitalism with
socialism, but to save capitalism from itself by achieving the balance that would preserve a
capitalist economic system but one in which the concerns of the many in terms of freedom from
want and freedom from fear were addressed. In other words, the rich get to continue to be
rich, but not without paying the price of not being hung in the public square - by funding an
expanding middle class. A middle class that by becoming consumers, made the rich even richer.
But then greed took over and their messiah Saint Reagan convinced this large middle class
that they too could be rich and so cutting taxes for the wealthy (and in the process
redistributing the wealth from the expanding middle class to the wealthy) would one day
benefit them - when they were wealthy. Drunk on the promise of future wealth, and working
harder than ever, the middle class failed to notice whose ox was being gored and voted
Republican. And now finally, the pendulum swings. Amen. 27 Replies
@Socrates I'm reminded of a poll I saw several years ago that presented positions on issues
without attaching them to any individual politician or affixing labels of party or ideology.
The pol aimed to express the issue in neutral language without dog whistles or buzzwords.
When the pollsters had the data, they looked for the member of Congress whose positions best
reflected the view of the majority of respondents. It was Dennis Kucinich, the scary liberal
socialist bogeyman of his day.
I lived in Europe for a long time. Not even most right wing parties there wish to abolish
universal healthcare, replace low or tuition-free colleges with college debt, etc. The US has
politically drifted far to the right when the center Democrats were in charge. Now Trump is
lurching the country to extreme raw capitalism at the cost of national debt, even our
environment and climate, Democrats need to stop incrementalism. Simple as that. 1 Reply
@Michael Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was opposed to the eternal triumvirate axis of inhumane
evil aka capitalism, militarism and racism. King was a left-wing socialist community
organizer. In the mode of Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. And the Nazarene of Matthew 25:
31- 46. America's military and prison industrial complexes are the antithesis of America' s
proclaimed interests and values. America is number one in arms, money and prisoners. MAGA? 38
Replies
Bernie and AOC don't seem all that radical to me for the reason this op-ed points out -- I
grew up in a New Deal Democratic family. My Grampa was an electrician supervisor for the City
of Chicago and my Granma was a legal secretary. They wanted universal health care and free
education and jobs for all. Those things made sense then, and they make sense now. They
provide solutions to the deep problems of our society, so who wouldn't want them? We've had a
lab test -- other than actual jobs for all Northern Europe has these things and we don't.
Neo-liberalism, its Pay-Go formula for government, and its benefits for the rich fails on
most counts except producing massive inequality and concentrated wealth. Bernie voters want
solutions to inequality and climate change, and they are readily available if government can
be wrested from the hands of Republicans like Trump and neo-liberals.
@Michael To me, the key sentence in your excellent post is that American needs to "refocus on
domestic growth and health and pull itself out of its continuous wars." All policiticians
hoping for our votes in the future need to make clear where they stand on this. As to those
who say that making all those weapons creates jobs, is there any reason that we couldn't
instead start producing other quality goods in the U.S. again? 38 Replies
@chele Me too! I am 72 y/o, retired, college educated at a rather tough school in which to
gain entrance. Lived below my means for over 40 years. Parents are both WW2 Marine Corps
officers(not career), who voted Republican and were active in local elections. They would be
shocked and disgusted at what that "party" represents now.
I think you look at all this in a vacuum. Democrats veered left because there was a need to
counterbalance what was happening on the right. They see Republicans aggressively trying to
undo all the gains the left had achieved the previous several decades. Civil rights, Womens'
rights, anti-poverty efforts, and so on all not just being pushed to the right, but forced to
the right with a bulldozer. It got to a tipping point where Democrats could clearly see the
forest for the trees. A great deal of this was a result of Republicans inability to candy
coat their agenda. Universal healthcare....not being replaced by affordable alternatives, but
by nothing. Tax cuts that were supposed to help the middle class, but, as evidenced by the
government shutdown, giving them no economic breathing room. And, in fact, making their tax
cut temporary, something nearly impossible to reverse with such a high deficit. Attacking
immigrants with no plan on who, actually, would do the work immigrants do. The list goes on
and on. In the past, many social programs were put in place not so much to alleviate
suffering as to silence the masses. Now Republicans feel the time has come to take it all
back, offering easily seen through false promises as replacements. That the left should see
the big picture here and say "Not so fast" should come as absolutely no surprise. All they
need now is a leader eloquent enough to rally the masses.
I think the Democratic Party is finally returning to its roots. We are now engaging in the
same politics which gave us control of the House for about fifty years. I went to my first
International Union convention is 1972 at which Ted Kennedy was one of the featured speakers.
One of the themes of the convention was healthcare for all. Now it treated as some sort of
radical proposal from the left. I am not certain why clean air and water, affordable health
care and housing, combating climate change, raising wages, taxing the highest income
brackets, updating our infrastructure, solving the immigration issue, and providing aid not
weapons to other nations, are considered liberal or socialistic. I think it represents the
thinking of a progressive society looking to the future rather than living in the past. 1
Reply
@David G. I would also say that many people think a cooperative economic enterprise, such as
a worker owned factory, is Socialism. But this is blatantly wrong and is pushed by the rich
business and stock owners to denigrate these types of businesses. Cooperatives have often
proven themselves quite successful in navigating a free market system, while simultaneously
focussing on workers rights and ownership. We need more if this in North America. 27 Replies
@Samuel She's been in office less than a month. You want to shut down the conversation that
is finally bringing real hope & passion to average people, & is bringing a new set of
goals (& more integrity) to the Democratic Party? Paying for single-payer has been
rehashed many times; just look at all the other 'civilized' countries who have it. For once,
try putting the savings from ending co-pays, deductibles, & premiums into the equation.
Think about the savings from large-group bids, & negotiations for drug prices, & the
savings from preventative medicine heading off more expensive advanced treatment. Bernie
Sanders has been explaining all this for years now. 'Less rhetoric'? The conversation is
(finally) just now getting started! You start by explaining what is possible. When enough
people understand it, the needle will start to move. Watch.
@JBC, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was voted into congress and then the media took notice. It wasn't
the other way around. My only hope is that she stays the course.
@Bruce Rozenblit And don't forget the biggest socialist project of our time - the wall! And
withholding 800k employee checks to do so? That's socialism at gun point. 27 Replies
There are two points left out of all of the analysis of both Pressley's and Ocasio-Cortez's
campaigns. First of all, both women did old fashioned retail politics, knocking on doors,
sending out postcards, gathering as many volunteers as they could and talking about the
issues with voters face to face. They took nothing for granted. This is precisely what
Crowley and Capuano did not do. Second, they actually listened to the voters regarding what
they needed and wanted in Congressional representation. What both of the stand for is neither
Liberal or Conservative. What they stand for human values. This is not to say that Capuano
and Crowley did not stand for these same values, but they took the voter for granted. That is
how you lose elections. The Democrats are going back to their roots. They have found that the
Mid-terms proved that issues of Health Care, minimum wages, good educations for all despite
economic circumstances, and how important immigration is to this country really matter to the
voters. They need to be braver in getting this across before the next election And the press
might want to start calling the candidates Humane, period. 1 Reply
@MIMA Yes, absolutely. I'm retired from the healthcare field after practicing 38 years. It is
unconscionable that we question the access of healthcare to everyone. The complaint usually
heard from the right is about "the takers." Data I've seen indicates that the majority on
"the dole" are workers, who can't make ends meet in the gig economy or the disabled. That
some lazy grubbers are in the system is unavoidable; perfection is the enemy of the good.
@Stu Sutin I agree, "Liberal" is too broad a term, as so-called liberals do not agree on
everything, especially the degree. We can be socially liberal, while economically
moderate--or vice versa. Some believe in John Maynard Keynes economics, but appose abortion.
Some want free college tuition, while others support public schools but do not support the
public paying for higher education. Our foreign policy beliefs often differ greatly. What
joins us is a belief in a bottom up economy, not top down--and a greater belief in civil
liberties and a greater distribution of wealth. Beyond that, our religious and cultural
beliefs often differ.
I think the Internet has provided an influx of new understanding for the American left.
They've learned that things considered radical here are considered unexceptional in the rest
of the developed world. There is a realization that the only reason these are not normal here
is because of a lack of political will to enact them. That will is building as the ongoing
inequities are splashed across the front pages and the twitter feeds. It is the beginning of
the end for American exceptionalism (a term coined by Stalin as America resisted the wave of
socialism spreading around the world in the early 20th century). Unbridled capitalism lasted
longer than communism but only because its costs were hidden longer. We need to find the
sustainable middle path that allows for entrepreneurship along with a strong social safety
net (and environmental protection). This new crop of progressive Democrats (with strong
electoral backing) might lead the way.
at 63, I was there. I don't want second Trump administration either, but the route to a
Democratic victory is not cozying up to the corporations and the wealthy, but by stating
clearly, like FDR, "they are unanimous in their hate for me, and I welcome their hatred." We
need people who are willing to say that the rich deserve to be taxed at a higher rate,
because they have benefited more from our society, that no income deserves to be taxed at a
lower rate than the wages paid to working people, and that vast wealth needs to be earned,
not inherited. Emmanuel Saez makes persuasive arguments, but they need to be made in the
language of the working people. 12 Replies
@Michael Your $128 a year would be more like $414 or so in today's dollars. Still . . . I
went to Brooklyn College, part of the tuition-free City University of New York from
1969-1973. We paid a $53 general fee at the start of every semester ($24 for a summer
semester), and that was it. Wealthy or poor, everyone paid the same amount (about $334 in
today's dollars). 38 Replies
@JRS Democratic party leaders have been in favor of more border security and an overhauled
immigration system for as long as I've been alive. The suggestion (clearly this comment's
intention) that Democrats favor "open" borders, ports, etc., is a myth propagated by an ever
more influential right wing. And it's working: it's been repeated so often that it's now
virtually an assumption that Democrats favor open borders, despite that fact that any
critical thought on the subjection indicates the opposite is true.
I'm a very moderate Democrat -liberal on social issues and very supportive of free global
trade- who would vote for any of the current Democrats over Trump, but would leave the party
if AOC's ideas became the norm. I don't have a problem in principle with a 70% top marginal
tax rate or AOC's Green New Deal- Meaning, these aren't moral issues for me per se. I just
believe they would bankrupt the economy and push us into a chaos far worse than what we're
seeing under Trump. 5 Replies
@Michael The increase in fees for education to include the books along with the lowering of
standards for the classes taken is part and parcel of the reagan revolution to remake
American society. One of the most problematic things for those seeking to undo what FDR did
was the plethora of well educated and well read people American had managed to create. How
were they going to be able to overcome this? You can deduce whatever methods you may know but
I saw them tank the economy on purpose and prey on the fear that it created with more and
more radical propaganda. Once they got into office they removed the best and brightest of our
Civil Service and began making legal the crimes they wanted to commit and changing laws and
procedures for how things were done so that people would eventually come to think of this as
the "right" way when it was in fact purpose designed to deny them their due. 38 Replies
Younger candidates, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, appeal to younger voters. John Kennedy
appealed to WWII veterans, most of whom were in their 30s when they elected him. One of the
reasons for Barack Obama's support in 2008 among younger voters is that he was a younger
candidate and they identified with a younger candidate. That appeal to a younger electorate
will play a larger role in future elections. Don't focus too strongly on issues. Democrats
will win by a landslide in 2020 if they nominate a younger candidate that can inspire younger
voters. November 3, 2020. 1 Reply
@Samuel Actually, running a campaign and getting elected is a significant accomplishment.
Before anyone decides about what bills to promote and means of paying for them, we need a
momentum of discourse, and promoting that discourse is another major accomplishment. You and
many millions of others, also, have good reasons to be frustrated. Let's just try to actually
"work" at talking the talking and walking the walk, and maybe we will--or maybe we
won't--arrive some place where we can see some improvement.
The interesting part of this piece is the statement about politicians moving unwillingly. So
some Democratic Congressmen and Congresswomen are allowing their personal beliefs to be
compromised for the glory of being elected or re-elected? Sounds like someone I would not
care to support. 2 Replies
A great essay! The wild card in all this analysis, of course, is what happens when these
(now) young voters, age, eventually partner, and have kids. As every generation has shown,
the needs of a voter changes as they age. I'm surrounded by many new neighbors with little
kids who moved out of Brooklyn and Jersey City who suddenly find themselves concerned about
rising property taxes- they now see the balance between taxes and services. Not something
they worried about a few years ago. 2 Replies
@Tracy Rupp I am a senior citizen heterosexual white male. I do not apologize for my race,
gender, etc. In fact, I am proud of our accomplishments. I do apologize for my personal
wrongs, and strive to improve myself.
"This will be difficult, given the fact that what is being proposed is a much larger role for
government, and that those who are most in need of government support are in the bottom half
of the income distribution and disproportionately minority -- in a country with a long racist
history." True enough, but if progressives want actual people in that bottom half to lead
happier lives, the focus of any programs should not be to employ armies in left-leaning and
self-perpetuating "agencies," but rather to devise policies to help people develop the
self-discipline to: A) finish high school, B) postpone the bearing of children until marriage
(not as a religious construct but as a practical expression of commitment to the child's
future), and; C) Find and get a regular job. These are supported by what objective, empirical
data we have. These have not struck me as objectives of the rising left in the Democratic
party. Mostly, I see endless moral preening, and a tribal demonizing of the "other," just
exactly as they accuse the "other." In this case the "other" is we insufficiently "woke" but
entirely moderate white folks who still comprise a plurality of Americans. I see success on
the left as based primarily on an ability to express performative outrage. But remember, you
build a house one brick at a time, which can be pretty boring, and delivers no jolt of
dopamine as would manning the barricades, but which results in a warm, dry, comfortable place
to live. 4 Replies
@Concerned Citizen For your information, Holiday Inns typically had a restaurant in the hotel
in the days Michael is talking about so... whatever! 38 Replies
My father fought in Germany during WWII, then came home and went to college on the GI bill.
Both my parents received federal assistance for a loan on their first house. Later, during
retirement, they were taken care of by Medicare and given an income by Social Security. They
worked hard, kept their values, lived modestly, and voted for Democrats. Apparently, they
were wild-eyed, leftist-socialist radicals, and I never knew it.
@Bruce Shigeura AOC in some ways is doing what Bernie was doing -- mobilizing people around
class as you say -- but the difference is that AOC doesn't shy away from issues of racial
justice. Bernie seemed to want to unite people by ignoring issues of race, as if he was
afraid that mentioning race too much might drive Whites away. AOC seems able to hold whites
on the class issue while still speaking to the racial justice issues that are important to
non-Whites. She's an extraordinary phenomenon: smart, engaging, articulate and with personal
connections to both the White and Non-White worlds, so she threatens neither and appeals to
both.
@Stu Sutin "Is something wrong about aspiring to free college education in an era when
student debt totals $1.5 trilliion?" Yes. If you're the Congressperson who gets his/her
funding from the lenders.
A O-C has yet to open a district office. A O-C is more interested in "national" issues and
exposure than those of her district. What A O-C may have forgotten is that it is her district
and constituents that have to re-elect her in less than 2 tears (or not): "Would you rather
have a Congress member with an amazing local services office, or one that leads nationally on
issues?" she queried her 1.9 million followers on Instagram -- a number that is well over
twice the population of her district. The results strongly favored national issues."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/nyregion/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-district-office.html
As Mr. Edsall points out, her district is not necessarily progressive and liberal and while
there may be national issues, at the bottom line, many of her instagram groupies are not her
constituents. Democrats like to constantly point out that Ms. Clinton won the popular vote,
and she was the non-liberal-progressive Democrat. I am sure that the Republicans pray for the
success of the Democratic left. They seek to give voice to that left. That will bring the
swing votes right back to or over to the Republicans, without, but possibly even with Mr.
Trump (if the Democrats cross a left-wing tipping point). Bottom line, instagram is fine and
likes are great, twitter is good for snappy answers, but representatives to the House have to
deliver to their district and constituents. A O-C leads, but to the salvation of the
Republican party. 6 Replies
@Joshua Schwartz M. Ocasio-Cortez explained on The Late Show the other night that the reason
she has not opened her district office is due to the Government Shutdown. The people charged
with setting up the office are on furlough, the money for the office is being held up and she
staff or furnish the office.
Isn't this somehow the natural swing of things? Years of heavy-handed politics benefitting
small minorities on the right have taken their toll, so now new ideas are up at bat. By the
way, these ideas aren't really that bold at all - many countries have living minimum wages or
mandatory healthcare, and are thriving, with a much happier population. Only in the context
of decades-long, almost brainwash-like pounding of these ideas as 'Un-American' or
'socialist' can they be seen as 'bold'. American exeptionalism has led to a seriously
unbalanced and dangerously threatened social contract. Tell me again, Republicans: why is a
diverse, healthy and productive population living under inspiration instead of constant fear
so bad?
The "experts" offering advice here seem to have forgotten that Hillary Clinton listened to
them in 2016: the party decided that appealing to suburban Republicans and Jeb Bush voters
was more important than exciting the Democratic party base. The other hazard of calculated
politics is that the candidate is revealed to be a phony, believing in nothing but power or
that it's simply "her turn" -- an uncompelling program for a voter. 1 Reply
They will all face primary challengers in 2020. Tlaib and Omar didn't even win a majority of
the primary vote. There were so many candidates running in those primaries, they only managed
a plurality. And let's be honest about the demographic changes in the districts Pressley and
Ocasio Cortez won. They went from primarily ethnic White to minority majority. Both women
explicitly campaigned on the premise that their identity made them more representative of the
district than an old White male incumbent. Let's not sugarcoat what happened: they ran
explicitly racist campaigns. They won with tribalism, not liberal values. Democrats actually
need more candidates like Lucy McBath, Antonio Delgado, and Kendra Horn if they want to
retain Congressional control and change policy. And many minorities and immigrants aren't
interested in the far left faction. We don't have a problem with Obama and a moderate
approach to social democracy.
@JABarry - Some data: Canada has a program like Medicare for All, and its bottom line health
care statistics are better than ours in spite of a worse climate. We paid $9506.20 per person
for health care in 2016. In Canada, they paid $4643.70. If our system we as efficient as
Canada's, we would save over $1.5 TRILLION each and every year. This is money that can be
used for better purposes. If one uses the bottom line statistics, we see that both Canada and
the UK (real socialized medicine) do better than we do: Life expectancy at birth (OECD):
Canada- 81.9, UK - 81.1, US - 78.8 Infant Mortality (OECD)(Deaths per 1,000): Canada - 4.7,
UK - 3.8, US - 6.0 Maternal Mortality (WHO): Canada - 7, UK - 9, US - 14 Instead of worrying
how we would pay for it, we will have the problem of how to spend all the money we would
save. BTW can you point to a period where too high federal debt hurt the economy? In 1837 the
federal debt as a percentage of GDP was 0%; it was 16% in October of 1929. Both were followed
horrendous depression. It was 121% in 1946 followed by 27 years of Great Prosperity.
Best comment in some time. I work and live too much in the'big flat'. I am a very hard core
Chicago Democratic Liberal from birth, but the distressed towns and small cities are facing
extinction. then what?
@In the know I'm formerly Republican, and female. I'm on the ACA, and while premiums were
going up slowly, they've exploded in the past two years due to Republican sabatoge. They are
certainly no reason to vote for Trump.
@Midwest Then the rich will only be eligible for college. Give me government intervention any
time. I am retired military . Off base in Lewes De a mans hair cut is now 20.00 plus tips.
Just a plain cut. On base with gov intervention it 12.00 . Capitalism you support is only for
the 1 percent the 99 percent never gets ahead. 38 Replies
She has a massive throng of twitter followers, is completely unconcerned with facts, uses
publicity to gain power and seems unwilling to negotiate on her positions. Remind you of
anyone else? 3 Replies
The establishment is trying so hard to spin the progressives push on the issues of Medicare
for All, free state college and university tuition, a livable wage of $15/hr as ponies and
fairy dust and an extreme "socialist" makeover/takeover of America. But from all the polls
that I've seen, these policies are actually quite popular even with a majority of
Republicans. Yes, a majority of Republicans. A Medicare for All would cover everybody,
eliminate health insurance premiums for individuals and businesses ( which by the way are
competing with businesses in other countries that have a single-payer system) and would save
$2 trillion over ten years (Koch bothers funded study). The result would be a healthy and
educated populace. But how to pay for this? Well, we spend over $700 billion on our military
while Russia spends $20 billion and China spends $146 billion, so there seems to be plenty of
money that is already being spent to be redirected back to us without compromising national
security. A Medicare for All system supports a private healthcare system just as it is now,
except instead of giving some insurance company our premium who then skims off a big chunk
for their profit, we pay it to our government who then administers the payments to the
healthcare provider(s). The system is in place and has been for people 65 years and older and
works very well with high satisfaction rates. Just expand it to all. 2 Replies
@Midwest Josh Wrong!!! Tuition's have skyrocketed because for past 35 years States have
slashed support for public universities. The Federal Government took over student loan
business from predatory banks which was a very good thing but unfortunately have kept
interest rates high ... Student loans is a profit center for Federal Government 38 Replies
@Concerned Citizen Go ahead and check the holiday inn in Palestine Texas. It had a small
restaurant in 1978. I was their dishwasher. There was no ford plant nearby. 38 Replies
@Bruce Rozenblit Well put. As Martin Luther King Jr. said: "We all too often have socialism
for the rich and rugged free market capitalism for the poor." 27 Replies
@stuart They used to call it the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party". I was glad when
Thomas Edsall finally got around, in this piece, to mentioning that what is often thought of
as a radical leftist turn today, due to just how far to the right our general political
discussions had gone, was actually pretty much mainstream Democratic policy for much of the
middle 20th century.
@Len Charlap Quite simply Canada's healthcare quality is ranked 16th in the world, while ours
is lower ranked at 23rd. And we pay twice as much. That indicates some funny business going
on.
It is remarkable that "big, bold leftist ideas" include - preserving the historical
relationship between the minimum wage and the cost of living - lowering the cost of college
to something in line with what obtained for most public colleges and universities in the 50s,
60s and 70s and exist in the rest of the Western world today - adapting our existing Medicare
system to deliver universal coverage of the kind generally supported across the political
spectrum in Canada and the UK Democrats should reject the "leftist" label for these ideas and
explain that it is opposition to these mainstream ideas that is, in fact, ideological and
extreme. 2 Replies
@Marc Except that's outright false. Offices are open. All the other new Congress members from
New York are setup and taking care of people. She doesn't care about constituent service. She
revels in the media attention, but isn't getting anything done even in the background. NY has
three Congress members (Lowey, Serrano, Meng) whose under-appreciated work on the
appropriations committee actually helps ensure our region's needs and liberal priorities are
reflected in federal spending. Meanwhile Ocasio Cortez is working on unseating Democrats
incumbents she deems insufficiently leftist e.g. Cuellar, Jeffries. Who needs Republicans
when you have Socialists trying to destroy the Democratic Party.
The NYT should consider getting some columnists who reflect the new (FDR? new?) trends in the
country and in the Democratic party. The old Clinton/Biden/Edsall Republican lite approach --
all in for Wall Street -- is dying. Good riddens. BTW I'm a 65 year old electrical engineer.
1 Reply
You're missing something big here, sir. Capuano was a Clinton superdelegate in 2016 who
declared well before the primaries (like all other Mass superdelegates, save for Warren who
waited until well after the primaries.) Thereby in effect telling constituents that their
vote was irrelevant, as they were willing to override it. Somerville went for Sanders 57% to
42%. Putting party over voters maybe isn't a great idea when 51% of voters in Massachusetts
are registered Unenrolled (Independent) and can vote in primaries. Bit rich to signal that
our votes don't matter, but then expect it later as it maybe actually does matter after all.
Pressley was all in for Clinton, which is of course suspect. But like me, she had only one
vote.
@C Wolfe Wow. Funky Irishman has been, for many months, writing about and presenting
excellent data showing that the US is actually a center-left (if not strongly progressive)
country. I used to present this evidence to Richard Luettgen (where has he gone??) who kept
insisting we are center-right (but never, as was his custom, presented any evidence for
this). your example is the best I've ever seen. I'm a member of a 4000-strong Facebook group,
the "Rational Republicans" (seriously - a local attorney with a decidedly liberal bent
started it and almost beat regressive Patrick McHenry here in Asheville). I've been making
this point on the FB page for the past year and people are stunned when they see the numbers.
I'm going to post your example as well. Excellent!
It's funny to watch people shocked when she makes her proposal. Her ideas are very old and
have worked in the past in various cultures. But the point that she can voice them is because
she can. Her people put her there because she said those things with their approval. She
reflects her community ideals. Just like Steve King.
I'm already tired of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I'm a liberal and Hispanic...its constant
overkill, everybody falling over her, total overexposure. The news media has found their
darling for the moment. Let's see what she accomplishes, what bills she proposes and passes
that is the work to be done not being in the news 24/7.
Until the left figures out that every single one of their most desired Policy Implementations
are only feasible with controlled immigration and secured borders doesn't matter who the
messenger is. Want Single Payer Healthcare? Can't have it and Open Borders too. Want free
College? Can't have it and Open Borders too. Want Guaranteed Basic Income? Cannot have it in
any form without absolutely controlling the Border. So, either you want that influx of new
voters to win elections or you want to see new policy changes that will benefit all
Americans. Pick one and fight for it. You seem to have chosen the new voters. 3 Replies
@Matt Williams But they are extraordinary, relative to their bought and paid for colleagues.
That came first and the media is reporting it. Their authenticity is naive, but it shouldn't
be, and that's the story. It's a glimmer of hope for democracy that may be extinguished -
let's celebrate this light in the darkness, while it lasts.
@Bruce Rozenblit This is. Spot. On. The socialism of: Privatize the profits, socialize the
losses. It's defined American economic and social policy for the last 30+ years and we can
see the results today. 27 Replies
@shstl I agree and as a moderate Democrat, I already feel like an outsider, so imagine what
independents are thinking. AOC stated that she wants to primary Hakeem Jeffries, who is a
moderate. With statements like these, made before spending a day in congress, who needs the
GOP to tear apart the Democratic party? Sanders didn't even win the primary and his
supporters claim the primary was stolen. We lost the house and senate all by ourselves. I
already have AOC fatigue and my rejoice for the blue wave is still there but fading.
The Democratic party was shoved to the right with Bill Clinton's Third Way ideology that made
its focus the same wealthy donor class as the Republicans, while breaking promises to its
former base, the middle and working class. This led to the unchecked capitalism that produced
the Crash of '08, and the subsequent bail out to Wall St. The powers running the DNC - all
Third Way disciples, like Hilary - refused to take up any of these "socialist" causes because
their wealthy donors didn't want to have their escalating wealth diminished. Meanwhile these
Democrats In Republican Clothing were banking on continued support from those they had
abandoned. And they got it for years...until now. Now, finally, we're getting candidates who
represent those abandoned, and who are refusing to hew to the poobah's Third Way agenda. But
the Old Guard is trying to retain their power by labeling these candidates as "socialists",
and "far left". Well, if that's true, then FDR was a "socialist" too. Funny though how all
those "socialists" who voted for FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ enjoyed such capitalistic benefits
like good paying jobs, benefits, home ownership, good education, and the fruits of Big
Guv'mint like the Interstate Highway system, electricity, schools, the Space Program and all
the benefits that produced. It was only when we turned our backs on that success and relied
on unchecked capitalism that most of America began their slide backwards. We need to go left
to go forward.
Why is the media lionizing this ignorant, undisciplined child? She should shut up, sit down,
learn how to listen and learn from her elders in government. She is acting like a college
student, who has no one to hold her accountable for her reckless, stupid behavior. Why does
the media seem to be enamored of her?????
@Michael Lucky for you. I went to the University of Michigan at roughly the same time and it
was no where near that cheap--not even close. And housing? Don't get me started on that. Even
then it took my breath away. 38 Replies
@chele That which you are pleased to call the DLC nonsense originated not with the Clintons,
but with one of the worst presidential defeats the Democratic party ever suffered: the 1972
campaign of George McGovern. That debacle resulted in a second Nixon administration and I
hope that the current trends within the Democratic party do not result in a second Trump
administration.
It is exceeding strange to me that "Conservatives" in the US consider Medicare for all and
universal access to higher education as being radical, pie-in-the-sky, proposals. Here in
Canada we have had universal medicare for a half a century and it has proven itself to be
relatively effective and efficient and has not driven us into penury. As for free access to
education beyond high school, I remember learning a while ago that the US government
discovered that it had earned a return of 700% on the money spent on the GI Bill after WWII
which allowed returning GIs to go to colleges and universities. The problem with American
conservatives is that they see investments in the health, welfare and education of the
citizenry as wasteful expenditures, and wasteful expenditures such as the resources going to
an already bloated military, and of course tax cuts for themselves as investments.
@chele Amen to you! I too am old guy (79) and think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a savior of
the Democratic Party! She is young and has great ideas. I agree with you about the Clintons,
they led the party down a sinkhole. I agree with just about everything I have heard
Alexandria espouse. She is refreshing. Glad she is kicking the butts of those old guard
Democrats that have fossilized in place--they are dinosaurs. 12 Replies
@Tracy Rupp The problem with blaming a group based on demographics, rather than behavior or
ideology, is that you are likely to be disappointed. There are a lot of people who are not
old white men who are just as seduced by money, power, and local privilege as was the old
guard. Feminists writing letters to condemn a male student who made charges of being sexually
harassed by his female professor; African American activists who refuse to reject the
antisemitism of charismatic cult leaders. Human beings in charge will be flawed, regardless
of their race, gender identity, or sexual orientation. As the balance of power changes hands,
corruption too will become more diverse. 6 Replies
Money is the mother's milk of politics, so let me comment on "many of whom did not want the
Democrats to nominate a candidate with deep ties to party regulars and to the major donor
community." Include me. Because the major donor community is Charles E Schumer, Leader
Democrats, House Top Contributors, 1989 - 2018 1 Goldman Sachs 2 Citigroup Inc 3 Paul, Weiss
et al 4 JPMorgan Chase & Co 5 Credit Suisse Group That is Wall Street Nancy Pelosi,
leader Democrats, House Top Contributors, 2017 - 2018 1 Facebook Inc 2 Alphabet Inc (Google)
2 Salesforce.com 4 University of California 5 Intel Corp $13,035 That is Silicon Valley . The
U of CA should spent its money on students What is the interest of these donors ? For Wall
Street, it is maximizing profits by suppressing wages, outsourcing to of enterprises it owns
to low wage countries, and immigration of people willing to work for less For Silicon Valley
it is Mining your data, violating your privacy, and immigration of people willing to work for
less via H1B To win general (not primary) elections you need large amounts of money. At in
return for this money, you need to take care of your donors, lest you find you without money
in the next election Until the Democratic Party frees itself of this system, it will spout
liberal rhetoric, but do little to help average Americans As Sanders showed, it can do so,
running on small donations. DNC, eye on frightened donors, killed his attempt. 1 Reply
"The most active wing of the Democratic Party -- the roughly 20 percent of the party's
electorate that votes in primaries and wields disproportionate influence over which issues
get prioritized -- has moved decisively to the left." Yet it seems that you feel that the
party should ignore them and move to the center right in order to capture suburban Republican
women, who will revert back to the Republican party as soon as (and if) it regains something
resembling sanity. Do you seriously think that its worth jettisoning what you describe as
"the most active wing of the party" for that? 2 Replies
@David G. See Norway, Denmark, Germany, England and Finland. Citizens have jobs and health
care; education is affordable and subsidized. Not all young people attend universities; many
go to vocational schools which prepare them for good jobs. We could do the same. 27 Replies
@Midwest Josh That is so NOT true Midwest Josh. The unattainable loans and interest problems
are because the private sector has been allowed into the student loan game. The government
should be the underwriter for all student loan programs unless individual schools offer
specialized lending programs. Whenever the government privatizes anything the real abuse
starts and the little guy gets hurt. 38 Replies
@Bruce Rozenblit, at the end of a long line of commenters, I add my congratulations for a
well-articulated overview of our political dilemma. Both "trickle-down"economics and
"neo-liberalism" have brought us to this pass, giving both Democrats and Republicans a way of
rewarding their corporate masters. I believe both Cinton and Obama believed they could find a
balance between the corporate agenda and a secure society. We see with hindsight how this has
hailed to materialize, and are rightly seeking a more equitable system – one that
addresses the common sense needs of all of us. I, for one, am overjoyed that the younger
generation has found its voice, and has a cause to support. My recollection of demonstrating
against the Viet Nam war (and the draft), marching for civil rights, and even trying to
promote the (then largely inchoate) women's rights movement, still evokes a passionate
nostalgia. We have witnessed an entire generation that lacked passion for any cause beyond
their individual desires. It's good to have young men and women reminding us of our values,
our aspirations, and our power as citizens. As the bumper sticker says, "If you think
education is expensive – try ignorance." Thanks again for a fine post. 27 Replies
@Quiet Waiting That was FIFTY YEARS AGO. People who fought in the Spanish-American War were
still casting ballots, for heaven's sake. McGovern has been used by Third Way apologists as a
cautionary tale to provide cover for doing what they clearly wanted to do anyway. The other
reality is that the McGovern/Nixon race took place in a time when there was broad consensus
that many of the social programs Republicans are now salivating over privatizing weren't
going anywhere. 12 Replies
Abolishing ICE is tantamount to having open borders. No modern country can allow all people
who are able to get to its borders to just move in, and take advantage of its government
services. If a country were to start offering Medicare for All, no or reduced college
tuition, a universal jobs guarantee, a $15 minimum wage, and wage subsidies to the entire
bottom half through an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, paid maternity/paternity
leave, and free child care, it would need tax-payers to support these plans. It could not
afford to support all of the poor, uneducated migrants who have been illegally crossing our
borders, let alone all of those who would run here if ICE were to be abolished. Look at
Canada which has more of a social safety net than is offered in our country. It has
practically no illegal immigrants. (A long term illegal immigrant had to sue for the
government to pay for her extensive medical care, and the court decisions appear to have
limited government payment of her medical bills just to her and not to other illegal
migrants.) It picks the vast majority of its legal immigrants on a merit system that
prioritizes those who would contribute a special needed skill to the Canadian economy, who
are fluent in English and/or French, and who could easily assimilate. Thus, most of Canada's
immigrants start paying hefty taxes as soon as they move to Canada, helping to support the
country's social safety net. 1 Reply
@Samuel To pay for universal health care you capture all the money currently being spent for
the health care system. That includes all the employer insurance premiums, VA medical care
costs, military medical costs, all out-of-pocket expenses, everything. That provides plenty
of money for our health care needs as exemplified by the costs in other advanced countries
with better systems. Also re-activate parts of the ACA that were designed to control and
reduce costs but that have gone unfunded. Reduce hospital and hospital administration costs,
which are exorbitant and provide little real health care benefit. There will be plenty of
funds for actual provider salaries (physicians, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, etc). 10
Replies
You have to accept some of this polling data with a grain of salt. Most of the population has
no idea what "moderate," "slightly liberal," or extremely liberal mean. These tend to be
labels that signify how closely people feel attached to other people on the left side of the
ideological spectrum. The same is true, btw, of people on the right. The odd thing is that if
you ask Trump voters about the economic policies they favor, they generally agree that social
security ought to be expanded, that the government has an obligation to see that everyone has
medical care, that taxes on the rich should be higher and that we ought to be spending more
money, not less on education. Where you see a divergence is on issues tightly aligned with
Trump and on matters that touch on racial resentment. Trump voters do not favor cuts in
spending on the poor, though they do support cuts in "welfare." The moral of the story is
that a strategic Democratic politician who can speak to these Trump voters on a policy level
or at the level of values -- I'm thinking Sharrod Brown -- may be able to win in 2020 with a
landslide.
I saw AOC on the Colbert Show recently and one of her first statements was in regards to
wearing red nail polish. I turned it off. Enough of the red lipstick as well. Please. Next
she'll discuss large hoop earrings. 1 Reply
O'Cortez is a "Fantasy Socialist. She says the stupidest and most outlandish things so the
media puts a microphone in front of her face. She hates when folks fact check her because
nothing she is saying adds up. O'Cortez has all of the same "spread the wealth" tendencies as
the previous president who was much more cunning and clever at hiding his true Socialist
self.
@chele Right on. I expect there is a very large contingent of us. It is disheartening to be
associated by age and ethnicity with the corporatist financial elite power mongers who
control both parties and the media. But we can still continue vote the right way and spread
the word to fight corruption and corporatism. Eschew New Democrats like ORourke. The first
commitment to find out about is the commitment to restore democracy and cut off the power of
the financial elite in politics. All the other liberal sounding stuff is a lie if that first
commitment is not there. Because none of it will happen while the financial elite are
controlling votes. There will always be enough defectors against, for example, the mainstream
support for medicare for all national health care to keep it from happening if New Democrats
aren't understood as the republican lite fifth column corrupters they really are. 12 Replies
Chock full of very interesting data, but we tend to to believe Zeitz's conclusion that Dems
are just returning to their roots, following the spectacular 2008 failures that saw no
prosecutions - in starkest contrast to the S&L failure and boatload of bankers charged:
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/magazine/only-one-top-banker-jail-financial-crisis.html
To the extent this primary voter data is replicated across the country in Dem primaries, and
not just the AOC and Ayana Pressley races, we could be convinced some massive swing is
occurring in Dem primary results. Until then, we tend to believe that the cycle of 30-50
House seats which swing back and forth as Dem or GOP from time to time (not the exact same
30-50 districts each cycle, but about 30-50 in total per election cycle or two) is a
continuation of a long-term voting trend. Unpacking the egregious GOP'er gerrymandering, as
is the goal of Eric Holder and Barack Obama: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/politics/voting-gerrymander-elections.html
which has blunted Dem voter effects, will be of far more consequence - get ready !
@Michael Gig'em dude. Class of '88, and I feel the same way. And as far as I can tell, the
increase has been almost totally because state support has fallen in order to fund tax cuts
for the people, like us, who got the free education. Who says you can't have your cake and
eat it too? You just have to raid everyone else's plate. 38 Replies
I understand the Andy Warhol concept of everyone having 15 minutes of fame. But it's absurd
that AOC's 15 minutes of fame coincide with her first 15 minutes in office.
Ocasio-Cortez and the rest haven't been in Congress a month. Get back to me when anyone of
them even gets a bill passed naming a Post Office. Until the, maybe you ought to learn your
jobs?
@In the know, Your party invented the fundamental ACA program. It was the brainchild of the
Heritage Foundation that started this fiasco that you'd like to blame on Dems. Also, you
simply cannot argue that the Republicans attempted to implement the program in good faith.
They have done everything they can to sabotage it. In the end, Republicans don't want people
to have affordable health care. It doesn't fit their "family-unfriendly" philosophy.
Furthermore, the only real business-friendly ideas Republicans embrace are a) eliminate
taxes, b) remove regulations, c) pay employees nothing. If you as a woman believe these are
notions that strengthen you or your family, I'm at a total loss in understanding your
reasoning.
@Matt Williams - You are ignoring the many statistics in the article that apply to the
Democratic party as a whole. For example: "From 2008 to 2018, the percentage of Democrats who
said the government should create "a way for immigrants already here illegally to become
citizens if the meet certain requirements" grew from 29 to 51 percent, while the share who
said "there should be better border security and stronger enforcement of immigration laws"
fell from 21 to 5 percent." There are many others.
"...as millennials and minorities become an ever-larger proportion of the party, it will have
a natural constituency..." I would counter that as they start to actually pay taxes then the
millennials will adopt the standard liberal plaint, 'raise the taxes on everybody except me'
@D I Shaw I think the precise point is that would much easier to do A,B, and C if there were
universal health care, job guarantees, and clean water to drink. It is much easier to make
good long-term decisions when you aren't kept in a state of perpetual desperation.
These 'new' ideas are not new, nor are they 'progressive democrats'', nor are they even the
democratic party's per se. More importantly, the 'issue', for which no one has come up with a
solution, is the same -- how are we going to pay for this all? The GAO reported in '16 that
Sander's proposal for payment was completely unsustainable. Similarly, Cortez's plan for a
tax rate of 70% of earnings (not capital gains) over $10mm per annum does not come close to
funding 'medicare for all', 'free collage/trade school', and 'the New Green Deal'. Our
military is a 'jobs program' rooted in certain state's economy -- it is going to be very
difficult to substantially reduce those expenditures any time soon. The purpose of government
is governance -- what politician is going to have the integrity and cujones to tell the
American people that we need these 'liberal' policies, but that every single one of us is
going to have to contribute, even those at the far lower income strata? Are we all willing to
work longer in life and live in much smaller houses/apartments to do what is necessary? If
the answer is yes, then and only then can any of us claim the moral high ground. Until then,
it's just empty rhetoric for political gain and personal Aggrandizement of so-called
progressives. 5 Replies
@chele I'm an "elder millennial" in my 30s. The first US election I really paid attention to
was in 2000. Remember how all of the Democrats would gripe about, "oh I really *like* Nader,
but the Green Party candidate is never going to win..." It's a party in dire straights when
the ideological base doesn't even particularly love its candidates on the issues. Repeat in
2004 with Kerry. Obama managed to win based on charisma and the nation's collective disgust
with the neocons, but then we did it again with Hillary. 12 Replies
Sorry libs, but with the exception of the Left Coast, and Manhattan, there is not alot of
attention given AOC and her silly class warfare 70% tax nonsense, that goes with the Dem/Lib
territory--nothing new or exciting with her. Being a certain ethnicity or gender is not
exciting or inherently "good" as Progressives attempt to convince others. Identity politics
is nonsense. When she does something of merit, not simply engage in publicity stunts and
class warfare nonsense then maybe she will get some attention outside of Lib/Wacko world.
"With all the attention that is being paid to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley,
Rashida Tlaib" Other than these opinion pages and the Lib coasts, not so much. 2 Replies
Since Reagan there has been a steady drumbeat to the right and far-right policies. We've
lived so long in this bubble that we've normalized these For-the-Rich policies as centrist.
So I don't accept the writer's premise that the Democratic party is moving to a radical left.
The Democratic party is simply embracing pro middle class policies that were once the norm
between 1935-1979. And I welcome the shift of the pendulum. 1 Reply
@Giacomo That's right, this country can afford trillions for the Pentagon system--the
military-industrial complex, to coin a phrase--and foolishly criminal wars, but it can't
afford national health insurance, something that some industrialized countries have had since
the late 19th century. Anybody who thinks these ideas are "radical" or "leftist" clearly
understands nothing about politics.
The shift claimed by Mr. Edsall among democratic voters who claim to be liberal or
progressive is more illusion than reality. With President Obama more democrats are willing
and indeed proud that our party represents the cutting edge principle that we protect the
needs and interests of those struggling to find a place in our society. For a long time
Democrats bought into the notion that the word liberal was some how shameful. But now with
the machinations of a McConnell and Trump it becomes obvious that Democratic principles of
justice for all and fighting for economic equality are not outside ideas, but actually
central to the growth of our country. No longer will we kow tow to a false stilted opinion,
but stand up proudly for what we believe and fight for.
AOC behaves like a sanctimonious know-it-all teenager....entertaining for about 5 minutes,
then just plain annoying and tiresome. Does not bode well for the Democratic Party,...
Actually, people like AOC or Bernie aren't that far left at all. Internationally, they'd be
considered pretty centrist. They're simply seen as "far left" because the Overton window in
DC is far to the right. Even domestically, policies like universal healthcare and a living
wage enjoy solid majority support, so they're perfectly mainstream
I understand what you are saying, but please remember- half of this country thinks- rightly
or wrongly- that AOC and many of her ideals are unobtainable and socialist. Whether they are
or are not is NOT the point. We need ideas that are palatable to the mainstream, average
American- not just those of us on the liberal wings. And I AM one of those. Since you bring
up Bernie- how well did that work out? The country isn't ready for those ideas. And rightly
or wrongly, pursuing them at all cost will end up winning Trump the next election.
@Jose Pieste Well here in Australia its 10 minute waits for appointments made on the same
day. I have MS and see my specialist without a problem. And the government through the PBS
prescription benefit scheme pays $78 of my $80 daily tablets. We are not as phenomenally
wealthy a country as the USA and we mange it with universal health care. I pay about $30
Australian for each doctor's visit and sometimes with bulk billing that is free too. You
reflect a uniquely American attitude about social services that is not reflective of what is
done in other modern democracies. I really do feel for you my friend and for all Americans
who have been comprehensively hoodwinked by the "can't afford it" myth. You can pay for
trillion dollar tax cuts for people who don't need it. Honestly mate - you have been conned.
@Samuel Rep. Ocasio-Cortez has sponsored or co-sponsored 18 bills in the House, including
original co-sponsor with Rep. Pressley of H.R.678 -- 116th Congress (2019-2020) To provide
back pay to low-wage contractor employees, and for other purposes. 10 Replies
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, as is well documented here and throughout world media, prefers spotlights
and baffling interviews to opening her district office and serving her electorate. As with
every other media creation, the shiny star that it has made of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez will fade
soon. The arc of her House career will as well. 4 Replies
"What pundits today decry as a radical turn in Democratic policy and politics actually finds
its antecedents in 1944." This quote in the article should have been the lede. Instead, it
appears 66 paragraphs into the article. What is now being called "left" used to be called
"center." It used to be called the values and the core of the Democratic party.
@Derek Flint There was a reason for the DLC's decision to be more center left. The Democrats
were losing and this gave them a chance to win, which they did with Clinton, almost Gore, and
Obama. 12 Replies
@Jason A. Representatives should represent their constituents. For example, if most of the
voters one represents want Medicare, perhaps that's a sign that one should reconsider their
anti-Medicare views. And think about why constituents want Medicare.
The leftward swing of the Democrats is in direct proportion to the rightward swing of the
Republicans and a gut reaction to the GOP's failure to do anything constructive while in
power -- i.e. failure to replace Obamacare with Trump's promise of "cheaper and better;"
failure to repair our crumbling infrastructure, and yet another failed attempt at
trickle-down economics by robbing the U.S. Treasury with a massive tax cut for the rich that
provided absolutely no benefits for the middle class and the poor. As always, what the
Republicans destroy the Democrats will have to fix.
@Quiet Waiting, the DLC was officially formed after Mondale's loss, in '85. the DLC's main
position is that economic populism is not politically feasible. But I don't recall either
McGovern or Mondale's losses being attributed to being too pro-worker, too pro-regulation of
capitalism, or making tax rates progressive again. Further, the idea that economic populism
has no political value was just disproved by a demagogue took advantage of it to get elected.
The RP's mid-term losses and other data points show that people in the middle are realizing
Trump's not really a populist. Those economic Trump voters, some of whom voted for Obama
twice, are up for grabs. Why would you be afraid that the DP's shift to raising taxes on the
wealthy and being pro-worker will result in a Trump victory? 12 Replies
@Michael The cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security has increased as a fraction of
tax receipts. Twice the as many people go to college as when you went, so the subsidies are
spread more thinly. Colleges have more bureaucrats than professors because of multiple
mandates regarding sex, race, income, sexual preference, etc. People have not been willing to
see taxes raised, so things like college subsidies get squeezed. The US decided in the 1940s
that the only way to avoid a repeat of WW1 and WW2 was to provide a security blanket for
Western Europe and Japan (and really, the world), and prevent military buildups in either
region while encouraging economic development. The world is as a result more peaceful,
prosperous, and free than ever in human history, despite "its continuous wars" as you put it.
For the US to pull back would endanger the stability that gave us this peace and prosperity,
but Trump is with you all the way on that one, so it must be a good idea. Liberal reforms
will mean tax increases, especially Medicare for all, but also more college subsidies, which
largely benefit the middle class and up. Liberal reformers need to convince the public to
send more money to the IRS, for which there is no evident support. Let's not confuse
opposition to Trump with a liberal groundswell. 38 Replies
Why do Political Commentators and Analysts keep operating under the delusion that people vote
their skin colour ? People vote their economic interests. I am all in favour of National
Health Care Letting Immigrants who have not committed a crime stay and become citizens. But I
am also in favour of stricter Border Control as I feel our duty is to the poor citizens of
America. Send Economic aid to poorer countries, help them establish just governments. As for
Ocasio-Cortez, she is aiming too high and has too many lies about her past to go much higher.
The meanings of these labels--liberal, left, center, conservative--, and of the spectrum
along which they supposedly lie, changes year to year, and most pundits and politicians seem
to use them to suit their own purposes. When you realize that a significant group of people
voted for Obama and then for Trump, you realize how radically the politics of the moment can
redefine the terms. The Democrats could create a narrative that unites the interests of all
economically disadvantaged people, including white people. Doing so would create a broad
majority and win elections, but it would arouse the fury of the oligarchs, who will demonize
them as "socialists." But as Obamacare proved, if actually you do something that helps people
across the board even the Republicans and the media will have a hard time convincing people
that they are oppressed, for example, by access to health insurance. For the oligarchs, as
for the Republicans, success depends on creating a narrative that pits the middle class
against the poor. In its current, most vulgar form, this includes pitting disadvantaged white
people against all the rest, but the Republicans have an advantage in that their party is
united behind the narrative. Democratic politicians may be united against Trump, but that
means nothing. The challenge will be uniting the politicians who run on economic justice with
the establishment Democrats who have succeeded by hiding their economic conservativism behind
identity politics.
I applaude AOC. I am 72 white male. I have been waiting for someone like AOC to emerge. I
wish her the best and will work for her positions and re-elections and ultimate ambitions.
She is a great leader, teacher, learner, whip smart, and should not be taken likely. Go for
it AOC! Realize your full potential.
Someone as thoroughly imbedded in the establishment as this Op-Ed writer is necessarily going
to need to be educated on what the political center of gravity really is. The Democrats have
shifted RIGHT over the past few decades. Under Bill Clinton and Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein
and Obama. They are not left, not center-left, not center, but instead center-right. They
have pursued a center-right agenda that does not engage with the rigged economy or widening
inequality, or inadequate pay, or monopolist abuse of power, or adequate regulation and
punishment of corporate crime. They have enthusiastically embraced our deeply stupid wars of
choice, and wasted trillions that could have been put to productive use at home. The new
generation of progressive Democrats seek to move the debate BACK TO THE CENTER or Center-Left
if you will. Not the Left or Far-Left. They want to address the issues the current Democrat
Establishment have ignored or exacerbated, because they are in essence, the same rarified
rich as the lobbyists and donors they mingle with. The issues that affect MOST of us, but not
the FEW of them. The endgame of this shift is that Obama engineered a pseudo-recovery that
saw the very rich recover their gains, but the poor become MORE impoverished. Such is the
rigged economy, 21st Century style. Things have to change, the old guard have to be neutered.
Too much wealth and power is concentrated in too few hands, and it's too detrimental to our
pseudo-democracy.
This is the difference between R & D's. OAC may get her support from well-to-do, educated
whites, but her platform focuses on those left behind. Even her green revolution will provide
jobs for those less well off. R's, on the other hand, vote only for candidates that further
their selfish interests.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her legislative cohorts are a much needed breath of fresh, progressive
air for the U.S. Congress. And I say that as someone going on age 70 who was raised and
educated in the conservative Deep South. Go left, young people!
@Bruce Rozenblit Unfortunately, the hot button on fox is the word socialism. so undo the
negative press there and have a chance of implementing fairer policies. 27 Replies
@Samuel "It's easy to go to a rooftop- or a twitter account- and yell "health care and
education for all!'" Its not easy to get anyone to listen. The moral impetus precedes the
"actual plans," which come out of the legislative process, Why would you be against this
getting attention?Unless, of course, you oppose health care and education for all. 10 Replies
The further the Democrats go Left with all the cultural politics including white people
bashing and calling Men toxic, the further I am heading towards the right. I personally can't
stand what the Democratic Party has turned into. We'll see who wins in 2020. I think a lot of
people forget what happens in mid term elections. People vote for change and then, after
seeing what they wrought, switch back.
I am a old white male geezer and lifelong liberal living in complete voter disenfranchisement
in Florida due to gerrymandering, voter suppression and rigged election machines (how else
does one explain over 30,000 votes in Broward County that failed to register a preference for
the Senate or Governor in a race where the Republican squeaked in by recount?). I am pleased
to finally see the party moving away from corporatist and quisling centrists to take on
issues of critical import for the economy, the environment and the literal health of the
nation. As "moderate" Republicans come to a cognitive realization that they too are victims
of the fascist oligarch billionaire agenda to end democracy; they too will move to the left.
So, I for one am not going to worry an iota about this hand-wringing over something akin to
revolution and instead welome what amounts to the return of my fellow New Deal Democrats.
Too much attention here to this new cohort of self important attention seekers presenting as
civil servants. Not one of them has had any legislative experience in their lives how can
they do all they say they want. They have no grasp of policy economics and politics. Are they
too good to recall the wise words of Sam Rayburn - "Those who go along get along" or is that
too quaint outdated and patriarchal for them? Why dont journalists and other pols call them
out. Example, AOC calls for 70% marginal tax rate - saying we had it before, ha ha. Yes but
only when defense spending as percent of gdp was 20-40 percent, in the depth of WW2 and the
cold war, life and death struggles - it is now 5%, no one has the stomach for those rates
now, and no need for them to boot. Free school, free healthcare, viva la stat! yeah ok who
will pay for it? Lots of ideas no plans, flash in the pan is what it is, it will die down
then settle in for a long winter.
There is a difference between posturing as a leader and actually leading. So, there is
another, and very direct, way for real Americans to end the shutdown: Recall petitions. With
very little money, why not target Mitch McConnell. Laid off federal workers could go
door-to-door in Kentucky. The message, not just to the Senate majority leader, would be
powerful. And this need not be limited. There are some easy targets among GOP senators.
Perhaps Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can achieve greater national standing with a clipboard and pen down
on the hustings.
All this fuss over a bright young person who stopped complaining and ran for office. She has
a platform. Time will tell how effective she will be. Right now, she's connecting to those
young and old who believe we can do better. If you had a choice who would you rather share a
beer with?A Trump supporter who has no interest beyond building an ineffective wall or an
Ocasio-Cortez supporter, full of ideas, some fanciful, some interesting but most off all
energy and light versus fear and hate?
I'm a liberal Democrat and I remain very skeptical regarding the platforms of these new
members of Congress. Youthful exuberance is admirable, but it's not sufficient to address
complicated issues related to fairness. Fairness does not always mean equity of wealth. Some
people have more because they have worked more, worked longer, or took more risks with their
money. Should the nurse who worked three jobs to make $150,000/year be made to sacrifice a
significant portion for those who chose to work less? Such an anecdotal question may seem
naive, but these are the kinds of questions asked by regular Americans who often value social
programs, but also value fairness. The claim that only some tiny fraction of the 1% will bear
the cost of new programs and will alone suffer increased taxation is simply untrue, and those
who are making this claim know it. This tiny group of wealthy knows how to hide its money
off-shore and in other ways, as documented in the Times last year. Everyone knows the
low-lying fruit for increased taxation is the upper middle class: Those who work hard and
save hard and are nowhere near the top of the wealth pyramid. It's that nurse with the three
jobs, or the small business owner who now clears $200,000 a year, or the pair of teachers
who, after 25 years of teaching, now bring home $150,000 combined. Those are the targets of
the proposed "new" taxes. Don't believe the hype. I'm a liberal, and I know what's up with
these people. 4 Replies
Ocasio-Cortez represents the success of a progressive in ousting a white liberal in a safely
Democratic district. While interesting, that doesn't provide much of a blueprint for winning
in 2020 in districts and states that voted for Trump. As noted elsewhere in this newspaper,
of the roughly 60 new Democrats in Congress elected in 2018, two-thirds, were pragmatic
moderates that flipped Republican seats. Progressives were notably less successful in
flipping Republican seats.
Just keep in mind that what the author deems "radical" ideas are considered mainstream in the
rest of the developed world. We are an extreme outlier in lacking some form of universal
health care, for example. Also, while the NYT clearly saw Bernie's 2016 campaign as
shockingly radical, the very people Edsall says we must court were wild about Bernie. His
message about income inequality resonates with anyone living paycheck to paycheck and the
only thing "radical" about it is that he said the truth out loud about the effects of
unbridled capitalism. The neoliberal types that the NYT embraces are the milquetoast people
who attract a rather small group of voters, so, I am not too eager to accept his analysis. I
fully expect the Times to back Gillibrand and Biden, maybe even that other corporatist,
Booker. They don't scare the moneyed class.
The Dems have been drifting to the right for decades, egged on by pundits who keep telling
them to move to the center. Do the math: moving to the center just moves the center to the
right. Frankly, Nixon was more liberal than most of today's Dems. A move to the left is long
overdue.
The rumblings in the Democratic party may represent a realization that WE THE PEOPLE deserve
a bigger slice of the pie. Democrats such as Sanders, Warren and AOC are tapping into a
reservoir of voters who have been excluded from the American Dream by design. The new message
seems to be "fairness". I think that translates into government which does the most good for
the greatest number of people. Candidates who embody that principle will be the new leaders.
Ignore at your peril.
@Quiet Waiting: if voters believe republicans are helping them economically then follow them
off the cliff. Hopefully enough voters will try a more humane form of capitalism. 12 Replies
Ms Ocasio Cortez is a partial illustration of Reagan's dictum that "The trouble with our
liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so". In
the case of AOC she is not only very ignorant but she believes many things that are actually
not true. For her to actually believe that the "world will end in 12 years" and
simultaneously believe that, even if true, Congress could change this awful fact is so
breathtakingly ignorant one hardly knows where to start.
Maybe it's worth considering that a lot of those spooky millennials, the stuff of campfire
scare stories, themselves grew up in the suburbs. They are the children of privilege who have
matured into a world that is far less secure and promising than that of their swing-voter
soccer moms. Health care, student debt, secure retirement, and the ability to support a
family are serious concerns for them. And don't even get me started on climate change and the
fossil fuel world's stranglehold on our polity.
@dudley thompson, if you are one of those elite moderate liberals against the "lefties"
concern about college and medical costs, protections for workers and the environment, and
progressive taxation, then in the end getting your vote isn't worth sacrificing the votes of
all the other people who do care about those things. Your "moderate" way may calm those swing
voters who fear change, and allow them to vote for the Democrat, but it also demoralizes and
disappoints the much larger group of potential Democratic voters that craves change.
@Jessica Summerfield ..."article described AOC as a communist." And I saw an article describe
Ross Douthat as a "columnist"... equally misleading. Will the calumny never cease? 27 Replies
Thomas, this "left" used to be known as the middle. A commitment to housing instead of an
acceptance of homelessness. Dignity. A tax system designed to tax wealthy people, not, as we
have now, a tax system designed to tax the middle class and poor. Can we all just take a look
at what is being promoted -- look at what AOC is proposing compared to Eisenhower era tax
rates. We have lurched right so that event center-right is now considered left.
Rage is the political fuel that fires up the Left. Rage also is the source of some very bad
ideas. Having bad ideas is the reason people don't vote for a political party in a
presidential election. The democrats are now the party of socialism, open borders, very high
taxes, anti-religious bigotry, abolishment of free speech, rewriting the constitution,
stuffing the Supreme Court, impeachment of the President, and being intolerance of other
views. They have also alienated 64 million Americans by calling them deplorables, racist and
a host of other derogatory terms. Not a good strategy to win over voters in swing states.
They also have attacked all men and white men in particular. They think masculinity is toxic
and that gender is not biological but what a person believes themselves to be (noticed that I
used the plural pronoun?). So far a long list of bad ideas. Let's see how it plays out in
2020. 1 Reply
We need to be careful what we refer to as left. Is the concept that we have access to
affordable housing, healthcare, and decent jobs really a position of the far left? Not
really. The 1944 progressives saw access to basic life as a right of all people. This is why
young educated progressives support policies that encourage success within the unregulated
capitalist economy that has been created over the last 40 years. The evidence illustrates
that federal and state governments need to help people survive, otherwise we are looking at
massive amounts of inequality that affect the economy and ultimately affect the very people,
the extremely rich, who support deregulation.
@Bruce Rozenblit The Republicans great skill has been selling lies to the socially
conservative to get their greedy financial agenda through. They have never cared about their
voters other than how best to spin their rhetoric. 27 Replies
Moving left takes a twitter account, a quixotic mentality and the word free. Its sedition
arousing rhetoric is blinkered by the lack of a viable strategy to support and move it
forward. Liberals thrive on the free media attention which feeds their rancor and aplomb.
Liberals are the infants of the Democratic Party. They're young, cute and full of amusing
antics. They have an idyllic view of what the world can be but without efficacy. When they
are challenged, or don't get enough attention, they revert to petulance. As all mammals do,
most liberals eventually grow up to join the Democratic median. Those that don't become the
party regalers brought out when the base needs energized. They grow old and fade away,
remembered only for their flamboyance and dystopian view of the world. The Democratic Party
has never been more fractured since its inception. With close to thirty potential candidates
for President, it is going to take a coalition within their party in order to put forth a
viable nominee. Then the party infighting will commence which will lead the party into
defeat. Democrats must focus on a untied party platform which is viable and will produce
results for the American people. Enough of the loquacious hyperbole and misandrous language;
it's time to stop reacting and start leading.
If it looks like the Democrats are moving strongly to the left, it's because they have
stopped chasing the GOP over the cliff in a vain effort to meet them in some mythical middle.
That's why the gap is widening; Republicans have not slowed in their headlong rush to
disaster. In truth it is the Republican Party and its messaging machine that has been doing
its best to drag America to the extreme right by controlling the narrative and broadcasting
talking points picked up and amplified by the Mainstream Media. The Mainstream Media has its
own issues. Increasingly consolidated under corporate ownership into fewer and fewer hands,
it has developed a reflex aversion to anything that looks too 'left' and a suspicion of
anything that looks progressive. The desperate battle for eyeballs in a fragmenting market
has also taken a toll; deep journalism or reporting that risks alienating any part of the
shrinking audience for traditional news is anathema to the bean counters who have
financialized everything. Deliberate intimidation by the right has also taken a toll.
Republicans have no answers; Democrats do - and that's the gist of it. The real challenge is
to prevail against a party that has embraced disinformation, the politics of resentment and
destruction - and the Mainstream Media that has failed to call them out on it.
We are looking at a future Speaker of the House. Watch out Republicans, this woman is not
afraid of you white, stodgy, misogynistic and racist haters. Your party, once a viable and
caring party, is dead.
The Republican Party used to be a moderate political party that was fully capable of
governing. Over the years, the right wing of the party assumed control and they became a
radically conservative party that basically hated government and did nothing for the benefit
of average Americans. As a result, many voters came to believe that a more liberal stance was
preferred to what the Republicans had become. Basically, the Republican Party veered sharply
to the right and went off and left a lot of their earlier supporters, like me.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the perfect foil to the Trump twitter fest we've been subjected
to for the past 2 years. However, enough of the tit for tat -- I would still like to see the
freshman representative put forth some legislation for a vote.
In terms of policies, this "sharp shift to the left" represents a return to the New Deal and
the Great Society and a renewed commitment to civil rights. It is a return to things we never
should have turned away from.
@Tracy Rupp Don't be so quick to condemn. The really old white men of today defeated Germany
and Japan. Then those same old white men went into Korea and then Vietnam. Ok so maybe you
have a point.
Shifted to the LEFT? After decades of movement to the Right, by the GOP and even assisted by
Dems such as the Clintons, etc., this political movement is merely a correction, not a
radical shift as your article contends.
Just as the reader comments from yesterday's opinion piece on the Covington School story by
David Brooks reveal rampant confirmation bias, the comments here reveal an equally relevant
truth: nobody, but nobody, eats their own like the left. The "Down With Us" culture in full
effect.
I am confused about what message, what issues resonate with the "moderate" people who are
disaffected from the liberal message of the Democrats on the left. What policies would bring
them to vote Democratic, what is it about health care for all, a living wage and opening the
voting process to all people are they opposed to. Is it policy or message that has them
wavering?
@dudley thompson Do you consider Eisenhower leftist? (highest tax rates ever). How about
Nixon? (established the EPA). We have lurched so far right in this country that the middle
looks left. I'm sick of the labels -- listen to what these leaders are actually proposing. If
you don't understand how the marginal tax rate works, look it up. If you don't realize we
once didn't accept mass homelessness and mass incarceration as a fact of life in America,
learn some history. We're living in a myopic, distorted not-so-fun-house where up is down and
center is left. We need to look with fresh eyes and ask what our communal values are and what
America stands for. 5 Replies
Here is a thought I would like to share with the New York Times: Thomas Edsall's article is
excellent. The corollary I draw from it that the paper that projects itself as the voice of
the liberals in this county has to understand that it has fallen behind times. If the
statistics and commentary accompanying it is a criteria to consider, The Times should move to
a more progressive editorial platform. The sooner, the better! The support given by this
paper to Hillary Rodham Clinton over Bernie Sanders in 2016 is unforgivable. The attitude
exhibited towards Elizabeth Warren is hardy different. This has to change if you want to keep
your relevance unless you believe publishing Edsall's essay is just part of your "diversity"
policy. What the followers of AOC and other progressives are clamoring for are very basic
human needs that have been delivered in affluent (and not so affluent) societies all over the
globe. No need to name those countries, by now the list is well known. What do we need
delivered: Universal Healthcare, Free Public Education K through College, No Citizens United,
Total Campaign Finance Reform, Regulation of Wall Street, Regulation of Pharma, Regulation of
Big Tech, Gender Equality, 21st Century Infrastructure. All paid for by cutting the Military
and Defense Budget Waste (cf Charlie Grassley, a buddy of Karl Marx) and taxing the top
percent at levels AOC cites and Professors Suez and Zucman concur with in their Times OpEd.
Democrats need to win elections first. Progressive ideas may have support on the coasts and
cities but fall flat in red states where there is still widespread dislike for immigrants and
minorities and strong opposition to "having my hard-earned tax money supporting free stuff
for the undeserving who can't/won't take care of themselves." Because the Electoral College
gives red states disproportionate representation the Democrats must win some red states to
win a presidential election. Running on a strong progressive platform won't work in those
Republican-majority states. What Democrats need is a "Trojan Horse" candidate. Someone who
can win with a moderate message that has broad appeal across the entire country but who will
support and enact a strong progressive agenda once he/she is elected. And on a local election
level, Democrats need to field candidates whose message is appropriate for their local
constituency -- progressive in liberal states, more moderate in conservative areas. Winning
elections comes first. Let's do what it takes to win and not let our progressive wish list
blind us to the importance of winning elections.
@Westchester Guy: Leftists want amnesty and, eventually, open borders. This is utterly and
totally incompatible with their push for "free" college, universal health care, and so forth.
The fiscal infeasibility is so obvious that one could only believe in these coexisting
policies if they were blinded by something, like Trump hatred, or just plain dishonest. The
"leftist" label for the new Democrat party is entirely appropriate. You also have your own
bigots to counter Trump. The difference is that their bigotry is sanctioned by most of the
mainstream media.
Has AOC or any other liberal offered any feasible policy to improve the lives of the people
they claim to help? Just take a good hard look at NYC where AOC is from which for many years
the Public Housing Authority cannot even provide adequate heat in the building the city owns.
So while AOC dreams of taxing the wealthy 70% perhaps she needs to slow down and catch up to
reality to realize what she offers is only building towards another Venezuela.
This article is half poison pill. By reading it, you learn a lot about Democratic Party
voting patterns, but you also have to endure a number of false ideas, the worst of which is
Edsall's warning that radical Democrats will foment internal chaos leading to electoral loss.
The fact is, it is the corporate democrats, who in the last 40 years abandoned the base of
working, blue collar democrats in favor of their Wall Street overlords. It is the corporate
democrats who created the billionaire class by reducing corporate tax rates. It is the
corporate Democrats who by reducing marginal tax rates created the plutocracy. It is the
corporate democrats who gave *Trillions of Dollars* to Bush and Obama's perpetual wars and
$70 Billion more than the defense department asks. This impoverishing the citizenry with debt
is their legacy as much as the Republicans. This shoveling of money to the 1% who abandoned
the middle class has been a train ridden by Corporate Democrats. It is the Corporate
Democrats who caused all this friction by letting the middle class fall off the edge of the
economic cliff -- all the while proclaiming how much they care. They show up on MLK day and
read flowing speeches from the podium when what we really need is activism and changes in
marginal tax rates, defense spending and the Medical Insurance and care oligopoly. So now
there is revolution brewing in response to the Corporate Democrats' appeasement of the
Oligarchy? Good. Bring it on.
Honestly, it is the centrist, neoliberal wing of the Democratic party that gave up on talking
to the Midwest and focused on the coasts. That was the Clinton strategy and it didn't work.
Although AOC comes from an urban area, her message is broad: she is for the struggling,
working person. Edsall underestimates AOC's basis in economic thinking and her appeal to
flyover country. She speaks carefully and justly to social issues, but she also speaks to the
"kitchen table" issues that middle America is concerned with--in a much more real way than
the neoliberal Dems have figured out how to.
Please end you outsized coverage of AOC. I really don't know how you justify all the news
coverage. She is one of 435 representatives, and a new one at that. No accomplishments, just
a large Instagram following.
@John Patt Everybody over the age of 50 should apologize for giving our young people
catastrophic climate change, endless wars, broken healthcare, crumbling infrastructure, ever
widening income and wealth disparates, unaffordable post-secondary education, rampant gun
violence, no voice for labor. We over 50 didn't care enough to vote and to make enough
political noise to keep these things from happening. We over 50 all have personal
responsibilities for this messed up world we're leaving the young. 6 Replies
@Zor The answer is no. Remember Schumer saying that for every urban vote Democrats lost by
running Hillary, they would gain 2 suburban votes. It didn't turn out that way. The centrist,
corporatist Democrats (including Hillary and Biden) have no clue how to reach the working
class of any race. The working class focus of AOC is the Democratic Party's best chance at a
future. But of course the establishment, centrist, corporatist Democrats are still focused on
helping their big money donors. Here's another question: Just how are establishment,
centrist, corporatist Democrats different from Republicans?
Here's my thing- though I'm a deeply liberal person who shares a lot of political beliefs
with Ocasio-Cortez, I'm am not the least bit interested in her. Why? Because she's one
representative of a district all the way across the country from where I live. I care about
about my newly flipped district in Sherman Oaks. I care about my solidly Democratic district
in Santa Rosa. Just because one charismatic representative from Brooklyn has a good Twitter
feed doesn't mean that I have to care or that she deserves a highly-placed role on an
important committee. She's a freshman. Let her learn. And then, go ahead and tell me she
deserves a seat.
There really is not a far left in America. You guys have this weird aversion to moderate
sensible socialism that -as the saying goes- is only in America. Our conservative government
in Australia accepts it as a given the things AOC is fighting for. There is nothing weird
about universal health care in modern advanced countries. The conservatives have a magic word
in the USA that they us as a bogeyman and the word is socialism. Ironically they don't mind
Trump snuggling up to extreme left dictators like Kim and ex KGB Soviet operatives like Don's
supervisor Vlad Putin who by definition had to be a card carrying communist to get to his
position. But moderate socialism is all over northern Europe, NZ, UK and Australia. You
people are oppressed by conservatives playing the "that's socialism" card at every turn. We
never ask where does the money come from? here. The money seems to be there in all the
countries that take care of the health of their citizens. America is a wonderful country with
fantastic people- I love visiting... but to use an Aussie word - crikey I wouldn't want to
live there. 1 Reply
A.O.C. Alexandria "Overexposure" Cortez. This young woman is talented but should pace herself
a bit. It's not a marathon but it's not a sprint either. Let's call it "middle distance" in
track terms. You need to save some breath for when it's really needed. Pace for long term
influence on policy. Or be a "one hit wonder".
@Matt Williams Exactly. I'm a Democratic in a conservative area, and all my Democrat friends
think this woman is nuts. Our Senator Jon Tester is wonderful. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Hard
pass. 9 Replies
@Cass You may self-identify as a moderate but you sound like a conservative. Please go join
the other party of no ideas if AOC strikes you as radical. The majority of Democrats don't
agree with you.
Ideology fails when it meets reality. Trump and McConnell are busy teaching the American
middle class what it is to be reduced to poverty - health care they can't afford, rising
taxes on those who have had some economic success, elimination of well paying jobs, and on
and on. Those voters are understandably interested in pocket book issues, the resurgence of
progressive candidates meets this newly emphasized need. In addition, look at the population
demographics. The baby boomers were a "bump" in population, they in turn have produced a new
bump in their children, who are now adults. The boomers were quite left, their children have
inherited some of this belief system - equal rights and protection and support of those with
less opportunity. The voters in general are also completely fed up with politicians lying to
them and taking away their benefits. They generally have a mistrust both of the right wing
destruction of our norms, and the Democrats failure to fight back (Garland should have been
appointed even in the face of McConnell's calumny). The new face of the Democratic party
feeds pocketbook issues, a belief that America is, in fact, a melting pot, and the need for
restoration of our Democracy. This pretty much covers all the bases, the Democrats just need
to get better at educating the populace.
By and large, the majority of 2600+ counties that Trump carried are not economically well
off. However, they are socially very traditional. Do the Democrats have a message that will
resonate with millions of these traditional white middle/lower middle class voters in the
hinterland? 1 Reply
have you listened to her interviews? she doesn't say much of anything. all political about
all these socialist ideas with no means or method of how to get there. and thank goodness she
has no clue how to get there
I used to be friends with a very high-achieving guy I met as a 15-year-old on a teen summer
tour in Israel, run by the national Reform synagogue movement, in 1985. In the course of our
frienship spanning the final years of high school through the beginning of college, gradually
fading to an email or 2 once every couple years; our different paths & outlooks became
very stark, though we'd both call ourselves liberals. My friend left no stone unturned in his
unambivalent achievement orientation, embracing w/religious fervor the absolute virtue of
success, the unimpeachable morality & integrity of our meritocracy, & meritocratic
ideals/ethos. Naturally, he wound up at Harvard, majoring in government, followed by Harvard
Law. What struck me throughout was the unvarnished "empiricism" of his outlook: rarefied,
lofty principles or romantic ideals seemed alien: the nitty gritty of practical &
procedural realities were the whole picture. The one time we explicitly discussed comparative
politics, he only gravitated toward the topic of Harold Washington's coalition-building
prowess. He was an ardent Zionist ("Jewish homeland!"), with little apparent interest in
theology or spirituality for that matter. Eventually he went into corporate law, negotiating
executive compensation. I think he epitomized the Clinton Democrat: A "Social justice," equal
opportunity for all, meritocracy "synthesis." In a word, that peculiarly "practical,"
pragmatic liberalism was *ultimately conservative*.
Let us all remember that since Reagan the "center" has moved decidedly right. So when we talk
about a move left, we are moving back to where we were in the 1950s-1970's. For example take
AOC's tax proposal. Right out of that time period. Look at the GOP platform in the 1950's. It
reads like a progressive platform today. So let's put this in perspective. Everything is
relative and we have adjusted to right wing dominant politics today.
Edsall looks at the fact the Democrats (and, indeed, the whole country) are moving in a
progressive direction. He does not look at the question of why. I maintain that with an
increase in educated voters, the country is moving towards policies that work, that are good
for the country as a whole, not just for a minority. The other wealthy countries, all with a
universal government health care system such as an improved Medicare for all, get BETTER
health care as measured by all 16 of the bottom line public health statistics for ALL of
their people at a cost of less than HALF per person as we pay. High inequality has been bad
for the economy and governance of this country. Look at what happened in 1929 and 2008 both
preceded by periods of high inequality. Compare that with the long period of low inequality
after WWII of Great Prosperity. Today as a result of terrible SCOTUS decisions, the Super
Rich pushing the country towards oligarchy. The situation at our borders was actually better
before 2003 when ICE was created. It has perpetrated so many atrocities, rightly garnered
such a terrible reputation, why isn't it time to abolish the thing and start over with a new
more humane organization. After all, the Germans did not keep the Gestapo after the war. I
running out of space, but let me end by saying we are now getting more progressive voters
that say that 2 + 3 = 5, and fewer conservative ones who say 2 + 3 = 23 and fewer moderates
who want to compromise on 2 + 3 = 14.
@Concerned Citizen, likewise, public education is funded largely by property taxes, even on
those who do not have children in school, or whose children are out of school. This is not
"someone else's" money! It is all our money, and this is the way we choose to employ it
– to educate all our children, realizing, I hope, that educated children are a major
asset of a developed country. 38 Replies
Until AOC starts to achieve some actual LEGISTATIVE VICTORIES, I'm not prepared to follow her
ANYWHERE. I'm willing to listen to what she has to say, some of which I agree with and some I
question. I lean Left on most issues but I'm not a fanatic, and fanatics exist on BOTH sides
of the political spectrum. I believe that one must PROVE themselves before being beatified.
In substance, I'm open to the "new wing" of the Democratic party which I am, officially, a
member of. Let me add that I will NEVER cast a vote for anyone calling themselves a
Republican because that very label is forever tainted in my book. But I don't much care for
the 'tit for tat' Tweeting from AOC either, writing about Joe Lieberman (whom I do not like)
"who dat"? What is "dat", Miss AOC?
The insane part of this never gets addressed. Why should Americans political interests and
aspirations be controlled by two monopolistic parties? 1 Reply
The country may be in a need of a more social agenda, but this agenda must perceptible help
the depressed white rural folk first. Nothing will work what make those, who are already
falling behind feel like a "basket of deplorables". I hope AOC will find a way not just to
become a poster star of the progressive urban left, but also understand the ailing of the
depressed rural right.
The Democratic Party needs to do a very good job of educating an electorate (and possibly
some of its own members) that has for more than 30 years drunk the kool-aid of the "lower our
taxes," small government, and deregulation gurus. We have such a predatory capitalism now,
with government failing over and over again to reign in huge corporations headed by those who
think they should be determining everything from economic to housing to health to foreign
policy. Enough already. Most of the young members of Congress need a lot more experience and
more immersion in the nitty gritty of creating legislation before they can take the reins,
but they can educate their constituents. And maybe they can convince others that everyone
gains through a more level playing field.
Calling these ideas left is a joke. AOC and Bernie Sanders would practically be conservatives
in Canada and Europe. What we have are 3 unofficial parties: 1. The party of people with good
ideas who aren't afraid to speak about them because they aren't beholden to big donors 2. The
party of watered down, unpopular ideas that are vetted by 20 pollsters and donors before
seeing the light of day 3. The party that gets into office by tapping into people's primal
fears, and avoids policy altogether Republicans have been moving the goalposts for decades
now, how can you even tell left from right anymore?
@A. Stanton Since 1990, there have been funding gaps, shutdowns or serious threats of
shutdowns almost every year. The have become routine tactics in the effort of each party to
drive a hard bargain.
Running up the Democratic vote in Blue states by pandering to left leaning views will not
unseat DJT in 2020. Winning the popular vote by 3 or 3 million yields the same results.
Unless or until we adopt the Nation Popular Vote Intrastate Compact or reapportion the House
more equitably, Republicans will continue to exploit the Electoral College's
antimajoritarianism. Courting the minority of lefties mimics DJT's courting of his base; last
November proved that elections are won in the middle. Appealing to moderates in purple states
is the only path to 270. If you have any doubt, ask private citizen HRC how much good the
Democratic over-vote did for her.
@Bruce Rozenblit What is exceedingly strange to me is that those who rail against socialism
completely misread socialism at it's very roots; Family. 27 Replies
Yes, because all these pundits got 2016 so right. They are people with their own opinions,
just like everyone else, except the punditry has a vested interest in maintaining the status
quo that has been so good to them for so long. Enough already! Times, you're as much to blame
as these pundits for 2016!
When progressive solutions are proposed, the opposition yells "socialism" while others bring
up the cost of progressive solutions. No one talks about the significant portion of our
nation's wealth spent on the military. We don't audit the Pentagon or do due diligence on the
efficiency of huge projects undertaken by the military nor do we question the profits of the
industrial-military complex. Meanwhile, Russia manipulated our latest presidential race,
underscoring the worry over cyber attacks. Climate events in the country mean our citizens
experience life changing events not brought on by terrorists or immigrants. A medical event
in a family can initiate bankruptcy; we all live on that edge. Our infrastructure projects
have been delayed for so long that America looks like a second rate country. Income
inequality is ongoing with no sign of lessening. Suicide is on the increase while death by
drugs is an epidemic. An education for students can mean large debt; efforts to train the
workforce for the technological world are inconsistent. For many of us, the hate and fear
promoted in this country is repulsive. Because our society works for an ever smaller number
of us, Americans are increasingly understanding that a sustainable, just society works for
all it's citizens. We are exhausted by the stalemate in Washington leaving us caring very
little about the labels of progressive, moderate, or conservative. We just know what needs to
change.
Edall's final point that thsese are Democrats returning to Democratic roots and not a wave of
radicalism. I along with a lot of other older voters was infected with a kind of gradualism.
I voted for Hilary, much now to my dismay. AOC among others is stating what she, and what
many of us want. The old Democratic party was a mirror image of Republicans, with taking the
same money, voting for the same wars, and within it all a kind of shame,liberal as a kind of
curse, where we were afraid to make our own agenda, make our own plan for America. taking the
burden, in health care, college education, immigration, is an investment in the future
The New Democratic approach in essence is taking wealth and redistributing it, along with
promising free goods and services. Is that high-minded or simply a Brave New World. The
underlying assumption seems to be the rest of America will not find that worrisome, and that
what happened in MA and NY represents a nationwide trend. 3 Replies
These voters are not moving to the left. They are correcting a trend to the right that
accelerated with Reagan: the rise of corporate dominance and societal control; the loss of
worker rights, healthcare and protections through destruction of our unions; and the mass
incarceration of our nation's young African American men for minor drug offenses, thus
destroying their futures and communities. These "left" liberals are fighting to bring back
democratic norms and values that were once taken for granted among those of all political
stripes.
I have always voted in every primary. I have always voted for the most "leftist" available.
So did my whole family, and all the people with whom I discussed our voting. The issue was
always "most leftist available." That often was not very leftist at all. That is what has
changed. Now the option is there. It isn't because we vote for it. We vote for it now because
now we can, now the choice is there. What has changed is not so much the voters as the
invisible primary before anyone asks us voters. What changed is the Overton Window of
potential choices allowed to us. I think voters would have done this a long time ago, if
they'd had the opportunity. So why now? Abject failure of our politics to solve our problems
has been true for decades, so it isn't mere failure. I'd like to think it was voter
rebellion. We just wouldn't vote for their sell outs. Here, that meant Bernie won our
primary, and then we did not turn out for Her. We finally forced it. The money men could not
get away with it anymore.
It is strange that Mr Edsall frames Medicare 4 All , Free College , and higher taxes on
wealthy as RADICAL leftist ideas .. when it fact each of these proposals have the majority of
support from Americans.. The most current poll shows 70% support for Medicare 4 All.. so you
are only radical if you DON'T support.
Unless the progressives start addressing the concerns of the middle class, they will drive
the Democratic Party right off the cliff. You remember us, don't you? People who have tried
to do things right and work hard. Granted, our cares and concerns aren't that sexy or
tweetable so it's easy for you newly elected firebrands to overlook us. Don't forget, we are
the ones who will ultimately foot the bills for your giveaways.
The notion that democrats are moving leftward is borne on revisionist history. There's
nothing new or bold being proposed; Zeitz is right on the money.
"Medicare for All, government-guaranteed jobs and a higher minimum wage" I have a question to
all the "progressive" Democratic voices in Congress - how are you going to pay for such an
agenda? Money doesn't just grow on trees. Either you will have to cut funds from another
program, or raise taxes. Most of these progressive people favor raising taxes on the wealthy.
But what is your definition of "wealthy"? $10 million in annual income? $1 million in annual
income? $500k? $200k? Almost all the proposals I have seen coming from progressives involves
increasing tax rates for families making more than $200k, either through higher rates, phased
out deductions, or ineligibility for certain programs. A professional couple where both are
software engineers could easily surpass this threshold, but they are not rich. They struggle
to pay the mortgage, save for the future, pay taxes, and provide for their children. Why
should they be forced to pay more in taxes percentage-wise than a family earning $100k or
$60k? It is for these reasons that I as an independent will never support progressive
candidates. These candidates lack basic math abilities and a basic notion of fairness. So if
the Democratic party starts to embrace some of the policies espoused by these progressives,
they are on a path to lose elections in the future. 1 Reply
@AutumnLeaf Mitch McConnell blocked Obama at every turn; he denied him the appointment of a
moderate respected Judge to the SC, a Judge the GOP had voted for on the Superior Court.
Congress wasted time with 40 attempts to declare the ACA unconstitutional; the Plan was
modeled on a Romney Plan in MA. Scalia's Citizens United Decision declared that corporations
are people; Scalia knew that he was using a Superior Ct. Decision with a transcription error:
word spoken: corporation; word transcribed: individual. Scalia spent a lot of time at
corporate lodges, "hunting"; mainly eating until he finally ate himself to death. McConnell
spends his time with mine owners. Trump spends his time with lobbyists for Israel and Saudi
Arabia. 9 Replies
I think this article underscores the incredible opportunity available to the left if they
pick a radical democratic socialist candidate. If they are already winning the college
educated crowd that is gentrifying these major urban areas and losing the poorer minority
crowd that is voting for people like the Clinton's over Sanders or Crowley over AOC; we are
getting the people whom one would think would be less incentivized to vote for our platform
and we can gain the people who would benefit more from our platform.Therefore, it is really
just a question of exposure and talking to these people. Reaching out to minorities; talking
about mass-incarceration, how it disproportinately affects precisely these minority voters
that we have to gain; and how the moderate democrats have been benefiting economically and
politically from the chaos and inequities in these communities for years. It is a question of
messaging. Minorities are our natural allies. They are disproportinately affected by the
inequality; and as soon as we can reach them; tell them that there brothers, husbands, sons
are coming home, and that we have a job for them to support their family when they do, that
is a huge % of voters that will swing our way, and accelerate the pace of our revolution--and
what critics will come to remember as the end of their decadence and control over all facets
of society, to the detriment of everyone else. The end is coming--and a new, better society
is on the verge of being reborn 1 Reply
Of all of those quoted in this article, the only one who really gets it right is Joshua
Zeitz. FDR's 1944 State of the Union address should be required reading for every Democrat,
and every Establishment talking head who warns against alienating suburban voters by
advocating for a New Deal social safety net. I share the sentiments of many on who have
responded by noting that it was, and is, the leadership of the Democratic Party that has
moved right rather than the Democratic electorate that shifted left. Don't believe me? Go
back through the sixteen years of the Clinton and Obama presidencies and see how many times
each referenced Ronald Reagan versus even mentioning Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, or
Lyndon Johnson.
Medicare for all? Get ready for 6-week waits for a 10 minute appointment (and that will be
just for primary care). After that, expect to wait 6-12 months to see a specialist. 1 Reply
@José Franco I will not dig out social security trustees' projections of future
funding requirements or the possible solutions bandied about by politicians (google them),
but one single tweak would eliminate any projected shortfalls. Currently the FICA
contribution is limited to earnings of $132,900. Those who earn over that amount pay no FICA
tax on the earnings above that level. The person earning a million dollars in 2019 will stop
paying FICA on his earnings by mid-February. Applying FICA to all earnings of all earners
would keep social security solvent. No raise in retirement age, no reduction in benefits, no
insolvency. As to Medicare's solvency and public benefits, see the excellent comments of Len
Charlap. 17 Replies
There are several issues upon which I and my like-minded moderate family members will cast
our votes in 2020: - Border security and the end to the brazen exploitation of our citizenry
by the millions of foreign migrants who illegally, and with an attitude of entitlement,
trespass into our sovereign country year after year...costing our taxpayers billions. -
Reckless proposals to increase government benefit programs that aren't affordable without
raising taxes, threatening our already stressed social security safety net. - The rise of
Antisemitism and the mendacious obsession with Israel amongst leftists within Congress, as
well as within the ranks of their constituents. Democrats will need to address these issues
to our satisfaction if they want our votes. 2 Replies
Ed, it's time to retire. If you spent time looking at the actual data, Democratic primary
voters, particularly those in overly restrictive closed primary states like New York, are
older, wealthier, "socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative." They are what we would have
called moderate/Rockefeller Republicans 40 years ago, but they vote Democratic because that's
who their parents voted for. Most progressive voters today, the ones who support Medicare for
all, investment in public higher education, taxation on wealth (you know, those pesky issues
that mainstream Democrats used to support 30-40 years ago) are younger and more likely to be
unaffiliated with any political party. This is why Bernie did much better in states with open
primaries, and Hillary did better in closed primary states like NY AOC won in spite of NY's
restrictive primary system. She was able to achieve this because many of the older Democratic
establishment voters who would have voted for Crowley stayed home, and she was able to
motivate enough first-time young voters in her district to register as a Dem and vote for
her. (First time voters in NY can register with party 30 days prior to primary election)
Let's be clear though: your premise that Dem primary voters are driving the party's shift to
the left couldn't be further from the truth--the progressive shift in the body politic you
describe is coming from younger, independent, working class voters and is redefining the
American left.
From the NYT , Edsall April 19, 2018 The Democrats' Gentrification Problem "Conversely, in
the struggling Syracuse metropolitan area (Clinton 53.9 percent, Trump 40.1 percent),
families moving in between 2005 and 2016 had median household incomes of $35,219 -- $7,229
less than the median income of the families moving out of the region, $42,448." Syracuse, a
democratic City in one of the most democratic States in the US, so assuredly democratic that
Democratic Presidential candidates rarely show up has been left by the Democrats and the
Democratic Governor ,Cuomo, in a death spiral of getting poorer by the day That in a State,
that includes NYC, the international capital of the global billionaire elite. Exactly, what
have the Democrats done to help ?
"Sawhill argues that if the goal of Democrats is victory, as opposed to ideological purity,
they must focus on general election swing voters who are not die-hard Democrats." Wow, what
an original argument! I have been hearing the exact same thing since I registered to vote at
age 18 in 1977. Democrats are always urged to support the "sensible, centrist" candidates who
keep on losing elections to Republicans who drag their party, and the whole country by
default, even further to the right. JFK was called a communist and worse by pundits like this
and he would have won by a landslide in 1964. How about if Democrats for once push for
policies that are backed by 90 percent of Americans, like Medicare For All, the higher
minimum wage, universal college education, renewable energy and the rest of the Green New
Deal and higher marginal tax rates for the rich. I would love to see just one presidential
candidate run on this platform before I die so I can fill out my ballot without holding my
nose. 1 Reply
Kind of make sense considering how far to the right the Republican Party has gone with the
Donald. And he's a guy who was a Democrat at one point. He's a dangerous mr nobody. Let's
counter going far to the left so we can come back to some middle ground.
@Len Charlap Canada can also more easily afford universal healthcare and a stronger social
safety net because it doesn't have the outsized military budget that we do. 17 Replies
@Ronny I agree with you - have a subsidized education - (rather I prefer to say equal access
to education) as well as health care guarantees to a greater extent equality of opportunity -
which is what all democratic societies should strive for. It's not equality of outcome but
equality of opportunity. Children should not be punished for have parents of lesser means or
being born on the wrong side of the tracks...
Until I see well-crafted legislation that is initiated by her that will help improve the
lives of many she's just another politician with sound bite platitudes. She doesn't even have
a district office in the Bronx yet to the chagrin of many of the constituents.
@Midwest Josh Perhaps student loans made by the FED at the rates they charge the big banks in
their heist of the American economy achieved back in 1913. 38 Replies
AOC is a liberal darling who's stated (on 60 Minutes) that unemployment rates are low because
everyone is working two jobs; I might add, that has nothing to do with how unemployment rates
are figured and come on, "everyone?" And recently she's stated that the world will end in 12
years if we don't do something about climate change. Come on, this is silliness, ignorance
and borderline stupidity. If she's the poster child for the Democrats, then she's the gift
that will keep on giving to the GOP.
I grew up during the Vietnam War, and over the years came to admire the American people who
ultimately forced their government to withdraw from an immoral (and disastrous) military
adventure. This is rare in human history. Rare in American history too, as the follies in
Iraq drag on and on to remind us. Perhaps the American people are becoming themselves again.
I wouldn't call it drifting left at all.
Thomas Edsall's column is yet another conservative spin on Democrats from The New York Times.
Where are the voices of progressive Democrats, who form the overwhelming majority of New York
City residents? Of New York state residents? Who form the core of the Democratic Party's
support. The Times insists that these conservative voices are the only ones deserving of
publication here. Where in the world did the notion come from that The Times was a "liberal"
publication?
@Chris Young, It seems you aonly approve of departments that teach what you consider
"productive." If schools become an adjuct to the marketplace, then only the material,
quantifiable results will be the metric by which the value of education is measured. This
will leave us, as in some ways we are already becoming, a population that emulates robots,
and has no use for critical thinking, ethics, or art. The profit in education is in the
quality of the students it turns out into the world, not on a corporate balance sheet. 38
Replies
It's all good but important to expand the focus on the entirety of the Democrats in Congress
- and the amazing age range and gender mix. The opportunities are vast - an intergenerational
government of forward thinking, principled women and men. Please media pundits - avoid focus
on only 1 or 2. There are brilliant ideas pouring forth - let the ideas from every corner
flow! Remember that the intense media focus on Trump, liberal as well as conservative,
contributed significantly to what happened in election 2016.
If by liberal you mean the circular firing squad of the politics of aggrievement, no. My
politics fall in line with FDR's Second Bill of Rights. Here he describes them in 1944
https://youtu.be/3EZ5bx9AyI4
"...true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security & independence.
"Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry & out of a job are the stuff of
which dictatorships are made... We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under
which a new basis of security & prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of
station, race, or creed. Among these are: The right to a useful and remunerative job...; The
right to earn enough to provide adequate food & clothing & recreation; The right of
every farmer to raise & sell his products at a return which will give him & his
family a decent living; The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition & domination by monopolies at home or
abroad; The right of every family to a decent home; The right to adequate medical care &
the opportunity to achieve & enjoy good health; The right to adequate protection from the
economic fears of old age, sickness, accident & unemployment; The right to a good
education." That is where Democrats used to be. Then came the Corporate Democrats, the DLC
and the Clintons.
This piece misses more than it hits. Where it misses particularly is in it's insistence that
the Class interest of working class Democrats pulls the Party right, rather than left, and
that the insurgents are mostly young, white gentrifying liberals. This is not altogether
false, but misses that many of the gentrifiers are not middle class themselves, but lower
middle class young people with huge college debt who could never dream of living in upper
middle class enclaves like most of the opinion writers in the Time for example. So they move
into the inner city, make it safe for professionals, and then yes, Brooklyn goes white.
Harlem goes white. Berkeley loses its working class majority. Etc. The big problem for the
left of the Democratic Party is not that its mostly young, white and middle class; it is that
the very term "liberal" is now widely understood by working class people as meaning
"establishment." And they are against the "establishment". As it happens, so are the young
insurgents. This then is the task for the left of the Democrats; to unite the culturally
conservative working class with the emerging multi-racial, multi-ethnic youth vote to take
down both the reactionary Right and the Liberal establishment. And the only reason such a
sentiment seems crazy is that the New York Times, far from being a bastion of the resistance
to Trump is actually a bulwark of that Liberal Establishment. Stats are stats but the future
is unwritten.
AOC is pretty interesting. She's charismatic, fearless....and I'm trying to think of
something else. OH, she's personally attractive. If the government gig falls apart she can
probably get TV work. But as an intellectual light or a rational political leader -- she is
clearly lacking. OF course that may not matter as the earth will come to an end in 12 years.
Which is even more ludicrous than saying the earth is only 6000 years old. She is simply
spouting far left talking points which are driven by emotion, not rational thought. And she
keeps making unforced errors in her public speaking engagements. She really doesn't appear to
understand what she's talking about and can't respond to reasonable questions about her
policy positions. But then, that's not too unlike much of the left. So maybe she's a perfect
fit for a fact free faction which is beginning to run the dem party. 1 Reply
One commenter gave a really insightful look at socialism for corporations and the rich here,
otherwise known to most of us as corporate welfare, including subsidies to oil companies, who
seem rich enough, but nevertheless, extend their "impoverished" bank accounts for more of our
dollars. Successful corporations, will reward investors, CEO's, hedge fund managers, all
those at the top, but the worker, not too much for that drone, who was part of the reason of
the success of that corporation. Socialism has been tainted by countries with autocratic
rulers , uneducated masses, and ofttimes, as in Latin America, religious masses. But,
Scandinavia, has shown us a socialism to envy. It's confident citizens know that much of what
makes life livable has been achieved. Finland rates as one of the happiest countries in the
world. Taxes are high, but one isn't bankrupted because of illness, one doesn't lose a home
because of a catastrophic illness, education is encouraged, and one doesn't have to pay the
debt off for 30 years or more. The infrastructure is a priority, war is not. It just seems
like it's a secure way to live. This is socialism I wish we could duplicate. Does anyone
consider that socialism also includes our police, libraries, fire stations, roads, and so
much more? Used for the good of society, it's a boon for all, rather than unregulated
capitalism which enriches the few at the expense of most of us. 3 Replies
@Reilly Diefenbach "Democratic socialism" isn't a thing, but implies two contradictory
ideals. Social democracy is thing, a good thing, and in line with what Nordic nations have.
38 Replies
Never has someone gotta so much for doing so little. None of this means anything if it
doesn't become law. As a life long Liberal Democrat (there, I said it) myself, I find it
infuriating when Liberal/Progressive politicians get out-sized credit for their good
intentions while those same good intentions threaten party unity. The Progressive idea of
party unity seems to be limited to getting what they want or they'll walk away. They just
know better, so there's no need for compromise. Never mind that they have no way of enacting
any of this legislation -- and more often than not Progressives lose at the polls. These
"kids" need to wake up and realize that there are no moral victories in politics. The ONLY
goal of any Democrat has to be unseating Trump and McConnell, everything else is a noise, and
a dangerous distraction.
I support universal health care, free college for students who meet enhanced entrance
requirements and raising marginal tax rates to 70% on wealthy Americans. Yet I do not support
an expansion of the EITC, ending immigration enforcement or putting workers on boards of
directors. So where do I stand? All my life I've voted Democratic. But there has been a
seismic shift in politics. And after the shift I will most likely vote Republican or for a
third party. The issue that causes my change in affiliation is the Me Too movement. I find it
repugnant that feminists seem to argue that the media rather than the courts should determine
guilt or innocence in sexual assault cases. Bill Cosby had an agreement with Andrea Constand
in their case. But feminists weren't happy with the outcome. So they resorted to extra-legal
means to get Cosby convicted. This included a media campaign in which the NY Times and the
New Yorker wrote stories highlighting accusations of 60 women for which statutes of
limitations had elapsed. But statutes of limitations are there for a reason. This became
clear in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh which degenerated into a trial for rape. Nobody
except maybe the accuser could remember in any detail events at the party in which the rape
had presumably occurred. So the confirmation became one of character assassination in which
Kavanaugh was convicted of drinking beer. I will NEVER vote for any politician who supports
the Me Too movement.
"... protection from the vicissitudes of market capitalism"? People want protection from
monopoly capitalism. The left-right frame is a fallacy. If you put the actual policies on the
table, the great majority want single payer, clean elections, action on climate change, etc.
Pitting Left v. Right only redounds to tribalism. It ends up with a President who shuts down
the business of which he himself is the CEO. That's not great.
The official launch of Trump's campaign for re-election in 2020 invites us to ponder if the
Democrats are, as in 2016, going to help him win. " By seeking and blundering we learn,
" the renowned German thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe asserts is the recipe for progress.
It's just a pity he isn't around now to advise the Democratic Party on how to beat Trump,
because in its case the blundering hasn't stopped and the learning hasn't begun.
Putting it another way, if, as supporters of Bernie Sanders
allege , the DNC (Democratic National Committee, official governing body of the Democratic
Party) is intent on repeating its blunder of 2016, when it rigged its nomination process in
favour of Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump's re-election is guaranteed.
This time round, not Hillary Clinton but Joe Biden is the DNC's preferred choice. And just
like Clinton before him, Biden is a product of a liberal establishment yet to wake up to the
fact that the thin gruel of political centrism belongs in the trashcan of history along with
its economic twin, neoliberalism.
'Honest Joe' is the latest in a long line of out-of-touch Democrats who believe that shadow
rather than substance is the way to the hearts of the American voting public. However, having
been fooled once by an all singing and all dancing Barack Obama, who didn't so much campaign in
poetry and govern in prose, as campaign in poetry and govern in graffiti, the same voting
public is yearning for a semblance of substance.
Joe Biden, as Obama did and as Clinton tried, claims to be on the side of the common man.
Example : "
We're going to build an economy that doesn't just reward wealth; we're going to build an
economy that rewards work. We're going to build an economy that works for everyone. "
This would be the same man who just this past week went straight from
appearing at a Poor People's Campaign forum in Washington to a Wall Street fundraising
event in New York. In attendance was a clutch of billionaires whom Biden showered in praise. "
You guys are great ," he told them, presumably while still wiping away the stench of the
poor people he just got done promising bread and roses to back in Washington.
Biden's refusal to confront the inextricable link between Wall Street billionaires and the
plight of the poor in America, and his effort to conceal this crucial link with platitudinous
guff of a type well known, is the acme of liberal ideology. It is precisely why Trump beat
Clinton in 2016 and why he will beat Biden in 2020.
When you have 40 million people living in
poverty in the richest country in the world, and a working class that has never had it so
bad under the asphyxiating pressure of neoliberalism, America needs a president who will tax
rather than court billionaires. And when you have a world struggling to breath under the weight
of US hegemony and unipolarity, responsible for creating the most dangerous period since the
Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, America and the world needs a president who will govern in the
interests of peace and stability, not conflict and chaos.
Joe Biden's record shows that he offers nothing but old wine in a new bottle. At a time when
radical transformation is needed in the land of the free, putting him in the White House would
be like placing a sticking plaster on the gangrenous wound of a society bursting at the seams
with economic and social dislocation.
Trump, who in his customary style refers to Biden as 'Sleepy Joe', will plough the same
furrow of base and crude rhetoric during his 2020 campaign that he did in 2016. It is meat to
his base, after all, predominantly made up of white working class men and women for whom Make
America Great Again (MAGA) really means 'make white people great again'.
The elephant in the room in 2020 will again be neoliberalism, an extreme variant of free
market capitalism that makes social cohesion an impossible dream and societal breakdown an
unavoidable reality. No amount of platitudes, offered up to the God of political failure, can
elide this fact either. And no candidate who isn't willing to slay this particular elephant can
credibly claim to stand for an escape from a grim past and present in pursuit of a better
future.
That America is a nation and empire in decline is not in doubt. Pulitzer Prize winning
author and journalist Chris Hedges eloquently explores and charts this decline in his 2010
article 'Do Not Pity the Democrats'.
" The menace we face does not come from the insane wing of the Republican Party but from
the institutions tasked with protecting democratic participation. Do not fear Glenn Beck or
Sarah Palin. Do not fear the Tea Party movement, the "birthers," the legions of conspiracy
theorists, or the militias. Fear the underlying corporate power structure, which no one, from
Barack Obama to the right-wing nut cases who pollute the airwaves, can alter. If the hegemony
of the corporate state is not soon broken, we will descend into a technologically enhanced age
of barbarism. "
A grim depiction of the future in 2010, I'm sure you'll agree, but one that in 2019 cannot
be gainsaid.
The battle raging between America and corporate America is a battle for the future. But it's
a strange fight this fight, in that up to now only one side, corporate America, knows who the
enemy is and what it's fighting for. The other America, meanwhile, continues to exist in a fog
of false consciousness, cultivated and sustained by a mainstream media that peddles happy talk
instead of serious analysis.
The soldiers fighting for corporate America are, with rare exception, the Republicans and
Democrats in Washington. And in a 2020 race involving Trump and Biden, each will go out of his
way to claim fealty to the primary victims of corporate America – the American people
– when the opposite is the case.
It was Charles De Gaulle who once said, " In order to be the master, the politician poses
as the servant ." In the case of a US presidential election, his words should be amended to
read: " In order serve corporate America, the politician poses as the servant of the
people ."
Joe Biden cannot win against Trump simply because Trump, unlike him, is America with its
mask of civility removed. And the liberation experienced by the removal of the mask is more
attractive than the prospect of it having to put it back on again.
The choice the American people need in 2020 is not a window or an aisle seat on a flight to
the same destination. What they need is a different flight to a whole new destination.
That destination is social and economic justice at home and multipolarity abroad.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
...If you bomb Syria, do not admit you did it to install your puppet regime or to lay a
pipeline. Say you did it to save the Aleppo kids gassed by Assad the Butcher. If you occupy
Afghanistan, do not admit you make a handsome profit smuggling heroin; say you came to protect
the women. If you want to put your people under total surveillance, say you did it to prevent
hate groups target the powerless and diverse.
Remember: you do not need to ask children, women or immigrants whether they want your
protection. If pushed, you can always find a few suitable profiles to look at the cameras and
repeat a short text. With all my dislike for R2P (Responsibility to Protect) hypocrisy, I can't
possibly blame the allegedly protected for the disaster caused by the unwanted protectors.
"... Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs. ..."
"... even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation. ..."
"... On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure. ..."
"... To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time. ..."
Iran's downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another
flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a
potential conflict between the two nations? Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the
New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran,
but then changed his mind.
Let's start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which
is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by
a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could
possibly occur by definition.
Now, let's take a look at some of the details. The difference between a 'strike' and an
'operation' is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and
equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an
entire air operation.
Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning
to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It's worth
pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military
personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.
Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as
possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of
any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a
minimum, but for the US it's more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.
The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to
avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air
defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of
the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.
Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small
capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn't
end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a
very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.
There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran's
military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely
destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.
To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have
the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and
Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb
Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country's economy and infrastructure step by step.
However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn
out to be too high.
For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range
ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait,
and the UAE.
Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to
assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive
fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence
agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered.
Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot
down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.
On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the
antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their
hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.
If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and
would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that's the lowest
estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.
To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale
ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both
regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership
of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping
tight control over the entire country at the same time.
For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller
than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the
US has achieved next to nothing.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... It is utterly bizarre to hear people who believe Trump is unfit to lead seem disappointed that he isn't taking us to war. ..."
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove" advisors? ..."
"... If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his 10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker. ..."
"... Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine - first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he hears on Fox News to start it all over again. ..."
"... "It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster." ..."
"... the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the Constitution. ..."
"... And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con. ..."
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of his
own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is
quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the first
place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian air space
(or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future. For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk"
advisors are getting closer and closer to hitting pay dirt. By the way, who are his "dove"
advisors?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine
- first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again.
But just because on this pass he happened to randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're
supposed to congratulate him for finally "becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is
the contortions his supporters put themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to
everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article is
crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President," is
a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used when
Trump bombed Syria for the first time.
He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their
restraint (on the contrary, they have created a crisis for no good reason and have brought us
to the brink of war as a result) so much as he's criticizing the media for its
warmongering.
The media is actually trying to bait the President into a unilateral act of war against
another country that hasn't attacked us and couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop
routine Trump appears to be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm Bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated
in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper
place would be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this time.
(And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and kill
and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
"... This is a crisis of his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it. ..."
"... The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will change his mind after about the same amount of reflection. ..."
"... "If Trump continues to break with this pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would be a truly presidential act." ..."
...This Administration's handling of Iran, as compared to the last, is anything but stupid.
Unless, of course, you're of the opinion we should be going to war, and you're pissed that
this President made the right decision at the right time. Nice try, because thinking the
way you are is stupid.
No matter how laudable averting war is, the fact is that we would have never been in this
situation if Trump had not unilaterally abandoned the Iran deal. This is a crisis of
his own making and he should get kudos for not making it any worse, but that's it.
The author seems to think this was some kind of well-considered decision, while Trump
is quoted as saying he "thought about it for a second". He could, and almost certainly will
change his mind after about the same amount of reflection.
I don't know. Maybe a wise president would not have appointed Bolton and Pompeo in the
first place. Nor would a wise president have had a $130 million drone flying over Iranian
air space (or right on its border).
Yes, Iran dodged a bullet in this instance. So did our country. Maybe if Trump gets
enough positive reinforcement from his last-second audible, he'll be less inclined to "cock
and load" the American military in the future.
For my part, I'm starting to think his "hawk" advisors are getting closer and closer to
hitting pay dirt.
Well, this article vanquished my very recent admiration for Michael Brendan Dougherty,
acquired by way of Mr. Dreher.
"articulates a classical Augustinian just war argument ..."
That's like claiming Mrs O'Leary's cow that kicked over the lantern and burned Chicago
to the ground was articulating the finer points of preventing forest fires originated by
Smokey the Bear.
Do the writers here do a little physical stretching before contorting yourselves into
pretzel shapes trying to justify every lantern Trump kicks over into poles of dry hay as he
goes along?
Of course conservative Christians hate pulling back from imminent, and possibly nuclear
war. When haven't they in American history?
Please, he didn't even know about projected casualties until ten minutes before the attack
was to be launched, no doubt because he's too lazy smart to attend planning
meetings/briefings.
If anyone believes the reason Trump gave for calling off the strike, I refer them to his
10,000+ lies since he's been in office. My guess is he changed his mind watching
Tucker.
Trump staggers through his presidency like a pinball bouncing its way through the machine -
first this side, then that side, then being flipped back up to the top by a comment he
hears on Fox News to start it all over again. But just because on this pass he happened to
randomly bounce off of a "good" bumper, we're supposed to congratulate him for finally
"becoming President". The only thing bizarre here is the contortions his supporters put
themselves through to try to deny what is obvious to everyone else.
If I go to my neighbors front yard with a gun, point it at their house, then don't shoot, I
am not practicing restraint. I should be arrested for brandishing a firearm. This article
is crop.
Lighten up, folks. Obviously, Antle's headline, "The Night Donald Trump Became President,"
is a play on the same words that a lot of talking heads (not just unreconstructed
neoconservatives like Bill Kristol, but "mainstream" centrists like Fareed Zakaria) used
when Trump bombed Syria for the first time. He's being facetious, not serious. He isn't
praising Trump or his "B-Team" for their restraint (on the contrary, they have created a
crisis for no good reason and have brought us to the brink of war as a result) so much as
he's criticizing the media for its warmongering. The media is actually trying to bait the
President into a unilateral act of war against another country that hasn't attacked us and
couldn't threaten us even if it did.
"It does not require Nostradamus-like
skills to anticipate how the good cop, bad cop routine Trump appears to
be trying with Bolton in particular could end in disaster."
At this point, I am almost afraid to check the latest news-with tapeworm bolton, it is a
matter of time before the situation blows up.
Re: "If Trump continues to break with this
pattern, however, it will be less celebrated in Washington than it would
deserve to be. Putting the unelected hawks in their proper place would
be a truly presidential act."
However, note that Trump refuses to concede any Imperial authority to wage war that
illegally violates the Constitution. He just chose not to start a war with Iran - this
time. (And also note that the Pentagon is always happy to oblige the Imperial President and
kill and destroy without question.)
So the entire U.S. foreign policy architecture remains hyper-busted. I.e., An Imperial
President, a feckless Congress that has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities, and
Pentagon Brass who think that they swore an oath to be mindless automatons obeying the
illegal orders of the Imperial President rather than being defenders of the
Constitution.
And Tucker Carlson aside, the MSM, sycophantic lapdog of the Pentagon, is still all in
to the illegal and unconstitutional Warfare State con.
This type of article is the reason I read The American Conservative. Thank you for
addressing this important issue from a cautious and realistic perspective.
Although Donald Trump and I are on opposite sides of the fence on nearly every issue, I
do prefer his restrained foreign policy instincts to the hawkish ones of Hillary
Clinton.
Goodness you people and your Nobel prize obsession. The last guy got one he didn't deserve
so I should get one too. Whether the decision was presidential or not is hinged on motive
in my view.
If it was an assessment that if our drone did in fly over US airspace, then it
represented a legitimate target for Iran - then certainly critical thinking as expressed
has some merit to sound management.
If the matter was decided on the messiness of conflict and calculating one's political
carreer, the level of sound management is simply not a factor.
THIS is what white supremacy looks like: Punish Iran because one day in the far off future
they may develop an atomic bomb but gift Israel $3 billion a year while it harbors hundreds
of nukes. Meanwhile, pat head choppers like Saudi Arabia on the head -- As long as they
buys billions in US weapons and force nations to use US dollars to buy oil.
Do you realize that Iran is an Aryan nation, which would make them white? Israel is a
Jewish nation, which most white supremacists hate. And Saudi Arabia is an Arab country,
which would not make it a white country.
So how in the world is this what white supremacy looks like?
We must not let President Trump, John Bolton or any member of the State Department pull us
into war with Iran. Now, I've introduced a bill called the "No More Presidential Wars
Act" to stop Trump -- and all Presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike -- from pulling
us into a war without approval from Congress.
"... Remember how "rich" Trump was "self funded" and therefore could not be influenced by contributions?"! Well $259 million bought him. Those funds came from Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus, donors who have made no secret of their desire for the United States to destroy the Islamic Republic. Adelson, who alongside his wife Miriam are the biggest donors to Trump and the GOP, contributed $205 million to Republicans in the past two cycles and reportedly sent $35 million Trump's presidential bid. ..."
"... Trump has diverted American resources to granting Sheldon Adelson's every wish for a FOREIGN nation. Trump has NOT fulfilled his DUTY and Promises to the American People as he has focused on Israel. Trump is attempting to embroil this Nation in a foreign war through blatant LIES. FIRST Trump claims scuba divers planted 90lb. Limpet mines 12 feet up the side of a ship while bobbing in the water! ..."
"... SECOND Iran shoots down US drone. I am surprised more are not shot down. Usually the US uses them against defenseless enemies, but that is apparently not the case with Iran. What if Russia starts flying drones over OUR coastline? ..."
"... CURE: Trump, Adelson, Kushner, Pompeo, Bolton, need to go on trial for treason. ..."
It is the ADELSON Administration . .... Bought and PAID FOR.
Remember how "rich" Trump was "self funded" and therefore could not be influenced by
contributions?"! Well $259 million bought him. Those funds came from Sheldon and Miriam
Adelson, Paul Singer and Bernard Marcus, donors who have made no secret of their desire for
the United States to destroy the Islamic Republic. Adelson, who alongside his wife Miriam are
the biggest donors to Trump and the GOP, contributed $205 million to Republicans in the past
two cycles and reportedly sent $35 million Trump's presidential bid.
Sheldon Adelson BRIBED Trump and the Republicans .... This does not include the "favorable
and unusual" so-called loans granted Kushner and ?Trump? who is notorious for being in
financial difficulty and is desperately hiding his taxes.Trump has lots of energy for
defending his tax returns but very little for defending Our borders. Trump's lawyers will
appeal and fight this tooth and nail for his Taxes.
But when some P.O.S. "judge" treasonously
rules against defending this Nation's borders from Invaders Trump just shruggs and submits.
Makes empty threats about where to put the Invaders, and goes back to putting ISRAEL
FIRST.
63,000 American Citizens have been murdered by ILLEGALS since 9/11.... and tRUMP is worried
about Iran because Israel TOLD HIM TO. tRUMP is pissing all over Americans ..... so, yes,
there IS TRUTH to that dossier.
Trump has diverted American resources to granting Sheldon Adelson's every wish for a
FOREIGN nation. Trump has NOT fulfilled his DUTY and Promises to the American People as he
has focused on Israel. Trump is attempting to embroil this Nation in a foreign war through
blatant LIES. FIRST Trump claims scuba divers planted 90lb. Limpet mines 12 feet up the side
of a ship while bobbing in the water!
SECOND Iran shoots down US drone. I am surprised more are not shot down. Usually the
US uses them against defenseless enemies, but that is apparently not the case with Iran. What
if Russia starts flying drones over OUR coastline?
America -- "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you .... MOMMY!
Iran HIT ME!".
Why would we be SPYING on open water??? The debris was in Iranian territory ..... it did
not WALK there.
CURE: Trump, Adelson, Kushner, Pompeo, Bolton, need to go on trial for
treason.
"... If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk. ..."
"... Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald. ..."
"... That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames. ..."
"how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric
regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits
of Hormuz"
Oh, about 12 hours, there or thereabouts. That is Iran's "Trump card". If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token
sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit
down and talk.
Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with
everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald.
That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in
flames.
"... Every interview Bernie does is a minefield of loaded questions and false dichotomies. No other candidate faces interrogation like Bernie does. ..."
"... If you are planning to vote for a centrist in the democratic primary, it means that you are unable or unwilling to learn from past mistakes. ..."
"... Compare this to other Democratic Face the Nation low ball interviews. You can see who the MSM really hates ..."
Margaret Brennan sat down with 2020 presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders on the
campaign trail in Columbia, South Carolina.
... ... ...
---
"Face the Nation" is America's premier Sunday morning public affairs program. The broadcast is
one of the longest-running news programs in the history of television, having debuted November
7, 1954 on CBS. Every Sunday, "Face the Nation" moderator and CBS News senior foreign affairs
correspondent Margaret Brennan welcomes leaders, newsmakers, and experts to a lively round
table discussion of current events and the latest news.
Bernie always gets grilled harder than any other candidate during these interviews. They
always give Bernie the tough questions about policy and just lob softball questions at people
like Biden and Kamala.
Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of the country." Bernie you ain't seen nothing yet, if those slavering
imbeciles have anything to do with it. The costs [including long term costs] of the
Iraq/Afghan wars [still ongoing] are estimated at 6 Trillion dollars. Here is what just one
Trillion dollars looks like http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
"Yet the nation's longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In
addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will
cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans
health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we
should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war".
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
Tucker ,,,, you are kind of restoring what little faith i had left of the mainstream press
with this upload its not mutch and it has a long long way to go , but it is a start thank the
guy in the sky
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
I just upvoted a Tucker Carlson video. I am baffled. BTW, Jimmy Dore said TC's more
deserving of a Noble peace prize then Obama, who, of course, never should have had one in the
first place. They should be able to take them back, though it means that most of them should
be returned.
Tucker i disagreed with u in past on many things but i genuinely am impressed with your
stance and your moral compass on wars and learning from the past.. kudos to u on this
one...it shows we can disagree on many policies yet still respect and support one another on
humanity. Glad u worked on Trump on that one.
"... I propose that the Logic of Empire demands that the OBOR be interdicted and become subject to Imperial control...Iran's in the geography...and of course the oil and gas in simply part of the control over Heartland that Empire needs. ..."
"... Needs, because it's in very unstable financial condition. Essentially ketosis is underway, and Empire is in the condition of devouring its own power. ..."
"... The US will have to pay dearly to get their troops out of Afghanistan ..."
"... there is no way to "win" for one party at the cost of other parties. We are in this together. ..."
"This is about China"....not quite. It's about OBOR and Heartland, and the survival of a
corrupt and diseased Empire, or not...
What's missing here, and generally, is any attention to why. Why Iran, why now? What is
grand strategy? Is this vital or optional? Basic questions.
Of course the clowns are ignorant and stupid, how are they related to the grand
strategy?
I propose that the Logic of Empire demands that the OBOR be interdicted and become
subject to Imperial control...Iran's in the geography...and of course the oil and gas in
simply part of the control over Heartland that Empire needs.
Needs, because it's in very unstable financial condition. Essentially ketosis is
underway, and Empire is in the condition of devouring its own power.
The Strategy has zero to do with atomics, except to use them on Iran.
Summary> Iran must submit or be smashed and then submit. It does not matter who's in
charge nominally of Imperial Forces...Failing this, Empire dies.
And yet, Trumpie the clown can't spell "strait"...failed English 101?
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 3:50:42 AM | 149
US have "lost" all wars after WW2 and then they were allied with Russia.
The US don't do old school colonialism (they destroyed the British and French empires) and
local independence goes to the highest bidder. So they have no way to ensure they will profit
after destroying everything (which they are very capable of doing).
Lets look where the US are now after WW2
Latin America: Used to be Cuba only completely outside of US sphere, now is also
Venezuela.
Asia: The US lost the Vietnam war. Vietnam now is very open to Western trade. The US could
have had that right from the start, as Ho Chi Minh started to fight for independence as
"their" guy. China has become the most powerful US competitor spending a fraction of the US
on military.
Europe: Will be Russian/Chinese sphere of influence (Gas, huge market) in the very end - at
least continental Europe. Britain tears itself apart not knowing which way to go.
Middle East: The US lost Turkey for good. Greece has become Chinese/Russian sphere of
influence. Neither Saudi nor Israel make it on any scale of "Western values" or ability to
fight proxy wars. The US may as well join OPEC as an energy producer - real interest in these
countries is marginal at best. Saudi will go the way of their Asian clients. The US will have
to pay dearly to get their troops out of Afghanistan
Of course there may be WW3, the next US president may reverse some counterproductive US
strategies, and a huge crisis may wipe off world markets. But there is no way to "win" for one party at the cost of other parties. We are in this
together.
The worlds absolute largest state sponsor and financier and trainer of Terrorists is the
United States and Israel.. The British usually just helped their enemies enemies but the US
trains anyone who will work for buck..
@ jayc 57 US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal
Yes they did, and now they regret it.
In 2013 Ali Khamenei said: "Certainly, we are pessimistic about the Americans. We do not
trust them. We consider the government of the United States of America as an unreliable,
arrogant, illogical, and trespassing government,"
The JCPOA was not a unilateral deal between USA and Iran, it was a multilateral
deal
That's correct de jure, but not de facto. The US all by itself is leading the current
attack on Iran, despite what the other members might think. Iran has not gotten any
significant support from other JCPOA participants.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 5:10:10 PM |
66
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook...
______________________________________
Brian Hook is a "special" envoy in the sense that the "Special Olympics" are
special.
It is interesting to listen to this speech again in view of Iran crisis, attempt to launch a
regime change in Venezuela and trade war with Chins lunched by Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... McCain and some other Western officials could barely contain themselves in there. They never forgive Putin for that speech. This was the decisive moment relations between the US. and Russia started to deteriorate. ..."
"... The Wikileaks cables showed how aggressively NATO was working to bring in Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance despite what was being said in public during that time. ..."
"... Look at the dirty bitch Victoria Nuland smirking at 11:43 . She knew what the US was about to do in Ukraine. ..."
"... this was the best anti NWO speech ever. The moment I saw it back then I knew Russia will have many problems coming for the NWO scum. You know what happened right? ..."
On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered his keynote speech at the Munich Security
Conference, challenging the post-Cold War establishment. RT looks back a decade to see how
accurate his ideas were.
McCain and some other Western officials could barely contain themselves in there. They
never forgive Putin for that speech. This was the decisive moment relations between the US.
and Russia started to deteriorate.
The Wikileaks cables showed how aggressively NATO was working to bring in Georgia and
Ukraine into the alliance despite what was being said in public during that time.
'The Putin Interviews', where Putin is interviewed by Oliver Stone from 2015 - 2017,
brought me here. This iconic speech was referred to by Oliver Stone in the interviews. The
speech was certainly worth watching and I highly recommend watching 'The Putin Interviews'.
You won't regret it.
I'm not Russian but he is my hero, my President and my dad!!! ^_^ And proud of him. This
memorable speech was one of my favorites! He stood for what he believes in and he stayed true
to it.
Hahahahahahahahaha! You can see the Western leaders here were in a state of profound SHOCK
as they listened to this speech. They thought he was going to kow-tow to the West - and he
did the EXACT OPPOSITE! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
ment-renderer-text-content expanded"> wow awesome speech. words from a outstanding
leader. Acting and standing for true Peace and prosperity. Unlike the UN and NWO whos only
goal is to continue to create terrorism. create fear and drain any communities from being
independent and free from there False saftey taxes and sanctions. not using the world
currency exchange means there unable to falsely influence the world markets
American people should be highly alarmed
at NATO actions , they are inching closer to Russia's borders trying to encircle Russia with
military bases and missiles , this is done in preparation of an attack of the country being
encircled, nato is lying and misleading its citizens and they dont worry about consequence
of such a scenario which surely would trigger the third world war, American people and all nato member citizens should strongly push back against this , we need to consider the outcome
of a nuclear power attacking and invading another nuclear power
Russia would surely use
nuclear weapons to defend its country if overwhelmed, millions could perish in a day, we
have to condemn and protest Nato plans for another world war before its too late, it will be
our families suffering and dying not the elite that is pushing this conflict
Great speech from a great man, a man who truly loves fairness and democracy not the sugar
coated type offered by the west. Did anyone notice that by 9:50 into his speech, a good
number of them wanted out? McCain at some point couldn't even bring himself to look at Putin,
What a pitiful fellow McCain is!!!!!
This speech needs to be re-posted . and disseminated .. it is very very current , more than
ever... there is a section of world who simply do not know .
10 years passed and what Putin said back then is exactly what's happened and is
still happening. I have great respect for Russia and I have no respect for US and their
allies. Whole NATO sucks, is obsolete and is acting exactly like world's terrorists!
I have no respect for the majority of the American people as they are as responsible for the wars their corrupt capitalism
controlled US government has done. American people went along with it for all these decades and they fought these wars for
them anyway, they did not care if they bully other nations, kill innocent people...
this was the best anti NWO speech ever. The moment I saw it back then I knew Russia will
have many problems coming for the NWO scum. You know what happened right?
Existence of financial derivatives on oil (aka "paper oil") and the size of trade involving
them in world markets changes the whole situation. The USA can shoot themselves in a foot even if
the US armed forces would be able to completely destroy the Iraq army air defenses and bomb
strategic targets.
There seems to be a common theme in many articles that 'shock and awe' military strikes
will force Iran's leaders into unconditional surrender. While the US has the capability to
do this on its own, for political reasons the US is actively seeking coalition partners.
The reality is it doesn't matter how many partners the US can convince to attack Iran. No
matter how sophisticated Iran's cyber, missile or air defenses are, based on simple
logistics Iran will eventually lose a shooting war against the US and any coalition
partners. Iran knows this.
The real question when the bombing starts, is not the number of casualties that Iran can
inflict on her enemies but how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of
its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia
and the Straits of Hormuz.
Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time that its forces
can disrupt oil shipments to China, India, Japan, South Korean and Europe to break the
supply chains to the US. Currently the US imports/exports over 5T dollars per year, even
impacting this by only 20% should cause the trillions in derivatives to crush the world
economy. Given that war should always be the option of last resort is there still the
possibility for negotiations?
Iran has too many examples of the promises of US and West not matching our actions. The
current sanctions are crippling the economy and backing Iran into a corner. No matter what
Iran does what guarantees can be provided that sanctions won't be reapplied. Absolutely
none. The criteria constantly change. There is an old saying in martial arts, in a fight an
opponent with no way out is far more formable than an opponent who can walk away.
Even a wide scale nuclear attack that wipes out a third of Iran's citizens in the ten
major cities and a majority of the armed forces probably won't succeed. Once nuclear
weapons are used, Iran's leaders are no longer constrained to any regional targets. If
Russia and China jump in to the fray then it could get real, as in WWIII awfully quickly.
Even without Russia and China getting involved, Iran's leaders just might consider 30M or
more deaths acceptable if her enemies are crushed. There is precedent for this. Estimates
put Russia's losses due to all causes in WWII at 25-30M people, and Russia called it a
win.
So all the babble that Iran will fold in the face of 'shock and awe' is naïve. Iran
can't win a shooting war but if can lose with style. To think that Iran can be defeated
like Iraq is folly. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a local power, Iran is a regional one. Iran
is too large to be attacked by ground forces. That leaves airpower. Once the bombs start to
drop, all Iranian combat units have a minimum of 72 hours of war supplies. If the US and
the coalition partners don't achieve, 'unconditional surrender' in the initial strikes then
all bets are off for keeping the conflict local.
Many articles claim the tanker and pipeline attacks of the past two weeks are 'false
flags'. Hopefully they were, because if they were not, then Iran has just proven it's ready
and has the capability to strike anywhere in the region. Iran is quickly running out of
options and has no choice but to continue escalating regional tensions until something
gives. We are indeed living in interesting times.
"... Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of warfare. ..."
MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to ask you about Iran. Was President Trump's decision this week
to call off that strike the right one?
SEN. SANDERS: See, it's like somebody setting a fire to a basket full of paper and then
putting it out. He helped create the crisis and then he stopped the attacks. The idea that
we're looking at the president of the United States who number one, thinks that a war., with
Iran is something that might be good for this country.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He was just doing a limited strike of just a limited strike.
SEN. SANDERS:Oh, just a limited strike- well, I'm sorry. I just didn't know that it's
okay to simply attack another country with bombs just a limited strike- that's an act of
warfare.
So two points. That will set off a conflagration all over the Middle East. If you
think the war is either- the war in Iraq, Margaret was a disaster I believe from the bottom
of my heart that the war- a war with Iran would be even worse, more loss of life never ending
war in that region, massive instability. We're talking about, we have been in Afghanistan now
for eighteen years. This thing will never end. So I will do everything I can number one to
stop a war with Iran. And number two here's an important point. Let's remember what we
learned in civics when we were kids. It is the United States Congress, under our
Constitution, that has warmaking authority not the president of the United States. If he
attacks Iran in my view that would be unconstitutional.
Sanders is wrong, Trump has already attacked Iran -- the sanctions are illegal as was his
violation of JCPOA. Unfortunately, those facts are difficult to explain to a
nation--particularly BigLie Media mavens--who've allowed the Outlaw US Empire's illegal
unilateralism to go unchallenged since 1945. That the USA continuously breaks the law has
never surfaced as a--MAINSTREAM-- political issue, although historians like the late William
Blum, myself, Chomsky, Zinn, and a host of others do and have quite often.
IMO, the #1 problem with every POTUS wannabe is their inability to attack and call-out
that longstanding historic fact, although Gabbard's come close--I wrote her team and
explained the entire historical background to the current state-of-affairs.
Sanders speaks of what the Constitution says. But he ignores or is illiterate regarding
the Supremacy Clause and how it alters/adds to/amends what it says--in this case, what the UN
Charter did to legally/constitutionally curtail traditional US behavior of Unilateralism -- it
cannot be done any longer: PERIOD! Rouhani was 1000000000% absolutely correct in pinning the
tail on the US Donkey, just as I've done continuously since I figured it out in the 1980s
while I was still in the US Army Reserves and trying to determine what constituted an illegal
order.
My argument's not with you, Stever; it's with Sanders and the entire Federal Government.
But at least Sanders is articulating a small part of the overall argument, which has waited
too long to be done.
"... The massive student-debt jubilee would be financed with a tax on Wall Street: Specifically, a 0.5% tax on stock trades, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a .005% tax on derivatives trades. ..."
"... By introducing the student-debt plan, Sanders has outmaneuvered Elizabeth "I have a plan for that" Warren ..."
In his latest attempt to one-up Elizabeth Warren and establish his brand of "democratic
socialism" as something entirely different from the progressive capitalism practiced by some of
his peers, Bernie Sanders is preparing to unveil a new plan that would involve cancelling all
of the country's outstanding $1.6 trillion in student debt.
The massive student-debt jubilee would be financed with a tax on Wall Street:
Specifically, a 0.5% tax on stock trades, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a .005% tax on
derivatives trades.
Additionally, Sanders' plan would also provide states with $48 billion to eliminate tuition
and fees at public colleges and universities. Thanks to the market effect, private schools
would almost certainly be forced to cut prices to draw talented students who could simply
attend a state school for free.
Reps Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Pramila Jayapal of Washington have already signed on to
introduce Sanders' legislation in the House on Monday.
The timing of this latest in a series of bold socialist policy proposals from Sanders -
let's not forget, Bernie is largely responsible for making Medicare for All a mainstream issue
in the Democratic Party - comes just ahead of the first Democratic primary debate, where
Sanders will face off directly against his No. 1 rival: Vice President Joe Biden, who has
marketed his candidacy as a return to the 'sensible centrism' of the Democratic Party of
yesteryear.
By introducing the student-debt plan, Sanders has outmaneuvered Elizabeth "I have a plan
for that" Warren and established himself as the most far-left candidate in the crowded
Democratic Primary field. Hopefully, this can help stall Warren's recent advance in the polls.
The plan should help Sanders highlight how Biden's domestic platform includes little in the way
of welfare expansion during the upcoming debate.
My federal student loan monthly statement says I don't have to make a payment. I don't
qualify for any forgiveness because I'm responsible. Nonetheless, I pay the loan every month.
The balance goes down but every month it's still the same story.
I have to imagine the provider prefers students to see that it says zero dollars owed this
month with the hope that they don't pay because it says 0 dollars owed, default, and rack up
a bunch of fees and interest that the student doesn't see in the fine print.
The provider can then get paid by the taxpayer no questions asked. Much more profit and
payment is significantly faster.
Education costs are in the stratosphere 'because' of conversion of univeristires into
neoliberal institution. Which mean that the costs will skyrocket even more.
Somebody once said: If the neoliberal government took over management of the Sahara
desert, in five years, there would be a shortage of sand.
The only way to rein in neoliberals in government is to stop giving them so damned much
money...
The guaranteed student loan program created a mechanism that increases the price of
education. Before the program, graduates could expect 10 times the cost of a years' tuition.
Now, they'de lucky to get one year. The Americans were pushed out of this business and the
UN-Americans replaced them. This goes on for decades until the marks realized that they've
been screwed. ... The victims are in full support since they've been systematically dumbed
down that it seems like a good idea. It's not. This is a bailout of a failed neoliberal
institution.
Establishment comedian Bill Maher warned that if 2020 Democrats run "a campaign based on reparations and concentration camps"
it will be "very hard to win the election" against President Trump.
Listen, in the computer age, I can find FACTS in seconds. Here are some FACTS ! ------------------------------------------ Trump says he will create 25 million jobs,--REALLY ??? -5 GOP presidents have NOT created 25 million jobs in 57 YEARS ! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clinton created almost as many jobs as 5 GOP presidents. Let's cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases
in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party since 1961-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Republicans---
Richard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobs Gerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobs Ronald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobs George H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobs George W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobs ---Total:-------------- Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidents
-Democrats---
John F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobs Lyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobs Jimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobs Bill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobs Barack Obama: Increase of 14,332,000 jobs
--- Total: Increase of 56.3 million jobs. --
------------------------------------------------------ It is a fact of history that nine of the ten economic recessions since 1953, when Dwight D.
Eisenhower became President, have come under Republican Presidents as follows:
July 1953 to May 1954–Eisenhower
August 1957 to April 1958–Eisenhower
April 1960 to February 1961–Eisenhower
December 1969 to November 1970–Nixon
November 1973 to March 1975–Nixon/Ford
January 1980 to July 1980–Carter (Democrat)
July 1981-November 1982–Reagan
July 1990-March 1991 -- HW Bush
March 2001-November 2001–W Bush
December 2007-June 2009–W Bush/Obama–last five months under Democrat
----
The longest recessions were under W Bush and Obama; Reagan; and Nixon/Ford, with the
unemployment rate reaching 10 percent, 10.8 percent, and 9 percent respectively in those
recessions. The shortest recession was under Jimmy Carter, six months in 1980, but the only
Democrat to have a recession begin while in office, and suffered at the polls partially on that
fact, that it was in an election year!
Eisenhower had three recession periods, while Nixon had two, and W. Bush had two. ----------- http://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=26206 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
When conservatives/neoliberals/GOP are in charge the economy and jobs GO TO SHIT -- !!!
Warren reintroduced the Refund Equality Act, a bill that would allow same-sex couples to
amend past tax returns and receive refunds from the IRS.
"The federal government forced legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts to file
as individuals and pay more in taxes for almost a decade," Warren said in a statement.
"We need to call out that discrimination and to make it right - Congress should pass the
Refund Equality Act immediately."
"... Sanders supported Clinton too in the general election. He also actively campaigned for her. ..."
"... apples and oranges, Thomas and Herr, Would you care to defend her "posture" on NATO? Ditto, for her contributing to the "Evil Vlad" narrative? Israel?? Wiki: Warren states she supports a two state solution, but she believes Palestinian application for membership in the UN isn't helpful.[63] ..."
"... "Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say?" You are going to be told this a million times before 11/20 but that's bullshit. It's been well established that she didn't get any job because of that. ..."
"... "In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman." ..."
"... With Warren and Sanders talking complete sense about our oligarchy, the electorate's expectations are going to improve. Nothing could be better. We've been asked to settle for Republican-lite servants of mammon for too long in the Democratic Party and that's going to change. ..."
"... Hell, if we're going to fine them for data breaches, do we start with the DNC? ..."
"... In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren gained nine points to reach 17% compared to Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%. ..."
"... I keep hearing from the mainstream media that Biden is leading in the polls. But we ought to note that Biden's up against a group including Warren, Sanders, Harris etc who are pushing a progressive policies, and if you take their percentages together, Biden cannot compete. Once one of these progressive takes the lead in the group, and hires all the others as running mate, cabinet members etc, he or she will be unbeatable against both Biden and Trump. ..."
"... The latest of that polling features Sanders and Biden nearly neck and neck as far as approval goes. Funny you don't hear about that on CNN or MSNBC. ..."
"... American voters have spent so long being treated like idiots by politicians and to an even greater extent the press that Warren comes across as something new and interesting by comparison. ..."
"... This election won't be decided by defecting Trump voters. ..."
"... Those who would be swayed by Trump using "Pocahontas" as a slur or would even pay attention to it wouldn't vote for Warren anyway. He's not going to change any minds with it, just rile up his existing sheep. ..."
"... That's a very narrow view of her position on Israel. She also supported the Iran treaty, boycotting Netanyahu's speech to the Senate, called on Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank and to recognize the right of Palestinians in Gaza to peaceful protest – her comments about aggression toward Gaza were about Israeli response to missiles fired by Hamas. I don't mind her having a nuanced response to what is in fact a very complex situation. ..."
"... Nerd used to be just an insult, aimed at anyone more intelligent, thoughtful or better-informed than the speaker. But I think now, like 'queer' and other words, it has been reclaimed and repurposed in a much more positive light. ..."
Clinton said vote for me because I am a woman, Warren says vote for me because I am a potential leader who happens to be a woman.
Good luck to her and the US
Don't get me wrong. I would certainly vote for her, if needed. I believe she's quite green behind the ears on foreign policy and
how inequality is a global issue. Her backing of our entitled neoliberal wife of an ex-president & neocon dismayed me.
Sanders gets the bigger picture on poverty, race, and war/ neocolonialism:
if you wish: MLK Jr's take on "The Three Evils".
apples and oranges, Thomas and Herr, Would you care to defend her "posture" on NATO? Ditto, for her contributing to the "Evil
Vlad" narrative? Israel?? Wiki: Warren states she supports a two state solution, but she believes Palestinian application
for membership in the UN isn't helpful.[63]
In a town hall meeting in August 2014, Warren defended Israel's shelling of
schools and hospitals during that summer's Israel–Gaza conflict, stating that "when Hamas puts its rocket launchers next to hospitals,
next to schools, they're using their civilian population to protect their military assets. And I believe Israel has a right, at
that point, to defend itself". She also questioned whether future US aid to Israel should be contingent on the halting of Israeli
settlements in the West Bank.[64] In addition she defended her vote in favor of granting Israel $225 million to fund the Iron
Dome air defence system.[65]
While the 2020 election feels critical, the 2024 election will decide the future. Like Trump himself, his base is filled with
old people who are still loyal to Ronald Reagan's Republican Party. Old people watch FoxNews, old people vote, old people love
Trump and in 2016, old people decided the election.
Younger people do NOT vote. The younger someone is, the less likely they are to vote. However, young people voted for Obama,
twice, but when Hillary came along, they stayed home and let the old people choose the president.
And then, in 2018 the young voted again and we learned the next generation plans to take this country into the future. If the
young vote in 2020, Trump is toast. If the young stay home, Trump will see a second term.
However, by 2024 the young will assume their rightful place in history and the age of old white men running the country, and
the world will come to an end.
You are making assumptions that old people are idiots. Making assumptions that middle aged people do not exist or are small in
numbers. Trump gets 200 or so electoral votes. He loses. I don't see any case he wins. He is past his 'used by date' even for
Republicans. You loose Tx to the Ds its game over, add PA and OH to the list. It doesn't even matter what crazy FL man thinks.
Don't forget modern geriatric medicine, by which the dinosaurs in the senate and elsewhere in the hardening arteries of the US
body politic will live - and hold ofice - for even longer than Strom Thurmond. They can afford the private medical insurance to
pay for it.
By the way, MeRaffey , I hope you meant to omit to punctuate in your last phrase so that it would read: ... the age
of old white men running the country and the world will come to an end . Your comma has me worried.
Warren/Harris, said it before but it makes sense. I would've preferred Biden to Clinton but I can't see him getting the same turnout
as Warren. Opinions on Trump are now fixed, it's a red herring to worry about "firing up" Trump supporters, they are already as
fired up as they can get. Swing voters are probably going to vote by where the economy is which is out of our control. Ideally
Democrats will be just as fired up as Trumpists, the investigations will suppress their enthusiasm somewhat (though they wouldn't
care if he killed someone so...) and the coming Trump recession will be brought on by his trade wars and the blame will therefore
fall where it should.
Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say? Furthermore,
What exactly is she promising that is any different then any of the other radical leftists running right now? It's all "Free Stuff"
that she's going to make the rich pay for. Um..yeah, that always works out doesn't it? Who needs real math when fuzzy math makes
us believe the combined wealth of the richest Americans will finance all this "free" stuff to say nothing about why so many Americans
feel entitled to the earnings of others. Remember folks, if a politician says 2+2=6 then it must be true.
"Warren lied about her ancestry to circumvent diversity quotas. Why should anyone believe anything she has to say?" You are
going to be told this a million times before 11/20 but that's bullshit. It's been well established that she didn't get any job
because of that.
She claimed Native American ancestry on her application to Harvard, a job she got and it wasn't the first time she played this
card either. But hey, in a political party that loves to change races and genders and expects everyone else to go along with the
charade by all means go ahead and believe what you want to believe.
A lie, see Snopes, see any link you've been given each time you post this lie. She got it on merit.
"In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren's professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in
documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted
resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools. At every step of her remarkable
rise in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman."
With Warren and Sanders talking complete sense about our oligarchy, the electorate's expectations are going to improve. Nothing
could be better. We've been asked to settle for Republican-lite servants of mammon for too long in the Democratic Party and that's
going to change.
The danger, of course, is that in this transition period Biden gets nominated. However much centrists will clamor for voters
to hold their nose and vote for him, that's not an electoral strategy. Trump's best chance of winning is that Biden gets nominated
and the progressive base of the Democratic Party is totally demoralized and lacking energy by late 2020.
After the US public allowed themselves to be hypnotized by Trump's campaign of fatuous lies, empty promises and racist dog whistles,
I doubted the electorate possessed the wit to understand actual policies. Maybe they've finally woken up - time will tell.
Do you understand how elections work? The US public were hypnotized? He lost the popular vote. The fault lies with the Republican
establishment for letting him put the R after his name. Perot ran on essentially the same ticket back in 92 as a third party candidate.
He got 18% of the vote. Had he run as a Republican he could well have won.
Oh dear. The question is, do you know how US elections work? The popular vote is irrelevant. He's the 5th POTUS who lost
the popular vote. Almost 63 million hypnotized dolts voted for him, and he won - that's why he currently resides in the WH
Or neither "hypnotized" nor "dolts." The people I knew who voted for him in North Carolina thought he was an asshole. But they
wanted a conservative Supreme Court for the next two decades and he has delivered that for them. Why do you assume that people
on the right are idiots who don't know what they want? That essential presumption by the left is one of the reasons the left lost
last time.
As one who used to be a Warren supporter, I think she is both patronizing voters and pandering to them. These policies have some
detail, sure, but they don't deal with the consequences that Warren knows very well lurk in the wings and as a result they don't
necessarily make sense.
Her proposal for free college is one example – sounds great, while in reality it would benefit the better-off middle class
at the expense of the most vulnerable students and create a cascade of problems that she has no plans to fix.
Again, fining companies for data breaches? Surely we should fine them *if* they don't immediately report data breaches to their
customers– or maybe if they haven't maintained appropriate data security, although I'd love to see proving that one to a court.
Hell, if we're going to fine them for data breaches, do we start with the DNC?
PS To be clear, I'd still take her in a second over Fat Nixon, I just wish she would pander less and keep her plans to the sensible
and achievable, like her consumer protection bureau, which was a fantastic idea.
Yes, (politely) do you? The fines for HIPAA violation have to do with noncompliance with the act, not with an uncontrollable data
breach. The fines increase on a sliding scale if "willful neglect" has been found (the data were not properly secured) or if the
company delays in reporting a data breach/violation.
Yep - No more old white guys - just being disgusted by Trump is not enough - people want new ideas. EW all the way - with AOC
by her side as well hopefully.
There is nothing Trump fears more than the stigma of being a one term pres - his ego would implode.
Oh, I think he fears going to prison more. Michael Cohen was right – the minute Trump is no longer protected by the presidency
he is going to be facing charges, on tax evasion if nothing else. He will do anything to keep his protection for more years. He's
probably hoping to die in office. (I'd add something to that, but I don't want the Secret Service visiting me!)
The DNC is again placing it's foot on the scale in favor of Biden. I believe that they know Bernie is less likely to win because
of America's irrational fear of the word, "socialism." That's why they put Biden and Sanders on the stage together and pushed
out Elizabeth Warren to the other debate with lesser known and less popular candidates. They do not what her, with her solid plans,
to confront Biden, which would give her a greater boost in the polls and more recognition across the nation.
And who was watching the drawing? Who set up the drawing? Are you saying that there was independent oversight on its setup? Or
do you just take the DNC's word for it?
An inability to believe in coincidence will take you to some strange places. If Sanders and Warren drawn the same night you could
make an argument that Biden was getting set up to look good against the lightweight opponents. Or had Sanders drawn the undercard
that he was being marginalized. Warren will do fine either way. She's a great candidate. Biden isn't.
Biden rides high on President Obama's very long coat tails and Wall Street money even without detailed plans that actually help
the working class and the poor. Bernie is riding high on his honest fight for the working class and the poor.
Elizabeth Warren is rising fast because she not only agrees with Bernie on fighting for the working class and the poor,
but she has detailed plans that are holding up to independent economic scrutiny.
Both Warren and Sanders are honest in their fight for economic justice for all and recognize that the root cause of poverty
and lower middle class' struggle is corporate and wealthy-individual money in politics. They aim to stop it.
Biden claims he can negotiate with McConnell. Obama reached out to McConnell his entire term and drew back a nub. The same
will be true of Biden. For the Republicans and Trumpians, it's all about making Democrats fail no matter how much it hurts the
working class and the poor. Their propaganda network will always assist and sustain them by appealing to the emotions and prejudices
of millions of Americans.
Biden claims he can negotiate with McConnell. Obama reached out to McConnell his entire term and drew back a nub. The same
will be true of Biden.
The same will be true of any Democrat though. There is no way around it except by expanding the powers of the office
of the President, which is what has given Trump such a wide ability to repeal Obama-era policies.
Any Democrat coming up against a Republican Senate will have the same thing happen to them, although I can imagine the Republicans
will hate Biden marginally less than Obama given that he's not black.
There is no way around it except by expanding the powers of the office of the President, which is what has given Trump such
a wide ability to repeal Obama-era policies.
Not the first year of his presidency. His Republican Party controlled Congress and they mostly hated Obama as well. As long
as there was full control of congress, it was easy. It was not easy to remove the ACA because so many Americans liked it.
Now remember that the reasons Trump was appointed to office by the EC, was that enough far-right people voted, together with
the "conservative" media adding to Russia's concentration of propaganda in the key states (stats provided to the Russians by the
Trump campaign) and lifted him just enough to overcome the votes of ~3 million voters. Far more voters are now counting on voting
against him and for the best Democratic candidate.
Progressives do not want to expand the powers of the Oval Office. That is the wrong thing to do. True change for the better
can only come through the ballet box and by educating the voters to exactly why our government is dysfunctional and is replete
with corruption.
I think the most popular message to all voters (from farmers to all others in the working class) is that corporate and private
money in politics is the root cause of government corruption and dysfunction and why the collective wealth of the working class
is steadily redistributing to the uber-wealthy.
The only candidates who what to change the economy to a DEMAND-side economy is are those who actually and loudly advocate it.
But just voting for a progressive president while putting the "conservative" obstructionists (those who maintain the high capacity
money pipeline that runs from Wall Street to their pockets) back into Congress will mean the corruption and dysfunction will continue.
Voters must be replaced by a super-majority liberal/progressive Congress, and with that, Elizabeth Warren will make that change.
I think she also knows that she should've and easily could've been president right now. That strange piece yesterday, talking
about Biden and Sanders standing in front of good female candidates of today: leaving aside a keen Biden getting bullied out of
2016 by Clinton already having things sewn up, Sanders was notoriously late jumping into 2016 because he was waiting on Warren.
If Warren was going to run against the wretched Clinton, he wouldn't. Warren choked so Sanders had to do it himself. Warren must
know that she would have dismantled Crooked H and, seeing as Clinton was the only person who could've lost to el diablo naranja,
Warren would've hammered Trump too. Hence, Warren's got some making up to do and seems very determined.
She's always been my tip. If I was an American, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard in a second but Warren is a strong candidate
and I always thought that her announcing on the last day of last year was going to give her licence to say to other candidates:
"I've been running since 2018!". Warren is the candidate that liars for Clinton tried to pretend that Clinton was. A note of caution,
though: someone posted a Republican survey of exactly four years ago yesterday. Bush was on 22%, Trump was polling 1%. Long time
to go yet.
In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren gained nine points to reach 17% compared to
Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%.
I keep hearing from the mainstream media that Biden is leading in the polls. But we ought to note that Biden's up against
a group including Warren, Sanders, Harris etc who are pushing a progressive policies, and if you take their percentages together,
Biden cannot compete. Once one of these progressive takes the lead in the group, and hires all the others as running mate, cabinet
members etc, he or she will be unbeatable against both Biden and Trump.
There is no sure way of knowing how that would play out. You may be interested in looking at the Morning Consult Poll, which comes
out weekly. If you scroll down to Second Choices... it gives possible outcomes for where votes may fall. According to MC poll
the 2nd choice for Sanders voters is Biden, 2nd for Biden is Sanders, 2nd for Warren is Harris, 2nd for Buttigieg is Biden, and
2nd for Harris is Biden. The poll also shows results for early primary states, if you click on "Early Primary States". https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary
/
Only one question: are these the same polls that were running in ninth 2016? And if they are why do we give a crap what any of
them say since we know they are all horribly wrong?
The latest of that polling features Sanders and Biden nearly neck and neck as far as approval goes. Funny you don't hear about
that on CNN or MSNBC.
It's clear to me that the US public want action, and that means progressive policies. They were conned last time into thinking
Trump represented change. But a Hillary Mark II candidate such as Biden will lead to another Trump victory.
American voters have spent so long being treated like idiots by politicians and to an even greater extent the press that Warren
comes across as something new and interesting by comparison.
There is no doubt that Warren is the best policy brain in the Democratic Party. She also has some good ideas, and some not so
good ones.
Were I American, I would be tempted to vote for her. But her candidacy is hopeless. It may be unfair, but the Pocahontas issue
will kill her bid stone dead in the general election. Trump would be licking his chops over a Warren run.
Those who would be swayed by Trump using "Pocahontas" as a slur or would even pay attention to it wouldn't vote for Warren
anyway. He's not going to change any minds with it, just rile up his existing sheep.
That's a very narrow view of her position on Israel. She also supported the Iran treaty, boycotting Netanyahu's speech to
the Senate, called on Israel to stop colonizing the West Bank and to recognize the right of Palestinians in Gaza to peaceful protest
– her comments about aggression toward Gaza were about Israeli response to missiles fired by Hamas. I don't mind her having a
nuanced response to what is in fact a very complex situation.
Warren has treated voters as adults, smart enough to handle her wonky style of campaigning. Instead of spoon-feeding prospective
voters soundbites, Warren is giving them heaps to digest – and her polling surge shows that voters appreciate the nerdy policy
talk.
If talking sense and enunciating real policies is regarded as "wonky"and "nerdy"in the USA then Warren doesn't have a hope and
Trump is a shoe-in.
Nerd used to be just an insult, aimed at anyone more intelligent, thoughtful or better-informed than the speaker. But I think
now, like 'queer' and other words, it has been reclaimed and repurposed in a much more positive light.
Iran's envoy to the United Nations has called on the international community to end "unlawful destabilizing measures" by the US,
declaring that while Iran does not seek war, it "reserves the right to counter any hostile act."
Iranian envoy to the UN Majid Takht Ravanchi has condemned continuing US provocations that culminated Thursday morning in the
downing of an American surveillance drone by the Iranian air force over Hormozgan province.
The drone "had turned off its identification equipment and [was] engaged in a clear spying operation," Ravanchi confirmed in a
letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, adding that the aircraft had ignored "repeated radio warnings" in order to enter
Iranian airspace near the Strait of Hormuz.
"... Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc. ..."
"... His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising. ..."
"... He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back. ..."
"... Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR. ..."
"... Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers. ..."
"... Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT. Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear WMD's. ..."
"... My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians" as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack. ..."
Whether Generalissimo Bone Spur and President Chief Kaiser of the USA, His Imperial Majesty Donald Trump, actually called for
a stand down of any attack on Iran for the shooting down of a surveillance UAV, or he suddenly realized that such an act would
touch off another unneeded war, is at this point in time a matter of some debate. What is clear however is that his Imperial Majesty
must clean out his current foreign policy and national defense staff (Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel etc.) before another crisis develops.
Otherwise the neocons that currently inhabit the Oval Office chicken hawk coop will be back at fomenting another crisis, which
might actually give them the war they so dearly want. His Imperial Majesty appointed them and he can fire them.
All this narrative fits Trump's modus operandi and his fake Alpha male persona.
Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs
loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc.
His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising.
He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national
boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back.
Trump and US MIC is dangerous of course. But Trump has enough rat cunning to know when he's cornered. All he's done here with
this alleged last minute "call back" is test prove his chain of command is working. (...or is it?)
George V---
As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who the president has or who he is. Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very
least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR.
I cannot see any way that the current irrational sanctions against Iran by the US can be rolled back. All US administrations are
full of hubris and in love with their own imagined gloriously supreme power. The only way they can be rolled back is if Iran offers
some face-saving excuse, which they can't do. They have nothing else to give (Pompeo's 'conditions for international re-alignment'
were essentially a demand for surrender and 'regime' change, probably authored by Maniac Walrus Bolton).
Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted
to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build
the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers.
Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT.
Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear
WMD's.
My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians"
as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack.
Trump will attack, just not yet. There is some new toy they want to try out. Shock and Awe style.
"... Russia, China and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting irrationally. ..."
"... Asians all worried about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows, even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports. Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian strategy. ..."
"... High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that. ..."
"... These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to lie left and right as they do. ..."
"... It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for that war. ..."
"... Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei, Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure reelection. ..."
"... Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only competent officers carrying out their orders. ..."
"... How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation they are counting on the likely result. ..."
"... Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to escalate into targeting US forces. ..."
"... The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now. Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare. ..."
"... Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support ..."
"... This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them. ..."
"... The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust him. ..."
"... Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to respond to these acts of war. ..."
"... They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War. ..."
"... Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002. ..."
"... The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just before election. The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists have done this so many times they're just going through the motions. Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations in a disruptive manner. ..."
"... Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US / Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies." ..."
"... The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never pay its way out. ..."
"... --One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition? ..."
"... -- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that "the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian people, especially Iranian women." ..."
"... Trump thinks that he can f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen. ..."
"... He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an unwinnable war hung around his neck. ..."
"... But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy. ..."
"... John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests. We are not out of the woods. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not the manned P8 aircraft. ..."
"... No, this action was appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people and force a regime change. ..."
"... I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton. ..."
"... Trump should throw his ass and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei. ..."
"... This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran, internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed restraint and have been left with no choice. ..."
"... And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs. ..."
"... PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone. The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses: "Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise." Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed." ..."
"... No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats. ..."
"... Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290 people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson seems like the only realist in the MSM. https://youtu.be/Rf2cS4g0pes ..."
"... It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed in international airspace? ..."
"... Sorry. Here's the ink to Tucker on the Iran war brink. https://youtu.be/3PQW2tMMn2A ..."
"... Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel? Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign) that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat? ..."
"... As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty to him only condescension. ..."
"... Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election goodbye. ..."
I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of Trump. However, if he does not start a war, he
will end (in my mind, at least) as a vast improvement over his immediate predecessors.
Wait a minute. Obama blew it with Libya. However,
-he reached a good deal with Iran
-he didn't bomb Syria when the crossed his "red line" and managed to make it look like the R
controlled Senate made the decision .
-He didn't kiss Bibi's ring.
look at a decent map of this area. the us naval base in Bahrain and air base Qatar are an
Iranian missiles equivalent of firing from lower Manhattan to hit something in Hoboken.
The USA military assets within the Persian gulf have if war breaks out checked into the hotel
California.
It is a logistical nightmare for the Pentagon to protect and resupply in the event of
serious hostilities. Trump surely has been told by real us military professionals the giant
hairball he takes on if he gets into a war with Iran and what it means for us servicemen
station there and throughout the larger middle east.
it is unfortunate that the usa media uses fools like bolton and pompeo as clickbait to
generate revenue fore their business at the expense of whats best for the nation but there it
is... the msm has an agenda which is not at all in the service of the nation.
Yes, a grown up has the right to change a decision. Now, ball is in Khomeini court. Abe asked
him to release some Iranian-American prisoners. If Khomeini wants to lower threshold of
conflict, he can do this gesture without losing any face. Humanitarian action.
Russia, China
and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting
irrationally.
See what kind of other pressure comes down on Iranians. Asians all worried
about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows,
even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. US more able to go it alone with extensive
domestic and other sources.
Khamenei should call Trump and setup a media spectacle of a summit in Switzerland. They
can agree on the same deal as before but as long as the headline says "Iran agrees to not
build nukes", Trump will be happy and Khamenei will be his new best pal.
The same playbook as KJU where nothing tangible is likely to happen except that KJU has stopped nuke & missile
tests that create media hysteria among the Never Trumpers.
IMO, the ball hasn't left Trump's court. How long is he going to tolerate the neocons in
his inner circle who are likely to keep coming up with another casus belli? Can he find some
distance from being Bibi's lapdog? How long is he going to allow his conflicted son-in-law to
meddle in the Middle East?
Trump must calculate the potential of where escalation leads and what a full on war with
Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon means for his re-election campaign. Bernie is
banging the table hard against any military action in Iran. The probability that 50,000 votes
in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin changes sides the next election would be rather
high in the event of an unpredictable full-scale war.
I hope Khamenei takes any offer Trump makes for direct talks. Trump is heavily influenced by
the last person he meets.
I get that Khamenei doesn't want to meet on the premise that the JCPOA is flawed and must
be changed but if he can get an audience on the basis of airing mutual grievances in an
unfiltered environment, it would be an opportunity. Currently, the only people Trump talks to
are Neocon loons. They are innumerable but the FDD seems to be the center of gravity.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet." Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for
getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted with madness.
The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports.
Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on
Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi
desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian
strategy.
High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can
sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They
mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that.
These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have
plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to
lie left and right as they do.
Trump has two choices.
He can pull back on the sanctions and other U.S. violations of JCPOA, or he can start a
full war against Iran that will drown his presidency, put the world economy into a depression
($300/bl oil) and kill many U.S. soldiers.
It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for
that war.
Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei,
Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they
do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent
from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure
reelection.
The Iranians will NOT contact Trump to arrange a meeting. The Iranians will NOT
meet with Trump because the JCPOA is flawed. The Iranians will NOT meet with Trump after a
brief suspension in sanctions to ask for permanent sanctions relief. The Iranians WILL meet
with Trump when he lifts most or all of the sanctions in good faith and rejoins the JCPOA. Is
it just a coincidence that the two ships attacked last week were carrying petrochemicals,
just days after Trump and the US placed sanctions on the largest Iranian petrochemical
producer? What is it about "If we cannot ship oil/petrochemicals, nobody can." that people
don't understand?
Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with
immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians
that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario
for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only
competent officers carrying out their orders.
How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it
cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate
beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the
neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation
they are counting on the likely result.
Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they
have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to
escalate into targeting US forces.
The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is
if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now.
Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to
de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to
understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare.
Publicly, much chest thumping over how Iran has the cowardly Great Satan on the run like a
beaten dog.
Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support and attempted offers of negotiations
with Trump complete with wildly unrealistic demands.
This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other
countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might
be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them.
The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist
donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing
before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust
him.
Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is
anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military
history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to
respond to these acts of war.
They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so
they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening
the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a
masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War.
Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to
negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons
taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002.
The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just
before election.
The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists
have done this so many times they're just going through the motions.
Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations
in a disruptive manner.
Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US /
Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to
fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies."
The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never
pay its way out. Nor was any congressman sage enough, or moral enough, or consistent enough, to
question:
-- International policy pundits & think tankers opine that the greatest guarantee of
peace is economic stability. US is deliberately seeking to destabilize Iran economically. To
what end?
--One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into
the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of
commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade
relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to
take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition?
-- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must
not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that
"the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian
people, especially Iranian women."
When I visited Iran in 2008, "Iranian women" spoke with us and asked if we could please
provide several days' warning before bombing Iran so that they could shelter their children.
Iranian women are some of the toughest you'll meet.
-- what casus belli legitimizes aggression against Iran? Does the USA no longer
subscribe to Just War theory? Several years ago I heard Notre Dame's Mary Ellen O'Connell
discuss Just War theory with respect to Iran -- https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol2/iss2/6/.
US claims to uphold "universal values" ring hollow if such basic steps in framing policy are
ignored.
I deal in facts, not in 'deeply bigoted anti-Americanism'. Interesting that you do not want to recognize those facts. They are right before your
eyes. Just I give it a day or two until the next 'incident' happens.
Trump thinks that he can
f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen.
The question has been raised of my denigration of b. He has a long history on SST He is an
excellent military analyst but the long and so far as I can remember unbroken record of
interpreting EVERY situation as demonstrating the demonic nature of the US causes me to
discount anything he writes on other than military subjects narrowly defined. IMO b's
hostility to the US is a permanent burden that he carries.
The NYT report that Donald Trump ordered the attack and then pulled back is in Jimmy
Carter's "been there done that" territory. Although a New Yorker and he never had to sit in a
gasoline line, Donald Trump, personally and legally, cannot be a one term President. He is a
political savant.
He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an
unwinnable war hung around his neck.
My assumption is that someone in the chain of command
after the surveillance drone was shot down triggered a preplanned strike package that was
stopped once it got to the President for approval. Once again global media moguls strike back
at the nationalist President with Fake News.
But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on
his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate
non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy.
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have
other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests.
We are not out of the woods.
Do we know for sure Trump is the one who initially ordered the strike? Or did someone down
the line interpret the rules of engagement (do I presume correctly that some such would be in
place at the present time?) to allow him or her to order it?
In a situation of this degree of geo-political gravity, nobody in the chain of command
below the CinC would have had the authority or temerity to attempt to order this strike
package.
Neither Pompeo nor Bolton is in the chain of command and attempts by them to order
such attacks would have been rejected by the military. BTW if Trump aborted the strikes only
10 minutes out from the targets he was cutting it too close. Communications can always
fail.
The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not
the manned P8 aircraft. Since it was the Iranians who recovered the wreckage, it will be hard
for the US to maintain the drone was well outside Iranian airspace.
No, this action was
appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people
and force a regime change.
I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that
decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging
in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton.
Trump should throw his ass
and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon
himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is
he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei.
This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran,
internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed
restraint and have been left with no choice.
I don't foresee the Iranians talking to Trump unless and until the US walks back its
sanctions, or Trump himself goes and sits down with the Ayatollah.
And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on
innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs.
PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over
Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone.
The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses:
"Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise."
Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed."
No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS
Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats.
This seems like Professional Wrestling theater where you have the wrestlers hamming it up for
the drama and you wonder what the script is. We only get to see what the camera frames.
I am thankful that our military acknowledges that our President is the Commander-in-Chief. He
commanded, they obeyed. As for all the pundits on all sides, their lack of perspective or
even understanding of history leaves me terrified. There seems to be no understanding of how
Iran is capable of retaliation. An example:
Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided
missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290
people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton
ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million.
Few remember what happened next -- some 8 months later, in March, 1989, Capt. Roger's
spouse Sharon, was in her van stopped at a traffic light in San Diego. A pipe bomb went off
under the back of the van. It was small -- she was unhurt, fortunately, but definitely shaken
up, and the van did catch fire. Despite an intensive investigation, the FBI has never solved
this case.
Never let us become so blind and arrogant in our strength that we are unable to conceive
retaliation by those weaker.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the drone was sent there to be shot down by the
Iranians?
It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do
want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which
were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible
that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by
insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed
in international airspace?
The Americans do seem to really believe that the drone was in
international airspace and no one can make a point that it is to Iran's benefit to target an
American asset in international airspace, especially now when tensions are so high. Iran has
the most to lose in the event of a war with the Americans (no points for guessing which
country has the most to win - Israel). And it is a coincidence that the guy heading the Iran
mission Centre, Michael D'Andrea, was previously the head of drone operations. Or is it a
coincidence?
What would I do if I were a neocon who wants war between the US and Iran, a war that Trump
doesn't. For the start of hostilities, it is essential that both sides, US and Iran, feel
that they are in the right - which of course this situation is. I would create a context, an
excuse/rationale for the start of actual hostilities to the US administration (and of course
for the consumption of the American public). Then I will make the case to Trump that we
should have a 'limited' retaliation. I know that the Iranians will strike back after the
'small scale' bombing. And the Americans have to retaliate to that also. What chances are
there that any retaliation by the Americans will not end up in total war with Iran??
Trump doesn't want war and probably saw through the machinations to get him to agree to a
'small' bombing campaign as retaliation that would surely lead to a larger conflagration and
total war with Iran that the neocons want so much. This particular provocation was
unsuccessful in its aim. However, I think that provocations by the neocons will continue and
at an ever increasing pitch - enabled by the neocons within the administration and the
Israelis. Trump doesn't want war but his administration filled with neocons does and they
will find a way maneuver Trump into it. Israel will fight Iran till the last standing
American in the Middle East.
Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel?
Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign)
that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat?
As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war
with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty
to him only condescension.
Hopefully Trump learns from this near miss of a catastrophe for his presidency. But he has
seemed weak and indecisive on these matters all along. He never fought back for example with
all the tools at his disposal against the attempted coup by law enforcement & the
intelligence agencies.
All he did was constantly tweet witch hunt. He's once again delegated
it to Barr after Sessions sat on it.
He allowed Pompeo & Bolton to bring on fellow neocon
Elliott Abrams who previously screwed up in Nicaragua to attempt another regime change in
Venezuela, which has been another botched example of how everything that the neocons touch
turns to shit.
Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic
tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change
prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election
goodbye.
The US population is sick of endless wars, regardless of party. Trump campaigned on ending
endless wars. If he starts new wars, he is toast with his base. They are already mad at him
about not getting immigration resolved while he had both chambers of Congress.
Here's
a letter he wrote to one of the worst racists that ever served in congress.
Joe Biden's history of dubious stances on racially charged issues came back to haunt him
again Friday with the disclosure of old letters he wrote to a racist Southern senator
thanking him for helping him to fight forced school busing.
"I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help during this week's Committee
meeting in attempting to bring my anti-busing legislation to a vote," Biden wrote on June
30, 1977, to Sen. James Eastland, the Washington Post reported.
Eastland was a plantation owner who believed blacks were an inferior race, and
forcefully fought desegregation throughout his career as a Democratic lawmaker from
Mississippi.
....
But the letters show that Biden's friendship with Eastland began in 1972, before he had
taken office, and that he wrote to him listing his top six committee assignment requests,
with Foreign Relations and Judiciary at the top.
Later, Biden wrote to thank Eastland, saying he was "flattered and grateful" for his
help.
There is no way to take what Biden said in any way but racist. Keeping schools
segregated?
Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and James Eastland were some of his BFFs who he said were good
people.
In a pointed critique of President Trump's foreign policy leadership, Senate Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer stated to members of the press Thursday that "the American people deserve a
president who can more credibly justify war with Iran."
"What the American people need is a president who can make a much more convincing case for
going to war with Iran," said Schumer (D-NY), adding that the Trump administration's corruption
and dishonesty have "proven time and time again" that it lacks the conviction necessary to act
as an effective cheerleader for the conflict.
"Donald Trump is completely unfit to assume the mantle of telling the American people what
they need to hear in order to convince them a war with Iran is a good idea.
One of the key duties of the president is to gain the trust of the people so that they feel
comfortable going along with whatever he says. President Trump's failure to serve as a credible
advocate for this war is yet another instance in which he has disappointed not only his
colleagues in Washington, but also the entire nation."
Schumer later concluded his statement with a vow that he and his fellow Democrats will
continue working toward a more palatable case in favor of bombing Iran.
It is a very lightly written article but it touches on a very sensitive nerve rather hard. I liked the entire premise of this
story and have ome to agree with the writer that Americans hardly care who dies wherever as long as they can find themselves shoping
goods they dont need with the money they don't have and stuffing their mouth with food they don't deserve.
President Donald Trump likes to think of himself as a statesman, an author, an A-level negotiator, but at heart, he's one thing:
an insult comic.
Every day in D.C. is a roast, the insults and belittling nicknames wielded like tiny comedy bullets. And if you haven't seen enough
of the fusillade on Twitter, all you need to do is turn on late night TV. Television comedy has a strange, symbiotic relationship
with the real political world, something between a feedback loop and a funhouse mirror....
"... "the administrator uses social science the way the drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination." Scholars' disinclination to be used in this way helps explain more of the distance. ..."
The evidence suggests that foreign policymakers do not seek insight from scholars, but
rather support for what they already want to do.
As Desch quotes a World War II U.S. Navy anthropologist, "the administrator uses social
science the way the drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination." Scholars'
disinclination to be used in this way helps explain more of the distance.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
The 76-year-old third-time candidate's uneven performance on the stump has unearthed
lingering concerns about whether Mr. Biden has the stamina to beat
Mr. Trump ,
much less to serve as president should he win the election.
... ... ...
Since he entered the race in late April, Mr. Biden has been dogged by the concerns and has
fueled them by keeping a lighter schedule than many of his rivals.
He has skipped some of the multicandidate gatherings and instead put efforts into big-dollar
fundraisers that grassroots activists loathe. Those activists have also been irked that Mr.
Biden won't embrace the left-wingers' top policy priorities.
Mr. Biden had
support from 32% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents - in line with his 33%
support from last month.
Ms.
Warren , meanwhile, is now at 15% - up 5 points from last month - and Mr. Sanders was at 14%
support.
... ... ...
The Monmouth survey of 306 registered voters who identified themselves as Democrats or
Democratic leaners was taken from June 12-17 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5.6
percentage points.
... ... ...
And a new survey from the firm Avalanche Strategy
found that when the notion of "electability" was taken off the table, Ms. Warren was the top choice of
Democratic voters at 21%, followed by Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders at 19% apiece.
The current conflict is about the US hegemony in the region, not anything else.
The analysis is really good. I especially like "The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to
foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender"
That means that Doug Bandow
proposals while good are completely unrealistic.
Notable quotes:
"... Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle East. ..."
"... Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are? ..."
"... Washington did much to encourage a violent, extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn. ..."
"... The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace. ..."
"... Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well. Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran. ..."
"... Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism. ..."
"... Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington, ascendant in Tehran. ..."
"... Europeans also point to Bush administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War. Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response. ..."
"... Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the mother of all Mideast conflagrations. ..."
"... In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions, requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires a freer society. ..."
Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war
against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the
invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet
state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle
East.
Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded and maimed U.S. personnel, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and
millions of Iraqis displaced. There was the sectarian conflict, destruction of the historic Christian community, the creation of
Al Qaeda in Iraq—which morphed into the far deadlier Islamic State—and the enhanced influence of Iran. The prime question was how
could so many supposedly smart people be so stupid?
Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the
nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war
even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are?
The Iranian regime is malign. Nevertheless, despite being under almost constant siege it has survived longer than the U.S.-crafted
dictatorship which preceded the Islamic Republic. And the latter did not arise in a vacuum. Washington did much to encourage a violent,
extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined
to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn.
In 1953 the United States backed a coup against democratically selected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Washington then aided
the Shah in consolidating power, including the creation of the secret police, known as SAVAK. He forcibly modernized Iran’s still
conservative Islamic society, while his corrupt and repressive rule united secular and religious Iranians against him.
The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran,
triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue
subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons
employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace.
Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership
with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush
administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well.
Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran.
As Henry Kissinger reportedly once said, even a paranoid can have enemies. Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that
average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently
triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism.
The hostile relationship with Iran also has allowed Saudi Arabia, which routinely undercuts American interests and values, to
gain a dangerous stranglehold over U.S. policy. To his credit President Barack Obama attempted to rebalance Washington’s Mideast
policy. The result was the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It provided for an intrusive inspection regime designed
to discourage any future Iranian nuclear weapons program—which U.S. intelligence indicated had been inactive since 2003.
However, candidate Donald Trump had an intense and perverse desire to overturn every Obama policy. His tight embrace of Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored the advice of his security chiefs in denouncing the accord, and the Saudi royals,
who Robert Gates once warned would fight Iran to the last American, also likely played an important role.
Last year the president withdrew from the accord and followed with a declaration of economic war. He then declared the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps, a military organization, to be a terrorist group. (Washington routinely uses the “terrorist” designation
for purely political purposes.) Finally, there are reports, officially denied by Washington, that U.S. forces, allied with Islamist
radicals—the kind of extremists responsible for most terrorist attacks on Americans—have been waging a covert war against Iranian
smuggling operations.
The president claimed that he wanted to negotiate: “We aren’t looking for regime change,” he said. “We are looking for no nuclear
weapons.” But that is what the JCPOA addressed. His policy is actually pushing Tehran to expand its nuclear program. Moreover, last
year Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech that the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian, who spent more than a year in
Iranian prison, called “silly” and “completely divorced from reality.”
In a talk to an obsequious Heritage Foundation audience, Pompeo set forth the terms of Tehran’s surrender: Iran would be expected
to abandon any pretense of maintaining an independent foreign policy and yield its deterrent missile capabilities, leaving it subservient
to Saudi Arabia, with the latter’s U.S.-supplied and -trained military. Tehran could not even cooperate with other governments, such
as Syria, at their request. The only thing missing from Pompeo’s remarks was insistence that Iran accept an American governor-general
in residence.
The proposal was a nonstarter and looked like the infamous 1914 Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was intended to be
rejected and thereby justify war. After all, National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed his policy preference in a 2015 New
York Times op-ed titled: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Whatever the president’s true intentions, Tehran can be forgiven for
seeing Washington’s position as one of regime change, by war if necessary.
The administration apparently assumed that new, back-breaking sanctions would either force the regime to surrender at the conference
table or collapse amid political and social conflict. Indeed, when asked if he really believed sanctions would change Tehran’s behavior,
Pompeo answered that “what can change is, the people can change the government.” Both Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations have recently argued that the Islamic Republic is an exhausted
regime, one that is perhaps on its way to extinction.
However, Rezaian says “there is nothing new” about Tehran’s difficult Iranian economic problems. “Assuming that this time around
the Iranian people can compel their government to bend to America’s will seems—at least to anyone who has spent significant time
in Iran in recent decades—fantastical,” he said. Gerecht enthusiasm for U.S. warmaking has led to mistakes in the past. He got Iraq
wrong seventeen years ago when he wrote that “a war with Iraq might not shake up the Middle East much at all.
Today the administration is using a similar strategy against Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. The citizens of these countries
have not risen against their oppressors to establish a new, democratic, pro-American regime. Numerous observers wrongly predicted
that the Castro regime would die after the end of Soviet subsidies and North Korea’s inevitable fall in the midst of a devastating
famine. Moreover, regime collapse isn’t likely to yield a liberal, democratic republic when the most radical, authoritarian elites
remain best-armed.
... ... ...
More important, Washington does not want to go to war with Iran, which is larger than Iraq, has three times the population, and
is a real country. The regime, while unpopular with many Iranians, is much better rooted than Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Tehran
possesses unconventional weapons, missiles, and allies which could spread chaos throughout the region. American forces in Syria and
Iraq would be vulnerable, while Baghdad’s stability could be put at risk. If Americans liked the Iraq debacle, then they would love
the chaos likely to result from attempting to violently destroy the Iranian state. David Frum, one of the most avid neoconservative
advocates of the Iraq invasion, warned that war with Iran would repeat Iraqi blunders on “a much bigger sale, without allies, without
justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next.”
Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure
on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for
war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington,
ascendant in Tehran.
Carefully calibrated military action, such as tanker attacks, might be intended to show “resolve” to gain credibility. Washington
policymakers constantly justify military action as necessary to demonstrate that they are willing to take military action. Doing
so is even more important for a weaker power. Moreover, observed the Eurasia Group, Iranian security agencies “have a decades-long
history of conducting attacks and other operations aimed precisely at undermining the diplomatic objectives of a country’s elected
representatives.” If Iran is responsible, observed Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, then administration policy perversely
“is rendering Iran more aggressive, not less,” thereby making the Mideast more, not less dangerous
Of course, Tehran has denied any role in the attacks and there is good reason to question unsupported Trump administration claims
of Iranian guilt. The president’s indifferent relationship to the truth alone raises serious questions. Europeans also point to Bush
administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War.
Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war
against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that
the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response.
Other malicious actors also could be responsible for tanker attacks. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, ISIS, and Al
Qaeda all likely believe they would benefit from an American war on Tehran and might decide to speed the process along by fomenting
an incident. Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al
Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the
mother of all Mideast conflagrations.
Rather than continue a military spiral upward, Washington should defuse Gulf tensions. The administration brought the Middle East
to a boil. It can calm the waters. Washington should stand down its military, offering to host multilateral discussions with oil
consuming nations, energy companies, and tanker operators over establishing shared naval security in sensitive waterways, including
in the Middle East. Given America’s growing domestic energy production, the issue no longer should be considered Washington’s responsibility.
Other wealthy industrialized states should do what is necessary for their economic security.
The administration also should make a serious proposal for talks. It won’t be easy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
declared “negotiation has no benefit and carries harm.” He further argued that “negotiations are a tactic of this pressure,” which
is the ultimate “strategic aim.” Even President Hassan Rouhani rejected contact without a change in U.S. policy. “Whenever they lift
the unjust sanctions and fulfill their commitments and return to the negotiations table, which they left themselves, the door is
not closed,” he said. In back channel discussions Iranians supposedly suggested that the U.S. reverse the latest sanctions, at least
on oil sales, ending attempts to wreck Iran’s economy.
If the president seriously desires talks with Tehran, then he should demonstrate that he does not expect preemptive surrender.
The administration should suspend its “maximum pressure” campaign and propose multilateral talks on tightening the nuclear agreement
in return for additional American and allied concessions, such as further sanctions relief.
In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions,
requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational
behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis
and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. Tehran has far greater interest in
neighborhood security than the United States, which Washington must respect if the latter seeks to effectively disarm Iran. The administration
should invite the Europeans to join such an initiative, since they have an even greater reason to worry about Iranian missiles and
more.
Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the
best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires
a freer society. That requires greater engagement, not isolation. Washington’s ultimate objective should be the liberal transformation
of Iran, freeing an ancient civilization to regain its leading role in today’s world, which would have a huge impact on the region.
The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo
is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender. This approach has failed in every case. Washington has caused enormous
economic hardship, but no target regime has capitulated. In Iran, like North Korea, U.S. policy sharply raised tensions and the chances
of conflict.
War would be a disaster. Instead, the administration must, explained James Fallows, “through bluff and patience, change the actions
of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited.” Which requires the administration
to adopt a new, more serious strategy toward Tehran, and quickly.
Douglas Macgregor is right -- Trump have surrounded himself with neocons and now put himself against the wall. Wars destroy
presidency -- George Bush II is not viewed favorable by the US people now, not is Obama with his Libya adventure.
With the amount of derivatives in the US financial system the rise of the price of oil above $100 can produce some interesting
and unanticipated effects.
Notable quotes:
"... PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you. ..."
"... The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats... ..."
"... There's a simple reason for Warren's sudden rise in the polls : the public has an appetite for policy. Of all the Democratic candidates, Warren's campaign has been by far the most ideas-driven and ambitious in its policy proposals. And voters love it. ..."
"... Week in and week out, she has been crisscrossing the country to tell receptive voters her ideas for an ultra-millionaire tax, student debt cancellation and breaking up big tech. She has also weighed in on reproductive rights, vaccines, the opioid crisis and algorithmic discrimination in automated loans. Her bevy of white papers demonstrates that there isn't a policy area Warren won't touch and she isn't worried about repelling anyone with hard-hitting proposals. ..."
"... Better than any other candidate, Warren has articulated a connection between her personal and professional struggles and her ideas, lending an air of authenticity to her campaign. Her backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law School professor – clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and South Carolina. ..."
"... Rule of thumb that is true for all politicians regardless of party. Most of what they promise they will do will never happen and much of does happen does not occur in the way they promised when they campaigned. ..."
n Friday, the Massachusetts senator
Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill to impose mandatory fines on companies that have data
breaches. It was the kind of consumer welfare legislation that in the past would have been
unremarkable. But in an era when Congress has consistently shirked its duty to shield
consumers, the bill stood out.
The legislation capped a week in which Warren surged in the polls. Less than eight months
before the Iowa caucus, Warren is making strides in 2020 primary polls. According to an
NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey of 1,000 adults, 64% of Democratic primary voters in
June were enthusiastic or comfortable with Warren, compared with 57% in March. Fewer of these
voters were enthusiastic or comfortable with Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, who have
lost 11 and six points, respectively, since March.
There's more. In a poll last week of 2,312 registered voters in South Carolina, Warren
gained nine points to reach 17% compared to Biden's 37%. Among 18-34 year olds, Warren is
leading 24% to Sanders' 19% and Biden's 17%.
There's a simple reason for Warren's sudden rise in the polls: the public has an appetite
for policy
There's a simple reason for
Warren's sudden rise in the polls : the public has an appetite for policy. Of all the
Democratic candidates, Warren's campaign has been by far the most ideas-driven and ambitious in
its policy proposals. And voters love it.
Rather than condescend to voters, like most politicians, Warren has treated voters as
adults, smart enough to handle her wonky style of campaigning. Instead of spoon-feeding
prospective voters soundbites, Warren is giving them heaps to digest – and her polling
surge shows that voters appreciate the nerdy policy talk.
Indeed, since Warren declared her candidacy for president, she has been offering policy
prescriptions for our country's most pressing ailments – and she hasn't been
brainstorming in a bubble.
Week in and week out, she has been crisscrossing the country to tell receptive voters her
ideas for an ultra-millionaire tax, student debt cancellation and breaking up big tech. She has
also weighed in on reproductive rights, vaccines, the opioid crisis and algorithmic
discrimination in automated loans. Her bevy of white papers demonstrates that there isn't a
policy area Warren won't touch and she isn't worried about repelling anyone with hard-hitting
proposals.
Better than any other candidate, Warren has articulated a connection between her personal
and professional struggles and her ideas, lending an air of authenticity to her campaign. Her
backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law School professor
– clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and South Carolina.
That sense of reciprocity has turned Warren into a populist rock star. Instead of appealing
to the lowest common denominator among the voting public, she's listening to and learning from
voters in an ideas-driven campaign that doesn't take voters for granted.
The strategy is paying off – and proving wrong the outdated political wisdom that
Americans don't care about the intricacies of government.
In May, Warren traveled to Kermit, West Virginia, the heart of Trump country, to pitch a
$2.7bn-a-year plan to combat opioid addiction.
"Her stance is decisive and bold," Nathan Casian-Lakes
told CBS News . "She has research and resources to back her ideas."
Jill Priluck's reporting and analysis has appeared in
the New Yorker, Slate, Reuters and elsewhere
I've decided that I want to see Warren as President. She is honest and has many good ideas
about the economy and offering a leg up to minorities and the poor. Her integrity is
unimpeachable. I have donated small sums to her campaign. Bernie has not spoken in detail the
way Warren has although his democratic socialism goes in a positive direction. There are many
voters who feel that he is too old. I hope that he will approve Warren as the best candidate
in the running. Biden's moment is long gone. For now I believe that another recession lurks
in the near future and Warren, as a wonk, is the best person to deal with it.
She also does not take a dime of PAC money, which helps keep her mind cleared of hidden
agendas. Because of that, she is the first candidate who campaign I've donated to.
Rule of thumb that is true for all politicians regardless of party. Most of what they promise
they will do will never happen and much of does happen does not occur in the way they
promised when they campaigned.
In the case of Sen Warren she talks a lot of wonderful stuff,
paid by rich people. Expect the same results. The courts will probably shoot down the wealth
tax as described by Warren anyway which means everything she promises just dies.
"... iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take for each side. there are NO international waters here. ..."
"... It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500 homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one wondering what else we are unaware? ..."
"... Iran's Air Defense Force has some really quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense complexes with serious sensors. ..."
"... Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts. Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. ..."
iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR
territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take
for each side. there are NO international waters here.
if oil ships stop transiting for any reason the western economic and banking system
implodes as the notional value of all those trillions in derivatives (oil at least) become
real once the price rises. not a shot need be fired to collapse the western world living
standards and there is nothing the pentagon can do about even IF it could which it CAN'T.
peace is the only sane option IF the west wants to remain upright and obstensibly
solvent.
The Trump administration has to come up with an explanation for this. Otherwise everyone will
believe that that the red phone rang. "Mr. Putin on the line, sir." Another ripe conspiracy
theory waiting in the wings is that Iran turned on some unexpected radar and showed just what
the planes were flying into. Some logical, plausible, and not too embarassing alternative
story is needed. Fast.
Let us hope Trump's alleged caution holds. For the moment, anyway. However, let us also hope
wiser heads prevail in Iran. It seems clear to me (which I do not mistake for assuming I am
automatically correct) that there has been a PATTERN of increased, violent actions coming
from Iran. i.e. increased shelling of US positions, or, near them, anyway, in Iraq. Along
with the tanker attacks and drone attacks, two, I might add. These seem calculated, at the
moment, at avoiding US loss of life. So, they are playing around with us, testing us. This
reflects, to me, ONE kind of thinking in Iran. However, there are other sides there, I
believe.
And in the meantime Trump is, essentially, bereft of support within DC. Unless it be in
the military. One side of the elite community hates Trump, but for the moment, goes along
with him. Trying to push and prod him forward to their ends. The NeoCons and Never Trumpers.
The other side basically loathes Trump and opposes whatever position he is taking.
Reflectively. Thoughtlessly. This leaves him essentially alone. IN DC. He should get out of
the Capital more often. To his Base. Away from the talking heads. In the meantime Iran should
give pause for thought. They may think the world will be on their side, if only to oppose
Trump. But they won't get much support other than soft and meaningless words, if they keep
poking the Bear. And they just might get eaten...hard as a meal as that would be to
digest.
My poorly informed speculation drawing upon my career as a chemist (i.e., no military
training or experience, the navy rejected me when I tried to join the NROTC in 1963) I am
inclined to disbelieve our claims that our drone was in international air space. One
commentator on MoA claimed there is no international air space over the Gulf of Hormuz. The
relevant treaties address only marine access.
It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure
until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500
homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one
wondering what else we are unaware?
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Combined with the possibility that Iran can present convincing evidence that the drone
penetrated their air space, Trump would be in a poor position to defend himself against war
crime charges should he order an attack. Might not play well in the upcoming election
cycle.
As a businessman, he could have decided the rewards of an attack did not justify these
risks.
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Certainly one of major considerations. Unlike Iraq's "integrated" (a propaganda
cliche--antiquated should have been the term), Iran's Air Defense Force has some really
quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense
complexes with serious sensors.
It also has Russian S-300PMU2. In general, Iran is nothing
like Iraq, Libya or Syria before Russia intervened.
I would put Iran's medium range (up to
100 kilometers range and up to 20 kilometers altitude) AD capabilities as robustly good.
And
then, of course, tactical-operational ballistic missiles with an easy reach anywhere in ME
(Qatar rings the bell, among many other) and, finally, who knows how many (very-very many)
and what capability anti-shipping missiles.
Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts.
Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of
Hormuz.
Probably a face saving gesture - can seem tough and reasonable simultaneously. It's shaping
up as de-escalation on both sides for now, which I deduce from recent press releases on
behalf of Iranian authorities saying that they refrained from shooting down a US P-8 plane
carrying 35 people, which was accompanying the unmanned drone which they acknowledge shooting
down. So they're mirroring each other IMO - it's not going to escalate.
Eric Newhill,
IMO,it is the izzies who are pushing for the destruction of Iran, with their BS about Amalek,
their god-given title to Palestine, and their attempts to re-mold the ME in their image. The
presence of Nasrallah&Co. and their rocket forces-mostly supplied by Iran-is the primary
issue. Most of the current ills of the ME can be traced to the izzies. Think Syria.
While there is no doubt that US can pound Iran into the stone age without really working a
sweat, she probably would not have gotten off w/o a few bruises for her pains. In addition,
more importantly in my view, the izzies might have also gotten a few surprises.
My friends were glad to end last night with no emergencies on their watch. We were all very,
very worried.
Ishmael Zechariah
Flying a plane into their territory, getting shot down, and then not attacking and calling it
an opportunity to deescalate. That's rich. The only thing these whole farcical attempt at
diplomacy has proven from the day the deal was denounced as being a bad deal is that those at
the top know little of Iran and Iranians. Nor do we want to know, since virtually every time
I watch TV and they bring on an "expert" to talk about Iran, they are not only not Iranian
but half the time Jewish.
Trump has come out through the usual direct communication channel, saying the reason he
called off a strike was that casualties were certain to occur and thus would not be
proportionate to an unmanned drone--
"On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked
& loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die.
150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it,
not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is
rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more
added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against
the WORLD!" Pres Trump tweet
Yes. Trump is more cool headed than a lot of people give him credit for being.
His actions have nothing to do with him being cool headed. He is very confused man as of
today. But in this particular case we all may be thankful for none other than Tucker Carlson
who, if to believe number of American sources, does advise Trump and that, in itself, is a
really good news for everyone on the planet. In fact, if Trump wants second term, among many
things he ought to do is to remove Bolton and appoint Tucker his NSA. Carlson surely is way
more qualified for this job than Bolton. Come to think about it, Tucker could make a decent
Secretary of the State too.
I've always felt that President Trump is impulsive and that impulsiveness is one of the
things that makes him unfit to be President. My question is not 'did he order airstrikes'. My
question is 'did an adult in the room step in' or 'did he actually change his mind'. I
suspect the answer to that question will break down along the typical partisan lines.
It does make clear that he has no overall plan or strategy in place. These actions
demonstrate that our President is unpredictable. While unpredictability has its own value
(perhaps especially in the political arena) I don't want to see miscalculations creep in when
we are talking about getting involved in a new war in the ME.
I thank Generals Dunford and Selva at the JCS for putting the brakes on Moron Bolton and
SecState Pompous. Particularly General Selva who says protecting oil shipments thru the
Strait is not our job; and who also pushed back hard against escalation in Venezuela in late
April.
The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military
aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in the Strait and its approaches.
That is true elsewhere also. The international legal regime of transit passage exists not
only at the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Dover Strait, the
Bab-el-Mandeb, and the Strait of Malacca.
Looks like impeachment for Russian collusion is off the table, Joe 'foot in mouth' Biden
gets some cover and even Democrats in congress are talking about how the AUMF is outdated.
Fixing the later, well that would take Pelosi allowing some legislation to come up for a
vote.
Prudent move by the President. It is encouraging that he put in play the concept of
proportionality. Although the scale of challenge represented by Hungary in 1956,
Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the Pueblo in 68 exceeded this event, Trump's reasoning in this
situation demonstrated a level of akin sobriety that has all too frequently been lacking in
the course of the last three presidencies. The lunatic fringes will no doubt find some way to
undercut him, the left for their usual obscene political reasons and the neo-cons because
they are neo-cons in service to their 'higher calling' but Trump by now has become accustomed
to the craven antics of former; and hopefully this unfolding will so contrast his reasoning
with the reasoning of his card carrying neo-con advisors that he will realize he needs to
clean house for the next time.
What "challenge" in Hungry? Ike made it clear, in 1944, never mind 1956, where our sphere of
interest was. There was never any doubt in Ike's mind, anyway. And who had enough gravitas
and knowledge to try and talk him out of his views? Czechoslovakia in 1968? Come on...we were
a bit, cough, cough, distracted in 1968. That was never in question either. Pueblo? Come on..
Jack posted an interesting tweet on another thread. It seems there may also be an alternate
explanation on why Trump called off the attacks.
Apparently Iran was informed of the imminent attacks. They responded through Oman &
Switzerland that they wouldn't play ball and any attack would escalate.
It is high time for Trump to eject the neocons from his administration.
There was a palpable lack of enthusiasm for a new war on FOX's programs last night.
IMO unless Trump comes to believe his re-election chances would be enhanced by a new war
or the IRG conducts ops too violent to be ignored he is likely to keep it holstered.
Israel is just another 'settlers" country. It might be successful or it might fail like South
Africa and Rhodesia. The survival of Israel as the settler country hinges on the USA
unconditional support as yet another (stealth) USA state, and the continuation of the role of the
USA as the world hegemon and the center of the global neoliberal empire. . The USA position as
for Israel might eventually change with the collapse of neoliberalism.
One problem that creates negative attitude to Israel around the world (according to
BBC data
only the USA and a couple of African countries having the majority of population that views
Israel positively) is, as one commenter observed, the situation in which "The Children of the
Holocaust survivors, born into Israel, have now become the "Holocaust-ers of Palestine"
When Israeli prime ministers are in trouble, facing difficult elections or a corruption
scandal, the temptation has typically been for them to unleash a military operation to bolster
their standing. In recent years, Gaza has served as a favourite punching bag.
Benjamin Netanyahu is confronting both difficulties at once: a second round of elections in
September that he may struggle to win; and an attorney general who is widely expected to indict
him on corruption charges shortly afterwards.
Netanyahu is in an unusually tight spot, even by the standards of an often chaotic and
fractious Israeli political system. After a decade in power, his electoral magic may be
deserting him. There are already rumblings of discontent among his allies on the far right.
Given his desperate straits, some observers fear that he may need to pull a new kind of
rabbit out of the hat.
In the past two elections, Netanyahu rode to success after issuing dramatic last-minute
statements. In 2015, he agitated against the fifth of Israel's citizens who are Palestinian
asserting their democratic rights, warning that they were "coming out in droves to vote".
Back in April, he declared his intention to annex large chunks of the occupied West Bank, in
violation of international law, during the next parliament.
Amos Harel, a veteran military analyst with Haaretz newspaper, observed last week that
Netanyahu may decide words are no longer enough to win. Action is needed, possibly in the form
of an announcement on the eve of September's ballot that as much as two-thirds of the West Bank
is to be annexed.
Washington does not look like it will stand in his way.
Shortly before April's election, the Trump administration offered Netanyahu a campaign
fillip by recognising Israel's illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, territory Israel seized
from Syria in 1967.
This month David Friedman, US ambassador to Israel and one of the chief architects of Donald
Trump's long-delayed "deal of the century" peace plan, appeared to offer a similar, early
election boost.
In interviews, he claimed Israel was "on the side of God" – unlike, or so it was
implied, the Palestinians. He further argued that Israel had the "right to retain" much of the
West Bank.
Both statements suggest that the Trump administration will not object to any Israeli moves
towards annexation, especially if it ensures their favoured candidate returns to power.
Whatever Friedman suggests, it is not God who has intervened on Israel's behalf. The hands
that have carefully cleared a path over many decades to the West Bank's annexation are all too
human.
Israeli officials have been preparing for this moment for more than half a century, since
the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were seized back in 1967.
That point is underscored by an innovative interactive map of the occupied territories. This
valuable new resource is a joint project of the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem and
Forensic Architecture, a London-based team that uses new technology to visualise and map
political violence and environmental destruction.
Titled Conquer
and Divide , it reveals in detail how Israel has "torn apart Palestinian space, divided the
Palestinian population into dozens of disconnected enclaves and unravelled its social, cultural
and economic fabric".
The map proves beyond doubt that Israel's colonisation of the West Bank was never
accidental, defensive or reluctant. It was coldly calculated and intricately planned, with one
goal in mind – and the moment to realise that goal is fast approaching.
Annexation is not a right-wing project that has hijacked the benign intentions of Israel's
founding generation. Annexation was on the cards from the occupation's very beginnings in 1967,
when the so-called centre-left – now presented as a peace-loving alternative to Netanyahu
– ran the government.
The map shows how Israeli military planners created a complex web of pretexts to seize
Palestinian land: closed military zones today cover a third of the West Bank; firing ranges
impact 38 Palestinian communities; nature reserves are located on 6 per cent of the territory;
nearly a quarter has been declared Israeli "state" land; some 250 settlements have been
established; dozens of permanent checkpoints severely limit movement; and hundreds of
kilometres of walls and fences have been completed.
These interlocking land seizures seamlessly carved up the territory, establishing the walls
of dozens of tightly contained prisons for Palestinians in their own homeland.
Two Nasa satellite images of the region separated by 30 years – from 1987 and 2017
– reveal how Israel's settlements and transport infrastructure have gradually scarred the
West Bank's landscape, clearing away natural vegetation and replacing it with concrete.
The land grabs were not simply about acquisition of territory. They were a weapon, along
with increasingly draconian movement restrictions, to force the native Palestinian population
to submit, to recognise its defeat, to give up hope.
In the immediate wake of the West Bank's occupation, defence minister Moshe Dayan, Israel's
hero of the hour and one of the architects of the settlement project, observed that
Palestinians should be made "to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave – and we
shall see where this process leads".
Although Israel has concentrated Palestinians in 165 disconnected areas across the West
Bank, its actions effectively won the international community's seal of approval in 1995. The
Oslo accords cemented Israel's absolute control over 62 per cent of the West Bank, containing
the Palestinians' key agricultural land and water sources, which was classified as Area C.
Occupations are intended to be temporary – and the Oslo accords promised the same.
Gradually, the Palestinians would be allowed to take back more of their territory to build a
state. But Israel made sure both the occupation and the land thefts sanctioned by Oslo
continued.
The new map reveals more than just the methods Israel used to commandeer the West Bank.
Decades of land seizures highlight a trajectory, plotting a course that indicates the project
is still not complete.
ORDER IT NOW
If Netanyahu partially annexes the West Bank – Area C – it will be simply
another stage in Israel's tireless efforts to immiserate the Palestinian population and bully
them into leaving. This is a war of attrition – what Israelis have long understood as
"creeping annexation", carried out by stealth to avoid a backlash from the international
community.
Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinians gone entirely, squeezed out into neighbouring Arab
states, such as Egypt and Jordan. That next chapter is likely to begin in earnest if Trump ever
gets the chance to unveil his "deal of the century".
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
This study shows us that the pro-Israel narrative has become so firmly entrenched in the
American mainstream media that it is almost impossible for news consumers to discern the
truth about the situation in Israel and Palestine. This has greatly benefitted Washington
which has made it abundantly clear that it sides with Israel in this fifty year-old
conflict.
If Netanyahu partially annexes the West Bank – Area C – it will be simply
another stage in Israel's tireless efforts to immiserate the Palestinian population and
bully them into leaving. This is a war of attrition – what Israelis have long
understood as "creeping annexation", carried out by stealth to avoid a backlash from the
international community.
Ultimately, Israel wants the Palestinians gone entirely, squeezed out into neighbouring
Arab states, such as Egypt and Jordan. That next chapter is likely to begin in earnest if
Trump ever gets the chance to unveil his "deal of the century".
This is probably true-and? I don't see Palestinians as a real people; they're just a bunch
of Arabs & it is absolutely irrelevant whether they are in Syria, Egypt or Arabia. They
themselves say they're not a "real" people:
On the other hand, real peoples like Uyghurs & Tibetans are swamped by the
Chinese, which is a real tragedy & only, huh, Richard Gere complains.
So, what the big deal with "Palestinians"? Why would they have a "right to exist"on some
shitty piece o land Jews seem to be obsessively addicted to in past 2 millennia?
And then, what with Amazonian Indians, Eskimos, Ostyaks, Okinawans, ..? What about
expulsion of 13 million Germans in what are now parts of Poland, Czechia, Russia .?
Israelis should have expelled all of them in 1967. & there would be peace.
There is one point in the article that is not completely accurate. J. Cook writes: "Israeli
officials have been preparing for this moment for more than half a century, since the West
Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza were seized back in 1967."
In fact, Ilan Pappe shows in his book "The biggest Prison on Earth" (2017) that plans to
occupy the whole land were much older. The plans weren't made because Israel took Palestinian
lands in 1967. Israel took lands in 1967 because of the plans to colonize it. Those plans
were older.
So, Pappe says in a more general way in his book that " . since 1948 and even more since
1956, Israel's military and political elites was looking for the right historical moment to
occupy the West Bank." (p. XIV). He also says more specifically: "The strategy was presented
by the CoGS to the army on 1 May 1963 and was meant to prepare the army for controlling the
West Bank as an occupied military area" (p. XIII).
All talk about "peace", about "coexistence", about a "two state solution" are (and were)
made in bad faith. About Pappe's book: I don't want to reccomend it for a casual reading. It
may be valuable historically because it deals with historical material from archives. But
it's basically a book about the Israeli burocracy, about laws, rules which would make sure
that Israel controls the conquested territory which it never thought of giving back. It's a
dry book. He has other books that which are much more agreeable to read like his short book
"Ten Myths About Israel".
Technocratic, neoliberal, Clinton Democrat ideas which have already proven to fail.
She's for the working class, so long as that working class wears a white collar.
but she declared that she will take "the money" in the general election if she wins the nomination. Do you expect that money
to come with no strings attached. Clearly this video
implied that she knows differently.
This video shows that as a member of Congress she is cognizant of the "as Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different"
Warren knows EXACTLY what she is doing when she says she will take the money in the general if nominated.
Okay, Warren made a mistake in claiming Native American heritage, which enabled her to
advance professionally as a "diversity" candidate. But that would have to count as a venial
not mortal sin. She is doing considerable good on the campaign trail, and I believe that she
means to try to follow through on her detailed promises.
"... 780 billion per year on defense without a enemy in sight, and no nation spending a tenth that, seems to be a place one could get a dollar or two. ..."
"... As Chomsky notes in 'manufacturing consent', the mass media that is not 'Right' is 'Centrist' and will support a centrist candidate over one advocating more radical change. ..."
"... Here's an idea. If Warren was a true progressive she wouldn't have been a registered Republican for 5 years, and she would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary in the 2016 primaries. ..."
Her backstory – teacher turned reluctant stay-at-home mom turned Harvard Law
School professor – clearly resonates with voters in important states such as Iowa and
South Carolina.
Working people who are struggling in Iowa and South Carolina say: "She's just like
us!"
Please expand upon the "Constitutional issues of a wealth tax".
Looks pretty clear to me.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States.
"Please expand upon the "Constitutional issues of a wealth tax".
"Looks pretty clear to me."
The point is that the question would go to a Republican Supreme Court which could indeed
find a wealth tax unconstitutional. If you want to know why, do a search. There's lots
written on it.
I don't know. Seems a lot more substance this go round than the last, near as I can tell.
Last go round climate change got one question and 45 seconds in response, by both candidates
in the general. The media certainly wants and will allow that to happen, but any dem who does
would be a idiot.
Seems last go round gender preference was a main thing. Warren will I think not fall into
that trap. White male midwestern industrial voters are at large, what lost HRC key states,
she took for granted. White male voters and usually their spouses, will not have a part of a
program that seems to leave them out of things.
Substance is the name of the game for warren, but to counter Trump one needs to throw out the barbs as well, as she did in
her twitter post on not being on his propaganda outlet Fox.
"I won't do a town hall with Fox News because I won't invite millions of Democratic primary
voters to tune in, inflate ratings, and help sell ads for an outlet that profits from racism
and hate. If you agree, sign our petition.
Yes that is Elizabeth Warren calling them racists and haters. A guy like Trump calls names
and it is par for the course. A woman who conducts herself as your local librarian or grade
school teacher, and you have to take pause and listen, is there substance to this? Seems
there is.
This new Elizabeth Warren, name calling and all, I find must more to my liking than that
before. Which is the why to her newfound popularity. Substance and calling a pig a pig not a
dog or some other thing.
I think you made a good case. she isn't my favorite but still acceptable.
In no particular order, for me it is Gabbard, Sanders, Williamson, Warren or Yang. the other
18 would be like voting for the GOP with some protection against the conservative slant on
social issues.
The right wingers that post here won't debate me because I'll expose them. They know how
the system works and they use it to their advantage. Socialism is about getting free stuff
but the issue here is who gets the free stuff. Supply side econ says that the rich are
entitled to the free stuff and the less fortunate aren't entitled to it. this is killing
upward mobility.
Iceland, Denmark and Sweden repealed their wealth taxes because they don't work. The
Scandinavian countries pay for their safety net by embracing capitalism and taxing the hell
out of everyone. Maybe we should embrace that model? Or does Warren's base simply all of the
benefits of that system without paying for it?
They're not similar countries to the USA, at all. US citizens are taxed no matter where they
choose to live on earth. This is not the case in most countries.
The Scandinavian countries pay for their safety net by embracing capitalism and taxing
the hell out of everyone. Maybe we should embrace that model?
It would be a hell of a lot better than the government acting as the paymaster for large
corporations - paying their workers with food stamps because the corporations don't pay them
sufficiently to live on.
You do know that is how the US works, right? Corporations don't pay their workers enough, so
the government (i.e. taxpayers) pick up the tab.
To add the average family of four, assuming one stays with the kids so they do not pay day
care costs, at Walmart earning a average salary , is eligible for federal food assistance and
in most states, Medicaid.
California for several decades paid for most of kids college education and even today, New
Mexico does the same. New Mexico is indeed one of the poorest states, and if they figured out
how to do that(under a republican governor years ago), most places could. The tax rate here
is about on average, no higher than most.
780 billion per year on defense without a enemy in sight, and no nation spending a tenth
that, seems to be a place one could get a dollar or two.
Smart and lucid. All the right ideas, without using the " S " word that people in the
USA do not really understand, and have a big fear of
I'd extent that from "The USA" to "The USA & the editorial staff of most papers in
England", and include some writers for this paper in that catchall.
'Socialist' Sanders and 'Left Wing' Labour as personified by Corbyn are all very well as
useful poles to beat the Right with in polemics, but when it looks like they might actually
gain access to the corridors of power, suddenly they become villains that have to be defeated
so that sensible 'moderates' can retain power....
Warren was receiving more support from this particular paper even before she announced her
candidacy than Sanders has or I suspect will even if he gains the nomination.
As Chomsky notes in 'manufacturing consent', the mass media that is not 'Right' is
'Centrist' and will support a centrist candidate over one advocating more radical change.
Those labels are totally irrelevant in the USA. Calling someone 'right' or 'left' or
'socialist' in the USA has nothing to do with dictionary definitions. They all mean to say
one thing: I disagree with them because they're wrong.
On Friday, the Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren co-sponsored a bill to impose
mandatory fines on companies that have data breaches.
Warren is the politician who operates like a blind-folded person desperately trying to hit
a pinata. In her political realm, such companies simply twist in the wind and make easy
targets. Her policy is equivalent to any store or home being burglarized and then being fined by
government for being a victim of crime. Complete mindlessness describes the policy.
Yes. Of course every politician should simply lie down and let the corporations get away with
every damn thing. I mean, that's worked really well for most Americans since Reagan.
Agreed that is a stupid policy.
If the company suffers a data breach owing to poor security or conceals or unduly delays
disclosure of the data breach, then it would make sense to fine the company or to hold the
company civilly liable to those injured by the data breach. But a blanket fine for any company that suffers a data breach is dumb.
The Labor party in Australia surprised me with the boldness and coherency of their plans and
it was a great thing to see a party running a campaign on ideas and principles.
They lost the election.
Here's an idea. If Warren was a true progressive she wouldn't have been a registered
Republican for 5 years, and she would have endorsed Bernie over Hillary in the 2016
primaries.
What a really stupid thing to write and think. Do you have any inkling of the history of the
Republican and Democratic parties? I was born in a Republican household (progressive) and it
took me living overseas for 20 years to realize what a nasty little insurgency had taken the
Republicans from what Teddy Roosevelt championed to what he described as swine; the
Dixiecrats. Ignorance is not bliss no matter how hard you try to pretend.
One thing that needs to be done involves an honest discussion about the costs of Warren's
proposals and the fact that the US already has a $22 TRILLION national debt with more than $1
TRILLION being added each year at a minimum. A former US Comptroller General stated in 2015
that even the official National Debt figure is a misrepresentation and that taking into
account an honest understanding of the nation's actual legal obligations the figure was
actually $65 TRILLION.
If anyone wants to see it even worse just look at economist Lawrence Kotlikoff's infinite horizon estimates that placed future already promised commitments at
$220 TRILLION. My point is that Warren and everyone else in the DC political establishment,
is "blowing smoke" and that the US is bankrupt and needs a serious strategy to mitigate that
fact rather than reckless proposals aimed to attract votes.
That is not going to happen and
the country is in a fundamental financial crisis.
Its repinlicans who increase your deficits. Reagan believed deficits don't matter.
The bush tax cuts...and now Trumps tax cuts and QE. He's expanding credit, which looks like
real growth, but is it? Only the US can do this, because it runs the global dollar. We should
have had the Bankor. But the yanks ensured that did not happen.
Nobody expects Congress to deliver on a president's campaign promises. That's not how
the system works.
True. We use to call it "obstructionist" when the other party in congress
unreasonably opposed a president's proposals. We no longer use that term, though. Now we call
it "resistance". I'm sure there are at least a few republicans who see being part of the
"resistance" exciting if Warren wins the White House.
At first I thought she must be mad, running for president. Then I started listening to her
ideas and looking at how they were being received.
There are millions of young people, youngish people, and parents whose lives would actually
be changed by her college loan plan. Even conservatives admit that "her math is correct" and
"it's doable."
Then I started watching her in town halls and found her to be VERY different from that
awkward lady in the kitchen having a beer. She's warm, direct, funny, casually
self-deprecating, and easily able to translate complex ideas into readily understood ones.
Free college and health care, and the rich pay. Who wouldn't get on board with that?
Well, since you asked. I don't have any student debt and I don't need any more
health care. If we are buying votes with "free" stuff, what do I get for free?
I do like a good brisket. Can we carve out some of that tax on those nasty millionaires
for my grocery fund?
Well, as a rock ribbed Republican, you only one choice.
Not applicable since I'm not a republican. I did vote for Trump, after voting
for Obama twice. I'm an independent, and we outnumber either republicans or democrats.
For me it's a toss-up between Warren and Sanders. When it comes to who will actually get to
run against Trump, if a dining room set and 4 chairs gets the Democratic nomination, they get
my vote in the general election.
The fix is already in I think. Your table and chairs name is Sleepy Joe Biden.
Of course, it's still a long time to the election and mortality rates may kick in.
Warren is rising fast because A) she stands for something and B) she does an excellent job of
explaining how America can make the journey from where it is (including rampant inequality)
to where it needs to be to offer a future to all its people, not just to those who are white,
rich and privileged! Plus, she is super smart & sassy!
"... The real goal is domination of the Middle East -- and that's been a bipartisan US strategy for decades. ..."
"... By striking a compromise with a defiant non-democracy like Iran, which for the past 40 years has defined itself as the foremost opponent of American hegemony (liberal or otherwise), while signaling a desire to slowly dismantle American hegemony in the Middle East (in order to pivot to Asia), Obama introduced an unsustainable contradiction to US foreign policy. ..."
"... Excellent article, because it clearly exposes the central isssue - US hegemony. And that goes has implications way beyond Iran, particularly with respect to relations with China and Russia. Very similar geopolitical games are playing out in the South China Sea, around the Ukraine, and in Syria. ..."
"... This is not 1950 when the world economy was in collapse and the US was overwhelmingly the top dog. Other countries are nearly equal to the US. Hegemony is unsustainable in today's environment and one solution is a cooperative balance of power employing diplomacy, and unprecedented cooperation on questions of energy and security in order to solve global problems like climate change and the elimination of nuclear weapons. ..."
"... The new world order - as this 'confrontation' suggests, the USA, supported by the Saudis, their compatriots, and Israel. All renowned 'friends' of the USA. With friends like these who needs enemies. ..."
"... The "confrontation" goes way back to 1953, when the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh (for his "sin" of nationalizing Iranian oil) and labelled him a Communist. Everything that is adversarial in US-Iranian relations goes back to that criminal act. ..."
The real goal is domination of the Middle East -- and that's been a bipartisan US
strategy for decades.
... ... ...
...if war is the endgame of their escalation, what is the endgame of their war? Dominance --
perpetual dominance of the Middle East (and the globe as a whole) by the United States. That is
and has been Washington's grand strategy, regardless of whether a Republican, a Democrat, or a
reality-TV star has occupied the White House. America has, of course, often ensured this
domination by supporting friendly dictatorships.
But there is also a liberal version of the strategy. Liberal hegemony, or primacy, dictates
that the United States has the moral obligation and the strategic imperative to transform
anti–status quo non-democracies into liberal (pliant) democracies. According to this
grand strategy, the existence of such non-democracies is a threat to the United States and its
hegemony.
America cannot coexist with them but must ultimately transform them. Military force is
instrumental to this endeavor. As Max Boot wrote back in 2003, the pillars of liberal hegemony
must be spread and sustained " at gunpoint if need
be ."
While some advocates of liberal hegemony object to the more militaristic interpretation
preferred by neoconservatives, the difference between liberal interventionism and
neoconservatism is more a matter of nuance than core belief.
Neither can provide a solution to Washington's endless wars, because both operate within the
paradigm of primacy, which itself is a root cause of the country's perpetual conflicts. As long
as that paradigm remains the guiding principle of foreign policy, hawks like John Bolton, Tom
Cotton, and Lindsey Graham -- and their Democratic fellow travelers, too -- will continue to
steer America's engagement with the world, as it is their outlook that is compatible with
primacy, not that of those on the progressive left or the libertarian right, who have advocated
non-interventionism or negotiated settlements with those who challenge Pax Americana.
This is why the cards were stacked against the survival of the Iran nuclear deal even if
Trump had not been elected. By striking a compromise with a defiant non-democracy like
Iran, which for the past 40 years has defined itself as the foremost opponent of American
hegemony (liberal or otherwise), while signaling a desire to slowly dismantle American hegemony
in the Middle East (in order to pivot to Asia), Obama introduced an unsustainable contradiction
to US foreign policy.
This contradiction has been particularly visible among Democrats who oppose Trump's Iran
policy but who still cannot bring themselves to break with our seemingly endless confrontation
with Iran. As long as such Democrats allow the debate to be defined by the diktat of US
primacy, they will always be on the defensive, and their long-term impact on US-Iran relations
will be marginal.
After all, the strategy of US primacy in the Middle East demands Iran's defeat...
Excellent article, because it clearly exposes the central isssue - US hegemony. And that
goes has implications way beyond Iran, particularly with respect to relations with China and
Russia. Very similar geopolitical games are playing out in the South China Sea, around the
Ukraine, and in Syria.
Liberals have to stop talking about "bad actors" (whenever they are
linked with competing powers, e.g. Iran, N.Korea, etc.) but welcome them as "allies" when
they are our faithful vassals (e.g. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.). Unfortunately, Obama
appeared to understand this with respect to Iran, but totally ignored it with respect to the
rest of the world.
Victor Sciamarelli says: June 21, 2019 at 1:57 pm
I completely agree with Trita Parsi's succinct description of the problem as, "Dominance
-- perpetual dominance of the Middle East (and the globe as a whole) by the United States.
That is and has been Washington's grand strategy, regardless of whether a Republican, a
Democrat, or a reality-TV star has occupied the White House." However, why not offer
alternative policies for debate?
Consider, for example, the idea of a "balance of power." It was for the same reason that the
British fought Napoleon, the Crimean War, entered the first world war, and also why they were
constantly engaged in diplomatic agreements in Europe. British policy demanded that they
prevent the rise of a hegemon on the continent.
Napoleon was never a threat to the English mainland and neither were the Germans in 1914.
Yet, they fought both because preventing a hegemon and maintaining a balance of power
pre-empted other considerations.
I would suggest that regardless of events since 1918 such as: the decline of the British
empire, Versailles, the world wide economic depression, the rise of fascism, the reaction to
communism, or the rise of a non-European super power like the US, thinking about a modern, up
to date form of the balance of power is useful.
Furthermore, we need an alternative policy because hegemony fails the world and the American
people, and the world faces two existential threats: climate change and nuclear war.
Moreover, the US has been a superpower for so long that nobody remembers what it is like not
to be a superpower. In addition, American elites seem unwilling or unable to grasp the real
limits of military power.
In a world where the five permanent members of the UN security council are nuclear powers,
and nuclear weapons are held by smaller nations, the major power centers of the world:
Europe, Russia, China, and the US, have no choice but to cooperate with each other and with
the countries of the ME.
The ME is a focal point for establishing cooperation because the world needs energy and the
ME needs stability and development, but it requires leadership and motive.
This is not 1950 when the world economy was in collapse and the US was overwhelmingly the top
dog. Other countries are nearly equal to the US. Hegemony is unsustainable in today's
environment and one solution is a cooperative balance of power employing diplomacy, and
unprecedented cooperation on questions of energy and security in order to solve global
problems like climate change and the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Pauline Hartwig says: June 21, 2019 at 1:38 pm
The new world order - as this 'confrontation' suggests, the USA, supported by the Saudis,
their compatriots, and Israel. All renowned 'friends' of the USA. With friends like these who
needs enemies.
Gene Bell-Villada says: June 21, 2019 at 12:40 pm
The "confrontation" goes way back to 1953, when the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh (for his "sin" of nationalizing
Iranian oil) and labelled him a Communist. Everything that is adversarial in US-Iranian relations
goes back to that
criminal act.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called on Washington to weigh the possible
consequences of conflict with Iran and said a report in the New York Times showed the situation
was extremely dangerous.
U.S. President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for the
downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but called off the attacks at the last minute, the report
said.
Democratic Candidate Andrew Yang has quickly risen to become a star on the brightest side of
the " intellectual dark web " by appealing
to the working class voters that used to be the foundation of his party's attention with the
promise of a very juicy piece of welfare pie. But is Yang a strong candidate and what are his
chances of taking the White House?
Judging by the unprecedented Mainstream Media rage that happened after Trump was elected as
President of the United States, winning the Oval Office does still matter. The process of
winning it is not done by good ideas, honesty and honest patriotism however. Instead it is done
by aggressive marketing, pandering and sky-high promises. Obama not only became President in
2008 but he also won the title of " Marketer of the
Year " based around his campaign of "Hope and Change". "Make America Great Again" was also
a PR triumph worthy of a win in biggest popularity contest on Earth.
Candidate Yang so far does not have a winning slogan or image yet but he does have a winning
idea – Universal Basic Income (UBI) which he refers to as the Freedom Dividend, which
would give every American a $1,000 government check per month to use as they see fit. On some
Youtube Alt-Right\Alt-Light legendary interviews with Joe Rogan and Ben Shapiro , Yang said that his experience working for his
own "Venture for America" program (that gives " two-year fellowship program for recent grads
who want to work at a startup and create jobs in American cities") and looking at projected job
losses due to the next wave of automation that will hit the global economy, he is sure that UBI
is the only way to deal with the massive unemployment that will appear in the US very soon.
This message was definitely able to perk interest in the type of voters who were repulsed by
the Hillary Clinton campaign.
To further support his view, Yang claims that his statistics say that retail and truck
driving are two massive areas of the American economy that will be utterly destroyed by the
predicted rise of the robots and that "retraining the truckers to code" is not a viable option
as throwing college and training at people (which is a mantra of most Democrats like Sanders
and Ocasio-Cortez) does not solve these problems. Yang also says that many college degrees
(some lawyers, accountants, clerical work) will also so be worthless in the near future and it
would be better off for society to reconsider and revalue trades like plumbers which cannot be
replaced by robots and provide everyone with the minimum they need to survive to keep society
afloat.
In good "I feel your pain" Democrat fashion Yang addresses the drug addiction, low birth
rates and suicide across the US in his interviews, however he attributes them almost
universally to the results of high unemployment and atomization of labor. It is very nice to
hear a Presidential candidate acknowledge that especially for men, jobs are what give us our
identity and purpose in life and when we lose it we may react violently towards ourselves or
society, but it is a shame that Yang cannot see that there could be a spiritual ideological
crisis in America and that massive drug abuse and suicide in the wealthiest nation in human
history may have something more to do with than losing your job to a robot. The real crisis is
Liberalism itself, but that is a topic for another day, but the question remains can Yang
win?
Andrew Yang's Personality and Style
Mr. Yang speaks in a very calm voice, he uses a lot of information and statistics, with only
the occasional appeal to Americans who have it tough. This "intellectual" approach is a loser's
game as people make decisions based on emotion rather than reason especially in terms of
electing the next President. A small, soft spoken brainy guy with lots of stats is a terrible
sell. The people who will vote for any candidate that will give them the most "free" stuff are
not going to pay attention Yang, who should be out in the media like a used car salesman
screaming about how every vote for him is $1000 a month for the rest of your life, satisfaction
guaranteed, with no money down!
This is not to say the American people are dumb, this is just how Western-Style Democracy
works. As he is today Yang is too sterile and intellectual to win.
Andrew Yang's Vision
As mentioned above offering supposedly free things to the masses (like Sanders with free
college tuition) is always a winner, but the apocalyptic economic prophecy that Andrew Yang has
for America's future is very scary and definitely scary enough to make someone vote to avoid
it. Although this Democrat himself is extremely boring, his dark vision of America in the next
few decades is vivid and terrifying. This vision if hyped up could compensate for Yang's total
lack of personality. Then again it may be better for the Democrats to just put Yang's vision
into a different vessel that is more marketable as his ideas are far better than he himself is
for winning.
Andrew Yang's is a One-Trick Pony
Although he gets tries to throw out a mythos of being the son of immigrants who became
successful in American and criticize Political Correctness, Yang is essentially a UBI machine
at this point. Although he appeals to many of the populist positions of Trump, the Orangeman
just simply does those positions better. Furthermore, for his base and centrists "Alt-Light"
positions may not be thrilling enough to get people to go out and vote. So far Yang's only real
selling point is one single issue. There are single issue voters out there but UBI is way more
new to the American psyche than guns and abortion. Yang has to expand a platform around a core
his Freedom Dividend to other issues that will draw in voters or he is simply doomed as a
candidate.
Looks like this guys somewhat understands the problems with neoliberalism, but still is captured by neoliberal ideology.
Notable quotes:
"... That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent. ..."
"... Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent. ..."
"... Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick. ..."
"... Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between 1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007. ..."
The logic of the meritocracy is leading us to ruin, because we arc collectively primed to ignore the voices of the millions getting
pushed into economic distress by the grinding wheels of automation and innovation. We figure they're complaining or suffering because
they're losers.
We need to break free of this logic of the marketplace before it's too late.
[Neoliberalism] had decimated the economies and cultures of these regions and were set to do the same to many others.
In response, American lives and families are falling apart. Ram- pant financial stress is the new normal. We are in the third
or fourth inning of the greatest economic shift in the history of mankind, and no one seems to be talking about it or doing anything
in response.
The Great Displacement didn't arrive overnight. It has been building for decades as the economy and labor market changed in response
to improving technology, financialization, changing corporate norms, and globalization. In the 1970s, when my parents worked at GE
and Blue Cross Blue Shield in upstate New York, their companies provided generous pensions and expected them to stay for decades.
Community banks were boring businesses that lent money to local companies for a modest return. Over 20 percent of workers were unionized.
Some economic problems existed -- growth was uneven and infla- tion periodically high. But income inequality was low, jobs provided
benefits, and Main Street businesses were the drivers of the economy. There were only three television networks, and in my house
we watched them on a TV with an antenna that we fiddled with to make the picture clearer.
That all seems awfully quaint today. Pensions disappeared for private-sector employees years ago. Most community banks were
gobbled up by one of the mega-banks in the 1990s -- today five banks control 50 percent of the commercial banking industry, which
itself mushroomed to the point where finance enjoys about 25 percent of all corporate profits. Union membership fell by 50 percent.
Ninety-four percent of the jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working
multiple gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining. The chances that an American
born in 1990 will earn more than their parents are down to 50 percent; for Americans born in 1940 the same figure was 92 percent.
Thanks to Milton Friedman, Jack Welch, and other corporate titans, the goals of large companies began to change in the 1970s
and early 1980s. The notion they espoused -- that a company exists only to maximize its share price -- became gospel in business
schools and boardrooms around the country. Companies were pushed to adopt shareholder value as their sole measuring stick.
Hostile takeovers, shareholder lawsuits, and later activist hedge funds served as prompts to ensure that managers were committed
to profitability at all costs. On the flip side, CF.Os were granted stock options for the first time that wedded their individual
gain to the company's share price. The ratio of CF.O to worker pay rose from 20 to 1 in 1965 to 271 to 1 in 2016. Benefits were streamlined
and reduced and the relationship between company and employee weakened to become more transactional.
Simultaneously, the major banks grew and evolved as Depression-era regulations separating consumer lending and investment
banking were abolished. Financial deregulation started under Ronald Reagan in 1980 and culminated in the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 under Bill Clinton that really set the banks loose. The securities industry grew 500 percent as a share of GDP between
1980 and the 2000s while ordinary bank deposits shrank from 70 percent to 50 percent. Financial products multiplied as even Main
Street companies were driven to pursue financial engineering to manage their affairs. GE, my dad's old company and once a beacon
of manufacturing, became the fifth biggest financial institution in the country by 2007.
It's hard to be in the year 2018 and not hear about the endless studies alarming the general public about coming labor automation.
But what Yang provides in this book is two key things: automation has already been ravaging the country which has led to the great
political polarization of today, and second, an actual vision into what happens when people lose jobs, and it definitely is a
lightning strike of "oh crap"
I found this book relatively impressive and frightening. Yang, a former lawyer, entrepreneur, and non-profit leader, writes
showing with inarguable data that when companies automate work and use new software, communities die, drug use increases, suicide
increases, and crime skyrockets. The new jobs created go to big cities, the surviving talent leaves, and the remaining people
lose hope and descend into madness. (as a student of psychology, this is not surprising)
He starts by painting the picture of the average American and how fragile they are economically. He deconstructs the labor
predictions and how technology is going to ravage it. He discusses the future of work. He explains what has happened in technology
and why it's suddenly a huge threat. He shows what this means: economic inequality rises, the people have less power, the voice
of democracy is diminished, no one owns stocks, people get poorer etc. He shows that talent is leaving small towns, money is concentrating
to big cities faster. He shows what happens when those other cities die (bad things), and then how the people react when they
have no income (really bad things). He shows how retraining doesn't work and college is failing us. We don't invest in vocational
skills, and our youth is underemployed pushed into freelance work making minimal pay. He shows how no one trusts the institutions
anymore.
Then he discusses solutions with a focus on Universal Basic Income. I was a skeptic of the idea until I read this book. You
literally walk away with this burning desire to prevent a Mad Max esque civil war, and its hard to argue with him. We don't have
much time and our bloated micromanaged welfare programs cannot sustain.
Yong is a typical neoliberal candidate, a creature of Silicon Valley. His cult of entrepreneurship looks silly, because this is
neoliberal myth which is destructive for the society (a lot of Silicon Valley startup are useless or harmful). Politically he is tend
to lean libertarian.
He own success look pretty accidental. He is a despicable venture capitalist himself. His NGO is essentially trying to compensate
for the neoliberalism flaws: they want fully trains candidate for the jobs and do not want tot "train on the job" candidates, who has
potential to be more productive in a long run.
Notable quotes:
"... After graduation, he worked as a corporate lawyer; as a Silicon Valley businessman; as the CEO of a GMAT prep company; and lastly, as the director of Venture for America, an NGO that provided training and seed money for aspiring entrepreneurs. ..."
"... Moore's Law basically already came to an end. While, there are possibly new architectures to explore, i don't see how AI will continue to advance without sharp increases in processing power. ..."
"... I believe it is also immoral to brain drain countries. ..."
"... Considering the fact that 99% of the U.S. government is appointed(by the deciders), and the rest is pre-approved for voting so you can play 'democracy' on special Tuesdays, it doesn't look too good for populism or populists like Andrew or Tulsi. They want another Obama – another shit eating grin to sell a load of false claims and empty promises. ..."
"... Even a big name like Kamala Harris, who has lots of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state. Without the momentum a strong finish in these two states provide, campaigns wither and die. The money stops flowing. Volunteers quit. The press pool shrinks. ..."
"... Andrew Yang isn't even polling at 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire (or anywhere else). He has no ground game. He has no organization. He hasn't raised much money. He has no fired up volunteers willing to make countless phone calls and trudge through the snow to knock on doors. Basically, he has nothing. ..."
"... Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide a great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions. There are more moderate proposals. But, ultimately, UBI has to be paid for somehow, either by raising taxes or eliminating much of the welfare state. ..."
"... The narcissistic, self-congratulatory rambling about the superior traits of people who live in coastal cities sounds very much like that Zuckerberg guy, or Chelsea Clinton – in other words, a "progressive" type who want to set up re-education camps for the masses of unwashed, reactionary "white people" – for their own good, of course. ..."
"... The war on terror is a self induced psychosis that is eating away at the moral core of america. Opiods, underage sex, porn are merely diversions. Blessed are the blessed. ..."
"... $12k a year isn't going to free anybody, it's just going to accelerate white genocide (more money for heroin and opiate pills and alcohol). In a world of $1500 a month apartments you're still living on the street with $12k income. ..."
"... Yang says he is against the income tax in principle because you shouldn't tax what you want more of (work) and rich people find loop holes around it anyway. ..."
"... Well, who else offers a better solution? Trump who is to busy being a legendary Isreali president ..."
"... A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "Easter worshippers." ..."
"... America is being continually being deindustrialised by outsourcing every thing to China and Mexico etc. ..."
Andrew Yang – THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE (
2018 )
Rating: 5 /5
You can access all of my latest book, film, and video game reviews
at this link , as well as an ordered, categorized list of
all my book reviews and ratings here: https://akarlin.com/books
I
I don't normally read the vapid hagiographies that characterize most political manifestoes. The two exceptions are Trump's
ART OF THE DEAL , and Putin's FROM THE FIRST PERSON .
The former was a genuinely well-written book that provided many insights into real estate development, and really explained the logic
behind Trump's showman "style" of politics (see Scott Alexander's
great review ). Though it wasn't
a Trump manifesto as such, having been written three decades ago by a guy who now actually hates The Donald, it was probably the
closest thing to one amidst the meme wars of 2016. The Putin book was a relatively dull series of interviews, though it still accounts
for a significant percentage of what we know about Putin's career before the Presidency and remains required reading for any serious
Russia watcher. That said, I imagine the vast majority of such books hew to the pattern of Hillary Clinton's
HARD CHOICES , which was apparently so bad that Amazon was forced to mass delete one star reviews to avoid embarrassing their
favored candidate.
So why did I make an exception for Andrew Yang's
THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE ? Well, part of it is that he is my favorite candidate to date (as a proponent of Universal Basic Income
(UBI) since 2015 , there is nothing particularly illogical
or contradictory about that). His rational, common sense positions on a bewildering amount of issues help. But what really impressed
me is a Twitter post that highlighted his familiarity with the work of Peter Turchin:
At this point, it was obvious that reading the rest of THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE would not be a waste of time, even if Yang's campaign
was to otherwise pete out (ha-ha). And good thing I did. While I consider myself relatively well read, especially on "futurist" topics,
I was nonetheless continuously regaled with all manner of original insights and things that I didn't know before.
II
The Yang bio only takes up one chapter. This is a good thing. I don't feel people should be writing about themselves unless they're
over 60, or have done something pretty impressive, or participated in a war or something. Quite the welcome contrast to Obama, who
wrote an entire memoir on the subject at the age of 34.
Yang is highly intelligent. Both of his parents went to grad school, and his father made 69 patents over the course of his career.
His brother is a professor. "Good genes, very good genes." He got admitted to Stanford and Brown. He is obviously well read, and
the literature he reads is K-selected. Apart from Turchin's book, he also cites Yuval Hari (HOMO DEUS) and Martin Ford (RISE OF THE
ROBOTS). After graduation, he worked as a corporate lawyer; as a Silicon Valley businessman; as the CEO of a GMAT prep company;
and lastly, as the director of Venture for America, an NGO that provided training and seed money for aspiring entrepreneurs.
One curious, endearingly personal note is that it seems he was bullied at school:
"Hey, Yang, what's it like having such a small dick? Everyone knows Chinese guys have small dicks. Do you need tweezers to
masturbate?" Most of this was in middle school. I had a few natural responses: I became quite self-conscious. I started wondering
if I did indeed have a small dick. Last, I became very, very angry.
I admit I chuckled a bit at the idea that there
is perhaps
a 6% chance (today's odds on PredictIt) that high school taunts about anatomy might end up playing a role in creating America's
next President. Many of these bullied Asian-Americans tend to become bitter and withdraw into communities such as the SJWs at
/r/azidentity or the Chinese nationalists at
/r/Sino . Yang didn't go down that path. That said, as someone raised
in an Asian-American family, bused tables at a Chinese restaurant as a teen, and who has
maintained strong ties to the wider Asian-American
community, those ideological currents must have influenced him to at least some extent.
His father immigrated from Taiwan. Geopolitics regardless, many Taiwanese-Americans are very proud of Chinese progress. The early
base of Yang's support was predominantly Asian-American, and I was told that many of his earliest foreign fans were Chinese. I have
a friend who was slightly acquainted with Yang before he became famous, and he confirmed
my impressions – based on the
exclusively positive mentions
of China on his Twitter, and his website – that Yang is a strong Sinophile. As we saw with Trump and Russia – or for that matter,
with Gabbard and Syria – being unseemingly friendly with or even just objective towards countries that have been declared strategic
competitors, rivals, or enemies of the US isn't all that great for your political capital. You heard it here first: If Yang somehow
wins the Dem nomination, the possibility of a "Chinagate" cannot be excluded. III
As Yang recounts it, his travels throughout America opened his eyes to the yawning gap between the flourishing coasts and its
depressed hinterlands. From the chapter "Life in the Bubble":
We joked at Venture for America that "smart" people in the United States will do one of six things in six places: finance,
consulting, law, technology, medicine, or academia in New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, or Washington, DC.
Other parts of the book consist of depressive travelogues about cities in the Rustbelt, with their abandoned malls, dilapidated
infrastructure, brain drain, opioid epidemics, and casinos filled with people who probably shouldn't be gambling.
So he is quite aware of the distinction in outcomes between the "Belmont" and "Fishtown" of Charles Murray's
COMING APART (for a summary, see " Trump's
America " in The Wall Street Journal).
Moreover, I am reasonably sure that Yang is more or less directly familiar with Murray's thesis:
Think of your five best friends. The odds of them all being college graduates if you took a random sampling of Americans would
be about one-third of 1 percent, or 0.0036. The likelihood of four or more of them being college graduates would be only about
4 percent. If that described you, you're among the educated class (even without necessarily knowing it; in your context, you're
perfectly normal).
This argument that America is developing into a meritocratic caste system is directly lifted from COMING APART, as is the "bubble"
metaphor used to describe its Brahmins. E.g., see Charles Murray's
Bubble Quiz .
Today, thanks to assortative mating in a handful of cities, intellect, attractiveness, education, and wealth are all converging
in the same families and neighborhoods. I look at my friends' children, and many of them resemble unicorns: brilliant, beautiful,
socially precocious creatures who have gotten the best of all possible resources since the day they were born.
I imagine them in 10 or 15 years traveling to other parts of the country, and I know that they are going to feel like, and
be received as, strangers in a strange land. They will have thriving online lives and not even remember a car that didn't drive
itself.
They may feel they have nothing in common with the people before them. Their ties to the greater national fabric will be minimal.
Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.
That pretty much cinches it. "Assortative mating" isn't the sort of term that everyone throws around; although it is a biological
term, its popularization in sociology was led by Murray and other "HBD realists." While I understand and sympathize that these people
are generally "unhandshakeworthy", and hence uncitable by someone running for the Dem nomination, I think it is legitimate to think
of THE WAR ON NORMAL PEOPLE as the solutions set to the problems posed by COMING APART.
IV
Here are some of the main problems and challenges that Yang talks about:
1. Automation . I won't go on here at length, as this has already been widely covered in the media. I recommend Martin
Ford's book RISE OF THE ROBOTS, or at least this 15 minute
video , for a full treatment. But the basic thing to take away is that automation is coming for many jobs, and it won't just
be manufacturing ones this time round. Some things that struck me as noteworthy:
There are now less than 400 NYSE floor traders, down from 5,500. Legal review: Humans have 60% accuracy, AI already at 85%. Friend
of Yang's who works in a ride-sharing company says that according to internal projections, half of all rides will accrue to autonomous
vehicles by 2022.
This will eliminate jobs in truck driving, the ride-sharing sector (Uber, Lyft, etc.), and more and more repetitive cognitive
white-collar work.
2. Unsatisfactory jobs . There will be jobs to take the place of automated ones, but these will be low productivity jobs
with lower salaries (which will further incentivize companies to automate them away). Perhaps uniquely for a politician, Yang is
sympathetic to people who can no longer be bothered to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, as conservative orthodoxy dictates.
Imagine a 21-year-old college dropout who is not excited to make sandwiches at Jimmy John's and prefers his gaming community.
You could say to him, "Hey, this Jimmy John's job could go places. Sure you make $8 an hour now. But maybe if you stick with it
for a few years you could become a manager. Eventually, you could make $35,000 or so if you really excel and are willing to work
long and hard hours, including waking up at 5 a.m. to slice up tomatoes and cucumbers every morning, and commit to it." The above
is possibly true. Or, the retail district around his Jimmy John's could shrink and a management job might never open up. Or Jimmy
John's could bring in an automated system that gets rid of cashiers and front-of-house staff two years from now. Or his manager
could just choose someone else.
3. Video games . This explains why NEETs like the above have turned to video games; young men without college degrees now
spend 75% of the time they used to spend working with gaming. This is easy, because the marginal cost of video games is near zero;
as Yang sagely points out, they are an "inferior good" in economic terms. However, he also notes – as a onetime gamer – that while
playing games for hours on end might seem "sad", their satisfaction level is high, especially relative to their low social status
and high rates of unemployment.
4. Disability . More and more people, especially discouraged workers, are entering the disability rolls. This is an understandable
reaction to the loss of good jobs. However, since most disability applications are more or less fake – rates have been soaring, even
as the rate of workplace accidents plummets – this encourages a culture of dishonesty, and disincentivizes people from rejoining
the workforce since they would then lose their disability "basic income." There are no solid ways to disprove some common ailments,
so getting a note from a doctor is relatively easy. This is a way of life for many depressed rustbelt communities.
5. Other social maladies . These include:
Abandoned malls creating derelict no-go zones. The poverty of communities left behind by falling manufacturing employment, soon
to be repeated on an even bigger scale as automation takes off. Rising white middle-aged mortality, in which he cites
Case & Deaton's research . He is woke to
the opioid crisis: " Many of the deaths are from opiate overdoses. Approximately 59,000 Americans died of drug overdoses in
2016, up 19 percent from the then-record 52,404 reported in 2015. For the first time, drug overdoses have surpassed car accidents
as the leading cause of accidental death in the United States. " I assume he's likelier to make progress on it
than Kushner
. " An army of drug dealers in suits marketed addictive opioids to doctors, getting paid hundreds of thousands to do it.
"
V
In the final "problems"-related chapter, he mentions the work of Russian-American biologist/historian Peter Turchin, one of the
founders of cliodynamics, a new multidiscplinary field that aims to mathematize the cycles of history*.
In his book Ages of Discord, the scholar Peter Turchin proposes a structural-demographic theory of political instability based
on societies throughout history. He suggests that there are three main preconditions to revolution:
(1) elite oversupply and disunity,
(2) popular misery based on falling living standards, and
(3) a state in fiscal crisis.
Most of the variables that he measures began trending negatively between 1965 and 1980 and are now reaching near-crisis levels.
By his analysis, "the US right now has much in common with the Antebellum 1850s [before the Civil War] and, more surprisingly,
with France on the eve of the French Revolution." He projects increased turmoil through 2020 and warns that "we are rapidly approaching
a historical cusp at which American society will be particularly vulnerable to violent upheaval."
Turchin isn't one of those "doomers" who have predicted all ten of America's past zero collapses since he began predicting.
But he
did predict the rise of Islamic State in Iraq back in 2005 :
Western intrusion will eventually generate a counter-response, possibly in the form of a new theocratic Caliphate (War and
Peace and War, Penguin, 2005).
And he predicted that populism and social instability in the US would increase through to the 2020s. This was well before either
Trump or Sanders came on the radar.
So given this impressive predictive record, it's certainly worth listening to what Turchin has to say.
In addition to Turchin's analysis, Yang also mentions that there will be racial ressentiments:
A highly disproportionate number of the people at the top will be educated whites, Jews, and Asians. America is projected to
become majority minority by 2045. African Americans and Latinos will almost certainly make up a disproportionate number of the
less privileged in the wake of automation, as they currently enjoy lower levels of wealth and education.
and suggests that SJW policing of speech will complicate frank discussions of these problems:
Contributing to the discord will be a climate that equates opposing ideas or speech to violence and hate. Righteousness can
fuel abhorrent behavior, and many react with a shocking level of vitriol and contempt for conflicting viewpoints and the people
who hold them. Hatred is easy, as is condemnation.
This could set the stage for RACE WAR NOW as economic dislocations produced by automation further turbocharge preexisting trends
towards inequality and polarization:
After the riots, things continue to deteriorate. Hundreds of thousands stop paying taxes because they refuse to support a government
that "killed the working man." A man in a bunker surrounded by dozens of guns releases a video saying, "Come and get your taxes,
IRS man!" that goes viral. Anti-Semitic violence breaks out targeting those who "own the robots." A white nationalist party arises
that openly advocates "returning America to its roots" and "traditional gender roles" and wins several state races in the South.
Incidentally, I would say that this explains the context behind Yang's "whites will shoot up Asian-Americans in another generation"
video .
VI
Yang's signature issue is UBI, so it makes sense that he devotes two entire chapters to the topic. Despite its current association
with libertarians, crypto evangelists, NEETS, gamers, digital nomads, and various other eccentrics who have only begun spawning on
a reasonably large scale these past 1-2 decades, it was once much more mainstream**.
It's hard to fathom now, but the idea of a guaranteed annual income was mainstream political wisdom in the United States in
the late 1960s and early 1970s. Medicare and Medicaid had just been passed in 1965, and the country had an appetite for solutions
for social problems. In May 1968, over 1,000 university economists signed a letter supporting a guaranteed annual income. In 1969,
President Nixon proposed the Family Assistance Plan, which would provide cash benefits of about $10,000 per family and serve as
a guaranteed annual income with some eligibility requirements; this bill was supported by 79 percent of respondents polled at
the time. The Family Assistance Plan passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin -- 243 to 155 -- but then stalled in
the Senate due to, of all things, Democrats who wanted an even more robust plan.
But then the Reagan Revolution rolled out, economists produced (now discredited) studies that UBI depressed work hours and increased
the divorce rate, and the general public lost interest.
The literature that Yang has amassed tells a different story. He mentions a study by Evelyn Forget (2005) in Canada, who found
the effect on work to be "minimal." The only groups of people that worked substantially less were new mothers and teens, which seems
to be a perfectly fine outcome. There was also a rise in high school graduation rates, a reduction in hospital visits, less domestic
violence, and fewer cases of mental illness. Another study by Akee on Native Americans who got basic income from casino earnings
found that children became more conscientious and agreeable.
I was genuinely surprised to learn that there is one major country that has already adopted UBI: Iran. During the 2011 reforms,
it eliminated inefficient food and gas subsidies, and replaced them with basic income of $16,000 per year. ( Strictly speaking,
this is not quite accurate on Yang's part; this is far too much for a middle-income country like Iran, and as I subsequently confirmed,
$16,000 is their basic income NORMED to US standards, i.e. what Americans would get under a scheme that drew on a similar share of
the national income ). But in any case, there was apparently no reduction in hours worked. I don't know what effect it had on
Iranian economic productivity, and Yang doesn't go into it. I would imagine that doing such analyses on the Iranian economy would
be complicated by the relative opacity of its national accounts, as well as by the (much larger) economic shocks created by US sanctions
over this past decade.
Either way, the general picture – so far as we can say based on the limited UBI experiments to date – is that they don't have
much effect either way on employment or GDP, but they do increase happiness and general welfare. But in any case, when the current
President thinks it is very normal to mark Easter with an economic growth update
perhaps it is time to stop worshipping the latest quarterly GDP figures, as was suggested by Simon Kuznets in 1934, the inventor
of the GDP:
economic welfare cannot be adequately measured unless the personal distribution of income is known. And no income measurement
undertakes to estimate the reverse side of income, that is, the intensity and unpleasantness of effort going into the earning
of income. The welfare of a nation can, therefore, scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined above.
In Yang's vision, the size of American UBI – the "Freedom Dividend", as he calls it – will be $12,000 for each American aged 18-64,
subsequently indexed to inflation. This is just above the current poverty line of $11,700.
But will it be affordable?
An analysis by the Roosevelt Institute of this $12,000 per year per adult proposal found that adopting it would permanently
grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent -- or about $2.5 trillion by 2025 -- and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to
4.7 million people. Putting money into people's hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth
and the economy. The cost would be about an additional $1.3 trillion per year on top of existing welfare programs, most of which
would be folded into the plan, as well as increased taxable revenue and cost savings.
The cost of $1.3 trillion seems like an awful lot. For reference, the federal budget is about $4 trillion and the entire U.S.
economy about $19 trillion. But there are myriad ways to pay for it. The most sensible way to pay for it in my view would be with
a value-added tax (VAT) -- a consumption tax -- that would generate income from the people and businesses that benefit from society
the most.
A VAT would result in slightly higher prices. But technological advancement would continue to drive down the cost of most things.
And with the backdrop of a universal basic income of $12,000, the only way a VAT of 10 percent makes you worse off is if you consume
more than $120,000 in goods and services per year, which means you're doing fine and are likely at the top of the income distribution.
This counters one of the central "leftist" arguments against UBI – that it is regressive, and falls disproportionately on the
poor. Sure, they'll be paying 10% more for most goods and services. But their income will also increase by at least 50%, and by around
100% if they work part-time. It will be rich consumers who lose out.
For people who consider this farcical, consider the bailouts that took place during the financial crisis. You may not recall
that the U.S. government printed over $4 trillion in new money for its quantitative easing program following the 2008 financial
collapse. This money went to the balance sheets of the banks and depressed interest rates. It punished savers and retirees. There
was little to no inflation.
This one is for the inflation bears.
VII
While UBI is the mainstay of Yang's policy platform, he has many other excellent ideas, which he elucidates in the three final
chapters.
1. Raise government worker retirement packages, with President getting $4 million per year . This is to be coupled with a lifetime
prohibition on making money from their office through speeches, etc.
I very strongly agree with this, and have proposed this on many occasions in the past as well. Admittedly, I was talking about
Russia, but it really applies to any country. Politicians and bureaucrats get less money than businessmen, even though they are often
just as talented. This is a truism nigh well everywhere. This makes them resentful. Many of them want to close the gap. In the more
corrupt countries, they do that directly, from pressuring companies to "contribute" to their family's accounts (at best) to directly
"raiding" successful companies and stealing from government accounts. In less corrupt countries, they tend to be slaves to lobbyist
interests, on the unspoken understanding that they would be rewarded for their service once out of office (this describes the US).
I suppose that in a few countries they might genuine "servants of the people" but the number of such countries isn't all that high.
As it is, the only country that I am aware of that runs similar policies is Singapore, where Ministers get close to $1 million
per year. As a high IQ authoritarian state, it is able to resist populist demotism.
2. Stop corporate welfare . This one, I wager, would play well with both Bernie and Trump supporters:
Here's an idea for a dramatic rule -- for every $100 million a company is fined by the Department of Justice or bailed out
by the federal government, both its CEO and its largest individual shareholder will spend one month in jail. Call the new law
the Public Protection against Market Abuse Act. If it's a foreign company, this would apply to the head of the U.S. operation
and the largest American shareholder. There would be a legal tribunal and due process in each case. The president would have the
ability to pardon, suspend, shorten, or otherwise modify the period or sentence. The president would also have the ability to
claw back the assets of any such individual to repay the public.
3. Education realism . He notes that while tertiary enrollment is rising, its efficiency is falling.
That is, only 59 percent of students who started college in 2009 had completed a bachelor's degree by 2015, and this level
has been more or less consistent the past number of years. For those who attended private, selective colleges, this number will
seem jarringly low; the same number at selective schools is 88 percent. Among schools with open admissions policies the rate is
only 32 percent, and among for-profit universities the six-year graduation rate is 23 percent.
This is inevitable. Only 25% of students
can benefit from a university education, as there is only so much space on the right hand side of the IQ bell curve. Only choice
is to fail more and more students, to lower standards, or to abandon the fiction that everyone is suited for university.
While Yang can't exactly couch it in such terms, he is – unlike the increasing number of Democrats agitating for free college
– obviously woke to the Education Question:
(a) Administrative staff at US universities is blooming, and they are passing on the costs to the captive student market. Meanwhile,
they use their tax exempt status to run hedge funds.
One way to change this would be a law stipulating that any private university with an endowment over $5 billion will lose its
tax-exempt status unless it spends its full endowment income from the previous year on direct educational expenses, student support,
or domestic expansion. This would spur Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, MIT, Penn, Northwestern, and others to spend billions
each year directly on their students and expansion within the United States. There could be a Harvard center in Ohio or Michigan
as well as the new one they just opened in Shanghai.
Incidentally, describing the Ivy League colleges as hedge funds with a university attached is something that Ron Unz has also
done, though his solution was to suggest forcing Harvard
to eliminate its fees .
(b) He talks of the need for more vocational training and apprenticeships.
(c) Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are largely ineffective. While I wasn't expecting miracles, I was still surprised to learn
that Udacity's course completion rate is only around 4%. They are not a panacea.
(d) He is especially hard on government "retraining" programs for displaced workers:
The reality is more often displaced workers spending government funds or racking up debt at the University of Phoenix or another
for-profit institution in desperate bids to stay relevant and marketable.
In particular, he agrees that "learn to code" is useless advice for the vast majority of these people. They would be better off
with a UBI.
4. Mandate "serenity" settings for smartphones and social media . Currently it's a pain to get notifications settings down to
a manageable level. Would be good to have an all-in-one option.
5. Social credits . No, this is not the quasi-totalitarian Chinese scheme to coercively promote good behavior. This is similar
to a thing called "time banking", which are already exisiting voluntary associations in the US where people get credits within communities
by performing useful tasks, e.g. minor home repairs, walking dogs, etc. The idea is to have the government allocate these credits
towards solving some major problem, e.g. "100 million DSCs to reduce obesity levels in Mississippi", and let normal people sort out
the details in a more efficient way than bureaucrats could dictate. Apart from the direct benefits, it should also help people feel
more useful and enhance life satisfactino. I am not fully convinced having the government being involved in this is such a good idea,
but I will reserve judgment until I learn more about it.
6. Primary care doctors helped by AI in healthcare . This will also help keep costs down, and lessen the strain on overworked
doctors.
Martin Ford, the author of Rise of the Robots, suggests that we create a new class of health care provider armed with AI --
college graduates or master's students unburdened by additional years of costly specialization, who would nonetheless be equipped
to head out to rural areas. They could help people monitor chronic conditions like obesity and diabetes and refer particularly
hairy problems to more experienced doctors. Call them primary care specialists. AI will soon be at a point where technology, in
conjunction with a non-doctor, could offer the same quality of care as a doctor in the vast majority of cases. In one study, IBM's
Watson made the same recommendation as human doctors did in 99 percent of 1,000 medical cases and made suggestions human doctors
missed in 30 percent of them. AI can reference more cases than the most experienced physician while keeping up to date with the
latest journals and studies.
In return for a less hectic pace and greater freedom to focus on patients as opposed to paperwork, doctors will need to take a
salary hit:
What's required is an honest conversation in which we say to people who are interested in becoming doctors, "If you become
a doctor, you'll be respected, admired, and heal people each day. You will live a comfortable life. But medicine will not be a
path to riches. On the bright side, we're not going to burn you out by forcing you to see a million patients a day and fill out
paperwork all the time. We're going to supplement you with an army of empathetic people equipped with AI who will handle most
routine cases. We'll only call you when the case genuinely requires distincthuman judgment or empathy. We want you to become the
best and most human version of yourself, not Dr. Speed Demon who can bang out a nine-minute appointment. Let's leave that to Watson."
VIII
It should be blindingly obvious, but yes, Yang is really the only US Presidential candidate that interests me at this point in
time. I consider his policies to be head and shoulders above those of any other candidate. Note that many of his other great ideas,
such as banning robocalls, regulating social media as a public utility, and promoting nuclear power are not even in this book. The
one mostly blank spot on his policy agenda – admittedly, a very big one – is his stance on foreign policy.
In my view, Yang correctly identifies that a war is being waged on "normal people." And he has a battlefield strategy – a mixture
of paternalistic technocracy and capitalism with a human face – that has at least some chance of turning the tables.
I mean look, here is the situation come 2020:
1. An orange man turned POTATUS whose foreign policy agenda is set by neocons and AIPAC, and who has gone from calling for a Wall
to calling for millions of LEGAL immigrants to work in factories that will soon be swept away by automation. Yang, at least, will
favor cognitively elitist immigration, i.e. which actually creates
tons of value and will continue to be viable in the age of automation.
2. A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate
conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "
Easter worshippers ." Sure, there's one other decent
candidate there, but she doesn't seem to have policies between foreign policy and has a <1% chance of getting elected, while Yang
has at least a distant shot at it.
3. While I like people such as Tucker Carlson, the problem is that he is not running. It doesn't seem that there will be any challenger
to Trump from the Dissident Right. Fortunately, there is no great contradiction, as Yang and Carlson also seem to like each other.
Furthermore, while both Yang and Carlson are concerned with automation, the Freedom Dividend is clearly a better and more adaptive
policy than the latter's Neo-Luddism.
Most likely, Yang will not win the Dem nomination, and will fade from the scene by this time next year. (Just like Audacious Epigone,
I bet on Kamala Harris on PredictIt). This does not mean he will fade from history. Automation isn't going anywhere, and pressure
for UBI will continue to build up (and not just in the US). It is reasonable to posit that Yang will continue to serve as a figurehead
for it within the US. However, at the rate that "contradictions" are piling up in US society, it is unclear if it will come about
in time to prevent mayhem.
The choice is essentially to cut and run or to stand and fight. We must convert from a mindset of scarcity to a mindset of
abundance. The revolution will happen either before or after the breakdown of society. We must choose before.
On the off chance that Yang actually makes it, I hope this book review will convince at least a few people into helping bring
that about and launch fully automated luxury cyborg space human capitalism.
** I also learned that Thomas Paine was a fan, writing in 1796: Out of a collected fund from landowners, "there shall be paid
to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for
the loss of his or her natural inheritance, to every person, rich or poor."
Karlin, how do you reconcile your support for UBI with your equally strong support for the Putin entitlement reform?
"But the basic thing to take away is that automation is coming for many jobs, and it won't just be manufacturing ones
this time round."
Stagnant productivity for eight years and counting. This is not just a problem unique to Russia, Brazil, Italy, etc.
"is clearly a better and more adaptive policy than the latter's Neo-Luddism"
I actually find Tucker much more Woke than UBI advocates. The central challenges of our generation are basically not about
GDP, though more is helpful. Like Ron Unz, I support free college, though obviously for a small minority.
i don't dislike the guy and in a better world i could more easily vote for a left-liberal Ron Paul than a right-libertarian one
but the western world's root problem is it has a hostile elite (banking mafia) and Yang would be a sedative when (imo) we need
acceleration.
automation
all the arguments about automation apply to immigration
a meritocratic caste system
quibbling but a genuinely meritocratic system would block high IQ sociopaths from the ruling class and promote stewardship
instead.
how do you reconcile your support for UBI with your equally strong support for the Putin entitlement reform?
Pensions privilege older generations. This is perfectly fine, since people should be able to enjoy their twilight years in
moderate comfort. But a retirement age of 60M/55W becomes absurd once life expectancy approaches 80 years by 2030 (i.e. the date
at which this reform will end). I would note that further note that the increase in the pensions age was also paired with general
pensions increases, which further mitigated its welfare impact. Apart from that, I don't really see how a 55 year old woman *absolutely
needs* a basic income more than a 30 year old working couple trying to pay for an apartment, kids, etc.
I actually find Tucker much more Woke than UBI advocates.
How is banning robots going to help?
Like Ron Unz, I support free college, though obviously for a small minority.
It's a subsidy to people who are generally already very well off (though also brighter than average, so I am not opposed for
eugenic reasons). However, it seems that the much bigger problem is spiraling costs. Putting taxpayers on the hook for infinity
administrators and Gender Studies departments doesn't seem like a good idea.
– Apr 17–23: 1% (poll includes 21% Undecideds; if omitted Yang up to 2% ?)
– Apr 15–21: 2% (huge sample size; margin of error +/1%, implying Yang at 1-3% ).
– Apr 12–15: 3% without Biden in poll; 2% with Biden in poll
– Apr 11–15: 1% without Biden in poll; <1% with Biden in poll (poll includes 20% Undecideds when Biden not included
and 14% Undecideds when Biden included)
– Apr 11–14: 3%
– Apr 8–14: 2% without Biden in poll; 1% with Biden in poll
– Apr 1–7: 1%
These 1-3% numbers are right where Buttigieg's were in March (<1% to 4% across 17 polls), before the media began promoting
him in the first week of April.
Buttigieg's last four national poll results: 7%, 9%, 17%/21%, 8%/11% (latter two are "with Biden / without Biden"), conducted
April 11 to April 23.
Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I still don't see how a UBI won't just cause inflation or rising rents. Even so, I'm
glad at least one candidate in the race is now discussing the problems of AI and robotics. Within 10 years, a majority of people
in the country may well be unemployed and probably unemployable, too. It's high time we started talking about this looming problem,
so I'm grateful to Yang for that.
I used to be more convinced of the automation argument, but now I'm not so sure. Think about Robin Hanson's experience with prediction
markets. They work well, so he puzzled over why they aren't used more. Why, for instance, will a company not want to set up a
prediction market on whether a project will meet a deadline? He says it's because they say they would like to know in advance
if the deadline will be met, but don't really want this because if they are saying one thing and the prediction market is saying
another they will look like fools. I think there's a similar phenomenon with employers. Employers say they want two things, to
make profit and for their workers to be well-off. What if those conflict? It's natural to think that the former will always dominate
in their decision making process. So they should want to replace their workers with machines. But what do they really want? If
the "employer" is just a guy who wants an Uber ride he really does want the whole thing to go as efficiently as possible. In those
kinds of areas automation will be most welcomed. But what of the manager at a large company? He says he wants the company to make
a profit, but his main concern is keeping his job and being promoted. The workers are his job, replacing them could end up replacing
him. Reducing their numbers could make his position seem less important. So if presented with the opportunity to automate their
workforce he's going to clap and say "great demonstration, but I'm worried the robot will fail for edge case X, Y, and Z so come
back when you can fix them."
@Digital Samizdat I
agree – it would probably cause a lot of inflation. There would obviously be groups of people adopting it as a reproductive strategy
too, living together like sardines and pooling their resources.
I'd rather have real money – money that holds it value. I think that would be a killer foreign policy. No aid, just real money
that people can use to save.
I think the only remote chance for something like UBI to work would be to totally gut the government and fire all bureaucrats,
but that is beyond the power a president. While Congress might conceivably vote for something like UBI, they would not vote to
end these systems of patronage.
@Alexander Turok There's
an expectation that we are on the course to the singularity, but Moore's Law basically already came to an end. While, there
are possibly new architectures to explore, i don't see how AI will continue to advance without sharp increases in processing power.
I think it is interesting that he used the term "assortative mating", but many of his policy positions seem blank-slatist. Is
it just camouflage?
For instance, the idea that Puerto Rico should become a state (though not unique to him, and probably going to happen anyway.)
Or the idea that all foreign undergrads should stay (or was it only in STEM?) One might be able to delude oneself that having
smart foreign overlords would be a sound economic policy, but an undergrad degree doesn't actually have much validity as a cognitive
separator, anymore. Many Africans get them. I think by now, it might mean like an average IQ of 100, which certainly isn't worth
the cost of increasing diversity and rootlessness. America is full of degree mills. I believe it is also immoral to brain
drain countries.
Considering the fact that 99% of the U.S. government is appointed(by the deciders), and the rest is pre-approved for voting
so you can play 'democracy' on special Tuesdays, it doesn't look too good for populism or populists like Andrew or Tulsi. They
want another Obama – another shit eating grin to sell a load of false claims and empty promises.
That said, though, what exactly is your beef with Bernie Sanders? Is it that he's allegedly sucking up to neoliberalism.txt?
Or is it something else?
I could very well be willing to vote for Yang if it looks like he has a realistic shot at the Democratic presidential nomination.
If he doesn't, though, then I would probably feel compelled to choose among the candidates who actually do have a realistic shot
at this.
The one thing that I have an issue with in Yang's platform is making the US President's pension four million dollars per year.
I mean, with a 25-year retirement, that would equal to 100 million dollars. Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches
and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians -- or at least prominent politicians -- in the US already have
enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office. Maybe less prominent US politicians (such as Congressmen and
Senators) should be given a nicer retirement package, though.
Is having a much nicer retirement package actually going to stop Republican advocacy of policies such as tax cuts for the rich?
Or are Republicans simply going to be even more motivated to push for this if their own incomes and pensions are going to become
much larger?
I haven't heard of politicians in the US resorting to stealing money or taking bribes from businesses–though maybe I am missing
something here. Trump could certainly benefit from his Presidency, but that's because he's a businessman and still kept his businesses
within his family.
@songbird Nomorobo
does help, especially for business phones where you need to answer unrecognized numbers in case they might be a business prospect.
For private phones get rid of your land line and use only a mobile smart phone. Those provide a do not disturb mode in which the
phone only rings if the call is coming from someone in your contact list, otherwise the call goes straight to voice mail. A real
caller will leave a message. Problem pretty much solved.
Politicians and bureaucrats get less money than businessmen, even though they are often just as talented.
Every article you write has to have at least one bit of unmitigated bullshit. This is that piece. Politics and bureaucracy
are the grimy sump of both societies and economies, filled with hucksters, malingerers, has-beens, never-weres, and, in the bureaucracy
especially, the clueless and useless. The notion that their already budget shredding pensions are too low is utterly farcical.
It's almost as farcical as the "justification" for such a notion, that the cure for the insatiable greed of those in public
employ is to give them even more of other people's hard-earned.
"You will hear everlastingly that the rich man cannot be bribed. The fact is, of course, that the rich man is bribed; he has
been bribed already. That is why he is a rich man." -- G.K Chesterton
It will be even more so if getting a degree means you get to stay in the US.
On both literacy and computer operations, foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform so poorly
that they score at the level of natives who have only a high school diploma.
On numeracy, foreign-educated immigrants with a college or advanced degree perform closer to the level of natives who have
some college education, but not a bachelor's.
Despite their reputation for specializing in STEM fields, about one in six foreign-degree holders score "below basic" in
numeracy.
The skill gap between foreign and U.S. degree holders persists even among immigrants who have had at least five years in the
United States to learn English.
how did you arrive at the figure of 7%? he has a 0% chance of winning, and that should be obvious. this is a non-trivial difference.
see, normally, as long as you have a chance in something, it can't be 0%. but the democrat primary is rigged. it's not a fair
contest. so his chances are not even 1%. they are literally 0%.
of course i'm being pedantic, and one could say that yang raises important issues that could be discussed, so he's worth talking
about either way. but anatoly prides himself on accuracy in his posts, and that 7% figure is bogus, bro.
setting aside the mechanics of the democrat superdelegate system, which will eliminate any guy like him on purpose, his popularity
polling will never be more than like 2% against a field of other democrats. nobody is interested in a Chinese guy. plus they have
no charisma. that's important, guys. hard to understand yet again, how the political analysis is so wrong here.
Ron Paul had a much better chance, and he didn't have much chance. and that was in the republican party, where an insurgent
can, once in a blue moon, have a real shot.
Ross Perot had a better chance. he was actually in an election. and 100% of every political analyst correctly said he had zero
chance. which was accurate.
The infatuation with AI makes people overlook three AI's built-in glitches.
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving car leads its passengers
to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death.
2) Humans love to behave in erratic ways, it is just impossible to program AI to respond to all possible erratic human behaviour.
Therefore, instead of adapting AI to humans, humans will be forced to adapt to AI, and relinquish a lot of their liberty as humans.
3) Humans have moral qualms (not everybody is Hillary Clinton), AI being strictly utilitarian, will necessarily be "psychopathic".
In short AI is the promise of communism raised by several orders of magnitude. Welcome to the "Brave New World".
1) AI is software. Software bugs. Software doesn't autocorrect bugs. Men correct bugs. A bugging self-driving car leads
its passengers to death. A man driving a car can steer away from death.
Agreed, but it is much worse. The newer Ai program themselves, and the creators don't understand it.
Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians–or
at least prominent politicians–in the US already have enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office.
Yes, but the point is that the route to this wealth is a certain set of policies favoring those who are likely to pay for those
speeches. It's basically a kind of delayed corruption.
I don't care what you read on Five Thirty Eight. Andrew Yang is running a mock candidacy. He's basically comic relief.
Do you even understand how the American caucus and primary systems work? Even a big name like Kamala Harris, who has lots
of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to drop out after Iowa
and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state. Without the momentum a strong finish
in these two states provide, campaigns wither and die. The money stops flowing. Volunteers quit. The press pool shrinks.
Harris is strong in her home state of California and also in South Carolina where she has a network of sorority sisters who
are helping her get out the black vote. But it will all be for naught if she doesn't do well in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Andrew Yang isn't even polling at 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire (or anywhere else). He has no ground game. He has
no organization. He hasn't raised much money. He has no fired up volunteers willing to make countless phone calls and trudge through
the snow to knock on doors. Basically, he has nothing.
Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide
a great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange
for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income
tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions. There are more moderate proposals. But, ultimately, UBI has to be paid for somehow,
either by raising taxes or eliminating much of the welfare state.
@Digital Samizdat I
suspect the inflation objection against UBI is probably exaggerated – although I would agree that in the short term there may
be some price gouging.
It's about time the US got State & Federal consumer protection, with real teeth. It's not socialism but
pragmatics & justice. Private actors should not be allowed to exploit their market position at the expense of the Nation & it's
citizens.
I have no fundamental objections to ubi. However, it should be roled out in the context of some kind of jobs guarentee. Many
people want to work. Meaningful work helps provide meaningful lives. The US has a great need of public infrastructure.
These should be real needs, not bridges to nowhere.
Such jobs are not inflationary. Nor does the government need to borrow $$ to fund it. Like president Lincoln, they can print the
money. If the government spends a dollar to buy a dollar's worth of (real) labour or production it is not inflationary. It is,
on the contrary, a stimulus.
The book review says that Yang states that drug overdose has replaced auto accidents as the leading cause of accidental deaths.
However, 60,000 annual drug deaths is only 1/4 the number who die annually as a result of medical negligence. (2016 Hopkins study).
Yang is smart enough to know this 250,000 finding. He should acknowledge the 250,000 number, attribute it to overworked doctors,
and propose policies to dramatically increase the number of physicians .let's say, double the number. This would take 7 years
to kick-in, but still, could well get him elected. Voters care about medical access. Short of banning leafblowers, this would
be the most popular election policy conceivable.
@Robert Dolan "No .actually
..if UBI were instituted whites would no doubt be excluded."
Oh, yes, no doubt !
There's a racialist answer to all/any question/s. Like astrology, racialism it's unfalseafiable.
@Germanicus I've seen
horrible examples of computer bugs sitting there for decades (!) undetected, and then finally blowing up. I think it's inevitable,
but I'm definitely not looking forward to this.
@songbird "I believe
it is also immoral to brain drain countries."
I agree. Immoral to the foreign country & immoral to one's own country.
It's also selfish & short-sighted.
If we deported all "Syrian refugees", Syria would suddenly triple its population at least. Many black dudes from the African
bushes would be suddenly Syrian, because according to the media, these are all "Syrian refugees".
I find it hard to believe there are intelligent people at large who could come up with more than 5,000 words about Andrew Yang.
The narcissistic, self-congratulatory rambling about the superior traits of people who live in coastal cities sounds very
much like that Zuckerberg guy, or Chelsea Clinton – in other words, a "progressive" type who want to set up re-education camps
for the masses of unwashed, reactionary "white people" – for their own good, of course.
Finally, hand-wringing concern over the economic damage soon be done to the troglodytes by automation, and by technical progress
in general, is very tiresome. Some of this article sounds like the lyrics to a Bruce Springsteen song from the 80's.
@OkechukwuKamala
Harris, who has lots of money, a strong organization, tons of endorsements and close to double digit poll numbers, will have to
drop out after Iowa and New Hampshire if she doesn't secure, at minimum, no less than third place in either state.
Perhaps not surprisingly, California has moved up its primary from June to March (Super Tuesday):
3 Feb – Iowa (caucus)
11 Feb – New Hampshire
22 Feb – Nevada (caucus)
29 Feb – South Carolina
3 Mar – Alabama, Arkansas, California , Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Vermont, Virginia
So I don't think Kamal Harris will be dropping out before 3 March, no matter how poorly she does in Iowa and New Hampshire.
That said, though, what exactly is your beef with Bernie Sanders? Is it that he's allegedly sucking up to neoliberalism.txt?
I am fine with Bernie Sanders. I will have my remaining student loan (~$10,000) written off, it's a minor issue but I wouldn't
mind having an extra $200 per month. He will probably be non-interventionist, and he is not a Russia hawk by US standards. He
will (if he follows his program) preside over some of the biggest capital misallocations in US history, which I imagine will have
a sad ending, but if that is what American voters want, that's perfectly ok by me.
Based on the success of the Clintons in giving speeches and publishing and selling books, one would think that politicians–or
at least prominent politicians–in the US already have enough means to become extremely wealthy after they leave office.
It's coupled with a lifetime prohibition on making money from their office through speeches, etc. I should add that.
2. Incorrect. He is polling in a range from 1%-4%. About same as Buttigieg before MSM started amplifying him in early April.
3. Correct, most of the welfare state as concerns 18-64 year olds – the people eligible for UBI – will be eliminated. That's
one major cost saving. The other is the 10% VAT (typical rate in Europe being 20%).
He should acknowledge the 250,000 number, attribute it to overworked doctors, and propose policies to dramatically increase
the number of physicians
Actually he does do all that.
(1) He suggests training many more primary care doctors, without the costly specializations that massively inflate their costs
in the US.
Intermediate level doctor + Dr. Watson AI = solutions to 99% of health problems (this is literally the percentage of cases
in which Dr. Watson agreed with human doctors; in a remaining 30% of cases, the AI made suggestions that humans missed). The most
qualified specialists can then deal with only the most complicated cases.
(2) As it happens, he has ideas on overworked doctors as well:
The best approach is what they do at the Cleveland Clinic -- doctors simply get paid flat salaries. When doctors aren't
worried about billing, they can focus on patients. Dr. Delos Cosgrove, the CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, said, "I think you
have to recognize that people do what you pay them to do. If you pay doctors to do more of something, then that's what they'll
do. If you put the emphasis on looking after patients, they'll do that." The Cleveland Clinic is consistently ranked among
the top hospitals in the country. And physician turnover is only 3.5 percent per year, much lower than normal. The Cleveland
Clinic has achieved financial success in part by universalizing a sense of cost control. They put price tags on things so everyone
knows how much it costs to, say, open up a new set of sutures. They don't allow redundant tests. They include doctors in purchasing
decisions. Everyone is interested in the company's financial sustainability because they feel a sense of ownership and mission.
Plus, if the hospital does well, you're more likely to get a raise.
What's required is an honest conversation in which we say to people who are interested in becoming doctors, "If you become
a doctor, you'll be respected, admired, and heal people each day. You will live a comfortable life. But medicine will not be
a path to riches. On the bright side, we're not going to burn you out by forcing you to see a million patients a day and fill
out paperwork all the time. We're going to supplement you with an army of empathetic people equipped with AI who will handle
most routine cases. We'll only call you when the case genuinely requires distincthuman judgment or empathy. We want you to
become the best and most human version of yourself, not Dr. Speed Demon who can bang out a nine-minute appointment. Let's leave
that to Watson."
I'm sure that many doctors would enjoy this shift in role and embrace becoming better, more empathetic clinicians. Changing
their incentives would change everything.
@animalogic While I
am not a huge fan either , it is far better
for the host country than massive illegal immigration (Merkel's Boner) or massive legal migration (POTATUS). Which seem to be
the only choices on offer atm in developed white countries.
The war on terror is a self induced psychosis that is eating away at the moral core of america. Opiods, underage sex, porn
are merely diversions. Blessed are the blessed.
Yang has ideological appeal for a considerable number of people who will not be voting in the Democratic primary. In most states
(all except California?), if you want to vote for Republican candidates in the down ballot races you will not be able to vote
for Yang.
The more accurate solution to healthcare is the financially incentivizing those in med school to focus on general practice with
by way ending their educational debt. It is the hyper focus on specialization for illness that could be prevented by more general
practitioners.
The GDP question requires over hauling GDP valuation from potential sales to actual sales. You want to get a look at the real
economy stop counting what's on the shelf as goods sold (my abbreviated version of the current method).
Stop importing people and train the one's you have – period.
$12k a year isn't going to free anybody, it's just going to accelerate white genocide (more money for heroin and opiate pills
and alcohol). In a world of $1500 a month apartments you're still living on the street with $12k income.
As for the big "Medicare for everybody!" scam, using your Medicare at all will eat up that $12k fast! I have Medicare, and
just walking into my local health providers for a checkup means I'm going to be facing up to $2k in co-pays ($800 co-pay for a
standard blood test, $100 to have an assistant check your blood pressure, $100 to see the doctor, repeat co-pays to come back
and get the results of standard blood tests, and what I call the sodomy charge: an additional $500 "for choosing _____"(enter
name of our local monopolistic health provider).
I would prefer getting a one-time check of say $3,000 and using it to get out of the country.
@reiner Tor Not exactly.
The new rules simply prevent the superdelegates from voting if any given candidate already has at least 51% or more of the
normal primary delegates at the start of the convention. But if no one does, then the superdelegates get to vote. Many have
speculated that that's precisely why they're flooding the Democrat primaries with so many candidates this year: to prevent Bernie
Sanders (or somebody else objectionable to the oligarchy) from winning on the first ballot, so that the superdelegates can still
pick the nominee. Pretty sneaky!
Moreover, UBI is a terrible idea if it is proposed as a replacement for current social welfare programs, which provide a
great deal more value to recipients than $1000 a month. A strict libertarian interpretation of the UBI concept would, in exchange
for $1k a month, get rid of food stamps, section 8 housing, AFDC, cash welfare benefits, Medicaid, Medicare, the earned income
tax credit and even mortgage interest deductions.
That's another good point. If UBI simply replaces stuff like Medicare, then it could just become another subsidy for the big
corporations–another form of privatization by stealth.
@Mr. Hack Phone companies
make too much money off bothersome telephone calls, and they fly jets to D.C. to lobby for what they want. We poor schmucks who
answer the calls don't have jets to fly to D.C. to schmooze with the lobbyists.
The problem is easily solvable, outlaw "spoofing of caller IDs" and actually enforce the law on robocalls.
Yang is clearly the most intelligent and sensible candidate, even if I am not 100% sold on some of his ideas and/or politics.
That said, I feel like his slate of policy proposals are what you propose when you don't really want actual democracy (at least
at the federal level) in the future – for his stuff to stick, we'd need a Congress that mostly confined itself to taxes and spending,
rather than the endless investigations, pandering, and outrage that animates it today, while a technocratic elite really runs
things.
In reality though, even if he could get some of this enacted, you'd have the Democrats constantly proposing jacking up the
benefits and/or increasing them for favored groups, and Republicans trying to strangle it by undoing any taxes levied on corporations
to help fund it. Neither party can resist "doing something" and reverting to type.
Well Yang won me over in his interview with Ben Shappiro. On the show they talked about the income tax and Yang says he is
against the income tax in principle because you shouldn't tax what you want more of (work) and rich people find loop holes around
it anyway.
Well, who else offers a better solution? Trump who is to busy being a legendary Isreali president or Bernie who is
a literal socialist? I am skeptical about a lot of things, but I'm not going to be such a nihilist that I get stuck in the what
if loophole.
@Digital Samizdat I
believe that you are incorrect with regard to the rules for superdelegate voting. Superdelegates cannot vote in the 1st round.
If no candidate get 50% plus one in the 1st round, then they can start voting beginning in the 2nd round. Which is when it will
hit the fan.
How could UBI not end in a price dictate?
Germany basically has it already.
1/3 of it gives you 40m² living space.
1/3 of it gives you about 75.000 Calories / month.
1/3 for all the rest of costs.
UBI is bait and switch. Eventually it will be genocide. They will reduce you to starvation wages. It is the endgame of the masters
of mankind Fools will hand over everything they have and close their own cell doors, rub their hands waiting for three square
meals a day. Trust these people? Nimrod himself tried the control dynamic of UBI before, didn't end well in Babel, wont end well
for the globe either. Take heart though, being monitored and his majesty will end the evil plot. It is more endgame than those
elitist, eugenecist elect, of society than they know.
Not sure which racial group bullied Yang. It's possible it was white kids but blacks treat Asians far worse than whites to the
point of regular physical assaults. Whites kids might occasionally taunt Asians and other non-white kids but it almost never escalates
to physical assault.
So many Asians share a similar racial worldview to white liberals since they have little experience with feral ghetto blacks
(not the mythical TV negro), so they tend to romanticize them.
I'm not against UBI, especially for struggling whites, but I believe Yang said this would be financed with a VAT tax which
to me defeats the whole purpose. Whites have been shouldering the crushing tax burden for decades and it's gone to subsidizing
black and brown welfare parasites and wars for Israel. They shouldn't have to pay additional taxes to receive UBI.
@Anatoly Karlin Yang
hasn't told us what the VAT rate would be but based on others who've proposed it previously then I assume 15-17%. And you wouldn't
need to buy 120K worth of shit per year for your losses to exceed your gains. At 10% you'd be paying 12K in VAT taxes and getting
1K in benefits, so I'd say that's upside down. But if you meant 1% you might be correct.
Even if working poor people spend a VAT taxable amount of 3K per year that would amount to $300.00 at a 10% rate, so their
true net gain from Yang's UBI program would be a measly $700.00 which is better than nothing but won't lift them out of poverty
or a hand to mouth existence.
@Johnny Rico Don't
expect Blacks to pay attention till about Dec. 2019 or Jan. 2020 at the earliest.
(My recollection is it wasn't until late 2007 that Blacks began to seriously line up behind Obama, and only really consolidated
by Jan./Feb. 2008. And yet, by about May/June 2008, Blacks had secured Obama the nomination thru racial block-voting especially
in the South. You can still find articles and data from throughout 2007, including late 2007, that show Black ambivalence towards
Obama -- which is I think where Harris is now. It's a little different because Obama was this overtly strange-seeming, foreign-name-having
person whereas Harris is a more recognizable personality [just not a pleasant one] with a US-seeming name; a viable Stacy Abrams
candidacy would have Black enthusiasm a lot better, sooner.)
South Carolina Primary [Feb. 29, 2020] (
link ) Four polls conducted between beginning of Feb. and end of April, all mid sample size (n=300 to n=750); of which the averages
are :
– Biden 35%
– Sanders 14% – Harris 11%
– Booker 7.5%
– O'Rourke 6%
– Warren 6%
– Buttigeg 2% (mathematically; 0% in three pre-April polls; then the media began promoting him in early April, after which he
scored 7%)
– Yang 1%
– Others 10%
The three things that stand out to me:
In California, support for Sanders, Harris, and Buttigieg are all higher. Harris has home-state recognition, Buttigieg is the
Gay Candidate with the flamboyant surname (as of the time of polling, he had been recently promoted by the media; may fade by
summer), and Sanders does not sell well to Blacks (Clinton took 75% of SC's delegates in Feb. 2016 despite Sanders' momentum at
the time and big New Hampshire win; Clinton's final, convention delegate count was 60%, meaning she hugely outperformed in South
Carolina).
Their empathy and desire to subsidize and address the distress of the general public will likely be lower and lower.
It looks like a new aristocracy inbreeding and looking down on the "Deplorables".
Perhaps uniquely for a politician, Yang is sympathetic to people who can no longer be bothered to pull themselves up by
the bootstraps, as conservative orthodoxy dictates.
True enough – elite sympathy with the deplorables is minimal to non-existent.
2. A vomit-inducing brew of Establishment globalists, SJW-appeasing identity politicians, bland corporate stooges, Russiagate
conspiracy theorists, and "liberal interventionists" who call Christians "Easter worshippers."
There's a good Telegraph article on PC gymnastics to avoid the word "Christian".
Compare and contrast the reaction of Hillary Clinton to the two tragedies. On Sunday, she tweeted, "I'm praying for everyone
affected by today's horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka." Easter worshippers? That's a clunking
new euphemism for Christians. When the mosques in Christchurch were targeted, did Clinton talk of Ramadan worshippers? No,
she wrote, "My heart breaks for New Zealand and the global Muslim community."
The zio/US government lies about everything, unemployment is around 22% and America is being continually being deindustrialised
by outsourcing every thing to China and Mexico etc., and America is being destroyed via the illegal immigration hordes that
are crossing the southern border, and all of this is going according to plan as laid out in The Protocols of Zion!
The middle class is being destroyed and the satanic zionists are in the saddle on the gray horse of death and are ridding down
the normal American people and turning America into Orwell Oceania!
To top it all off the zionists have their judas goat Trump leading the naive Americans to destruction!
"... Having observed political rallies for the last several years, I've noticed that whatever images of faces appear in your mind when thinking about a Republican or Democratic gathering are most likely accurate. Walking up to the Lincoln Memorial, however, I had to check my presumptions and biases at the door. Andrew Yang's now-infamous #YangGang managed to surprise me. ..."
What I Saw at the Andrew Yang Rally in Washington From "math" hats to former Bernie Bros, the rogue Democrat is anything
but ordinary. By Remso W. Martinez
•
April
19, 2019
Credit: Remso Martinez To step off the Washington D.C. Metro is to step into a city that's anything but ordinary. While every urban
area, big or small, has its own perks and personality, something about D.C. makes it seem like it's in a state of constant flux,
with a permanent air of unease.
I'm not talking just about the national politics side of it. Here, even local government issues seem to toe the line between order
and chaos. Amid federal buildings, signs flank the sidewalks bearing messages of support for D.C. statehood. At a bus stop nearby,
banners endorsing Medicare for All are also visible. So it makes sense that a city immersed in matters generally outside the normal
political conversation would be the scene of a rally for a candidate who is anything but ordinary.
Andrew Yang, a tech innovator and philanthropist, has gone from an unknown outsider to one of the top contenders for the Democratic
nomination, thanks to ideas that many consider outside the norm as well as an abnormal coalition of working-class whites and social
progressives. And if his rally in Washington, which came a day after his widely publicized CNN town hall and a year after starting
to build his war chest and name ID from nothing to something, is any clue of his future, this little campaign that could could
be something worth keeping an eye on.
Yang's economic populism -- his proposals range from a guaranteed basic income of $1,000 a month to statehood for D.C. and Puerto
Rico -- as well as his criticisms of our political culture have left him driving at least some of the conversation within the Democratic
presidential primary. He's shown appeal across the ideological spectrum and attracted a diverse cast of supporters as a result.
Having observed political rallies for the last several years, I've noticed that whatever images of faces appear in your mind when
thinking about a Republican or Democratic gathering are most likely accurate. Walking up to the Lincoln Memorial, however, I had
to check my presumptions and biases at the door. Andrew Yang's now-infamous #YangGang managed to surprise me.
First, I was confronted by one of my greatest fears: a large crowd of people wearing hats and holding signs that said "math."
As a math-challenged American, I felt personally victimized by this strange slogan, but from a marketing perspective, it certainly
kept my attention. Also noticeable was the diversity of the crowd itself. From students to senior citizens, it was hard to get a
firm grasp on the age of the average attendee -- which is exactly what every candidate wants. Generational diversity shows an ability
to speak to the challenges and priorities of Americans at different stages of life. In addition to that, the crowd was very typical
of what you would find at a political rally inside the Beltway, a combination of whites, blacks, and those of Middle Eastern descent.
Yang also managed to draw a large number from perhaps the most underrepresented ethnic group in America today: Asian-Americans.
"I have a candidate that looks like me," a Yang supporter of Chinese descent said. "Name the last time an Asian guy decided to
run for president. The answer is never." A large number of Asian Americans in the crowd felt that Yang was in a way the Asian Obama,
someone who could show them that they too might be president one day and make an impact.
Identity politics aside, Yang's crowd was very polished, with most in attendance wearing ties and slacks, unlike the Bernie rallies
of pink hair and stained shirts that seem more typical of today's left-wing activist base. Speaking to supporters, two things became
very apparent: I was wrong about who I imagined I'd be talking to and they really liked to talk about math.
The Yang supporters I spoke with ranged from high school students in Fairfax (one of the richest counties in America) to employees
for Fortune 500 companies to former Teamsters. It was difficult to imagine that they were all backing the same candidate for president.
"Fifteen million jobs are going to be eliminated within a decade," one student from the University of Maryland told me. "You take
into account the debt me and thousands of others carry after college and how difficult it is to get that first job out of college,
and Yang's Basic Income plan might be the only thing that prevents people from going broke and losing their minds."
A former Trump supporter was also in attendance, waving a "Humanity First" sign while wearing an American flag bandana. He told
me: "Yang is the type of candidate that talks about jobs because he knows how to create jobs. He's working for and wants to continue
working for the American people. He's everything Trump pretended to be."
Yang's popularity is a result of his appealing directly to voters who feel ignored by the two major parties, very much like the
campaigns that launched Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump to near-folk hero status in 2016 and onward. Yang, however, has less of a
track recordthan Sanders and Trump. Many former "Bernie Bros" were at the Yang rally, sporting "Math" baseball caps and Yang shirts
-- they never forgave Sanders for his endorsement of Hillary Clinton in 2016. One college student told me he was worried that his
public support for Yang would prompt his removal from his school's Democratic Socialists of America chapter, since the DSA has backed
Sanders' 2020 candidacy.
Yang's appeal to progressives who want an overhaul of our current way of doing business, coupled with his campaign's attention
to struggling white working-class voters, has bridged the gap between Democrats who wonder whether their party has gone too far left
or not left enough. While the mainstream Democratic Party asks itself whether socialism is its future, Yang has ignored that issue
by taking a personal approach to solving individual problems. He's gone straight to his base instead of the typical Democrat kingmakers
who rigged the game for Hillary Clinton during our last presidential go-around.
"The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who's good at math," Yang said as he wrapped up his speech to a roaring audience
of about 600. Polling at 3 percent nationally and already qualified for the first Democratic primary debate in June, the first true
test of Yang's grit will be running a campaign of ideas and policies in a political arena obsessed with personalities and soundbite
answers. One thing is certain though: ordinary is antiquated in the age of Trump. And going toe-to-toe with the president on a general
election debate stage just might require an unordinary candidate who can keep the base happy while widening the tent.
From the standpoint of Information Warfare, it is very critical when a new event happens to
put forward one's version of the "truth" first before any other possible competing theories can
arise. This could be why Pompeo or someone like him would chose to immediately come out with
accusations thrown around as facts with no evidence to support them and no respect for the
great Western concepts of "innocence until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial".
Pompeo's objective here is not the truth but to take that virgin intellectual territory
regarding the interpretation of this issue before anyone else can, because once a concept has
become normalized in the minds of the masses it is very difficult to change it and many people
in Washington cannot risk blowing the chance to waste thousands of American lives invading Iran
based on an ultimately false but widely accepted/believed narrative.
Not surprisingly foreign and especially Russian media has quickly attempted to counter the
"Iran obviously did it" narrative before it becomes an accepted fact. Shockingly Slavic
infowarriors actually decided
to speak to the captain of a tanker that was hit to get his opinion rather than simply
assert that Iran didn't do it because they are a long time buddy of Moscow. The captain's
testimony of what happened strongly contradicts the version of reality that Washington is
pushing. And over all Russia as usual takes the reasonable position of "let's gather the
evidence and then see who did it", which is good PR for itself as a nation beyond this single
issue.
In terms of finding the actual guilty party the media on both sides has thus far ignored the
simple fact that if Iran wanted to sink a tanker it would be sunk. No civilian vessel is going
to withstand an attack from a 21st century navy by having a particularly thick hull and the
idea that the Iranians need to physically attach bombs to boats is mental. Physically planting
bombs is for goofball inept terrorists, not a professional military. After all, even the West
acknowledges that
the Iranians use the best Russian goodies that they can afford and Russian 21 st
century arms will sink civilian ship guaranteed. The Iranians have everything they need to
smoke any civilian vessel on the planet guaranteed from much farther away than 3 feet.
If Iran's goal was to scare or intimidate the tanker they could have just shot at it with
rifles or done something else to spook the crew and get a media response. When looked at from
the standpoint of military logic, these "attacks" seem baffling as Iran could have just
destroyed the boats or directly tried to terrorize them to make a statement.
For Trump, 2017 has already been an explosive year: The U.S. has said it dropped
over 2,400 bombs on Afghanistan , up from 1,337 last year. In the fight against ISIS in
Iraq and Syria, the U.S. has already
dropped 32,801 bombs, compared with 30,743 in 2016. And the U.S. has also conducted more
than 100
strikes against Al Qaeda in Yemen in 2017, compared with 38 in 2016.
Trump did promise in a campaign speech in 2015 to " bomb
the shit" out of ISIS, and he seems to be living up to his word -- with little regard for
the consequences.
The pace of air attacks has led to dozens of civilian deaths, watchdogs say. From
28 to 88 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan, according to the Bureau for
Investigative Journalism. And Airwars ,
which tracks international airstrikes against ISIS, estimated that U.S.-led airstrikes killed
1,060 civilians in Iraq and Syria in August 2017, compared with 138 in August 2016.
In its worst month, March 2017, it's estimated the Trump administration killed 1,881. (The
Pentagon admitted in May that a single airstrike in Mosul, Iraq, was responsible for 100 of
these deaths.) In contrast, President Barack Obama's bloodiest month, July 2016, claimed the
lives of 312, according to Airwars.
The number of airstrikes is expected to climb as 4,000
reinforcements head to the country to aid the 11,000 U.S. troops already stationed in
Afghanistan. One stated goal of the surge is to help identify bombing targets. And the CIA is
pushing for expanded authority to conduct covert drone strikes in Afghanistan,
which could place U.S. troops in danger .
A very good analysis. Trump essentially morphed into Hillary or worse. Essentially the same type of warmonger and
compulsive liar.
Notable quotes:
"... The American people appear largely uninterested in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into another pointless, disastrous war. ..."
"... At time of writing, the Washington Post has counted 10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics. ..."
"... Pompeo insists " there is no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the exact same words that Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies reacted skeptically to Trump's claims.) ..."
"... What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that -- or worse . ..."
"... Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. ..."
"... At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further. ..."
"... On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks. Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S. military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels specifically designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes next. ..."
"... Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda covers an attack on Iran . This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts -- but may explain Pompeo's equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems somewhat hesitant , sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped. ..."
The Trump regime is attempting to gin up a war with Iran. First Trump reneged on Obama's nuclear deal with the country for no
reason, then he slapped them with more economic sanctions for no reason, and then, pushed by National Security Adviser John Bolton
and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he moved massive military forces onto Iran's doorstep to heighten tensions further. Now, after
a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman -- none of which were American -- that the administration blames on Iran,
Pompeo says the U.S. is "considering a full range of options," including war. (Iran has categorically denied any involvement.)
The American people appear
largely uninterested
in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into
another pointless, disastrous war.
The New York Times ' Bret Stephens, for all his #NeverTrump pretensions, provides a good window into the
absolute witlessness of the pro-war
argument . He takes largely at face value the Trump administration's accusations against Iran -- "Trump might be a liar, but
the U.S. military isn't," he writes -- and blithely suggests Trump should announce an ultimatum demanding further attacks cease,
then sink Iran's navy if they don't comply.
Let me take these in turn. For one thing, any statement of any kind coming out of a Republican's mouth should be viewed with extreme
suspicion. Two years ago, the party passed a gigantic tax cut for the rich which they swore up and down would "
pay
for itself " with increased growth. To precisely no one's surprise,
this did not happen
. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was just
one
flagrant example of many who got elected in 2016 while
lying through their teeth about their party's efforts to destroy ObamaCare and its protections for preexisting conditions.
At
time of writing, the Washington Post has counted
10,796 false or misleading claims
from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics.
Republican accusations of foreign aggression should be subjected to an even higher burden of proof. The Trump regime has provided
no evidence of Iranian culpability aside from
a video of a ship the Pentagon says is Iranians removing something they say is a mine from an oil tanker -- but a Japanese
ship owner reported at least one attack came from a "
flying object ," not a mine. Pompeo insists "
there is
no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the
exact same words that Vice President
Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United
States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies
reacted skeptically
to Trump's claims.)
What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly
in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that --
or worse .
Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. False flag attacks on its own oil tankers sound outlandish,
but we're talking about a ruthless dictatorship run by a guy who had a Washington Post columnist
murdered and chopped into pieces because he didn't like
his takes. And the Saudis have already been conducting a years-long war in Yemen with catastrophic humanitarian outcomes in order
to stop an Iran-allied group from coming to power. It's by no means certain, but hardly outside the realm of possibility.
At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any
rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further.
But let's grant for the sake of argument that some Iranian forces actually did carry out some or all of these attacks. That raises
the immediate question of why. One very plausible reason is that all of Trump's provocations have strengthened the hand of Iran's
conservative hard-liners, who are basically the mirror image of Pompeo and Bolton. "It is sort of a toxic interaction between hard-liners
on both sides because for domestic political reasons they each want greater tension," as Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on
Foreign Relations told
the New York Times . This faction might have concluded that the U.S. is run by deranged fanatics, and the best way to
protect Iran is to demonstrate they could choke off oil shipping from the Persian Gulf if the U.S. attacks.
This in turn raises the question of the appropriate response if Iran is actually at fault here. It would be one thing if these
attacks came out of a clear blue sky. But America is very obviously the aggressor here. Iran was following its side of the
nuclear deal to the letter before Trump reneged, and
continued to do so as of February . So far the
European Union (which is still party to the deal) has been unwilling to sidestep U.S. sanctions, prompting Iran to
threaten to restart
uranium enrichment . So Iran is a medium-sized country with a faltering economy, hemmed in on all sides by U.S. aggression. Backing
off the threats and chest-thumping might easily strengthen the hand of Iranian moderates, and cause them to respond in kind.
On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks.
Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S.
military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very
real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels
specifically
designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill
thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq
War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes
next.
Taken together, these factors strongly militate towards de-escalation and diplomacy even if Iran did carry out these attacks,
which again, is not at all proven. The current standoff is almost entirely our fault, and Iranian forces are far from defenseless.
America has a lot better things to do than indulge the deluded jingoist fantasies of a handful of armchair generals who want lots
of other people to die in battle.
Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate
U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification
is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda
covers an attack on Iran .
This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts --
but may explain Pompeo's
equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.
Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems
somewhat hesitant ,
sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for
everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped.
"... The recent attacks against US forces in Iraq could very well have been orchestrated by US "allies" trying to force the US into a war with Iran. ..."
"... Trump's inability to stand up to Bibi is going to have catastrophic consequence for the US. ..."
"... Trump wants the focus of his re election to be the economy and the support to Israel only ( thus ensuring the financial support of the Jewish lobby), anything else will wait. ..."
"... If Bolton and Pompeo continue provoking Iran into retaliations, thus risking to disrupt the focus of his re-election, he will get rid of them. ..."
The domestic political result of the increased saberrattling over Iran unfortunately will
be to boost Biden since he supposedly possesses "Serious Foreign Policy Credentials" while
Bernie and Warren are thought to have obtained theirs from a box of Crackerjacks.
Bernie and Warren could use this moment to their advantage in fact to tie Biden
into the same neocon foreign policy establishment Trump is bastardising in his own unique
(ie, FUBAR) way and set themselves farther apart from the establishment. Trump is providing
that opening for them now as he turns his back on his own anti-establishment alt-right allies
towards the old fashioned GOP neocons.
Trump's surrounded himself with fools. The entire tension with Iran was/is totally
avoidable if Trump has the balls to tell Bibi/AIPAC/Saudis/UAE to go f*ck themselves.
Instead, he's exposed the US to all kinds of attacks - even from his own "allies".
The recent attacks against US forces in Iraq could very well have been orchestrated by US
"allies" trying to force the US into a war with Iran.
Essentially all those involved in the maximum pressure on Iran plot are now caught up in
their own sh*t. They're all attacking each other and blaming it on Iran.
Hopefully sane heads in the Pentagon/CIA will advice Trump to tone the f*ck down and stfu
coz every time he says something, his "allies" use it as endorsement/green-light to do
something stupid.
Trump's inability to stand up to Bibi is going to have catastrophic consequence for the
US.
After North Korea's fiasco, Venezuela's fiasco, all due to his neocons team's absurd
arrogance, Trump faces another one in Iran. One wonders how many foreign policies fiascos he
needs to deal with in order to finally fire Bolton and Pompeo.
Now that the polls have turned in his favor he has to stand still and minimize any
"provocation" from Iran in order not to compromise his re election. He will not listen
anymore to the neocons who were arguing that a war in Iran will bring the polls up.. It id up
now because of the economy.
Trump wants the focus of his re election to be the economy and the support to Israel only
( thus ensuring the financial support of the Jewish lobby), anything else will wait.
If Bolton and Pompeo continue provoking Iran into retaliations, thus risking to disrupt
the focus of his re-election, he will get rid of them.
"... [Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security]. ..."
"... " Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them ." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of 9/11 Studies, Feb.2013). ..."
[False flag operations:] "The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it's necessary to
create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain
group of people or to a religion or a nation." James Morcan (1978- ), New Zealander-born Australian writer.
[Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext
to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security].
" Almost all wars begin with false flag operations ." Larry Chin (d. of b. unknown), North American author, (in 'False
Flagging the World towards War. The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood', Dec. 27, 2014).
" Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them
." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of
9/11 Studies, Feb.2013).
" That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking
as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate
prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable ." Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Founding father, pamphleteer,
(in 'The Rights of Man', c. 1792).
" I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole . It was like -- we had entire training courses. It reminds
you of the glory of the American experiment." Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and now Secretary of State in the
Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.)
***
History repeats itself. Indeed, those who live by war are at it again. Their crime: starting illegal wars by committing false flag attacks and blaming other countries for their
own criminal acts. On this, the Donald Trump-John Bolton duo is just like the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney duo. It is amazing that
in an era of 24-hour news, this could still going on.
We recall that in 2002-2003, the latter duo, with the help of U.K.'s Tony Blair, lied their way into a war of aggression against
Iraq, by pretending that Saddam Hussein had a massive stockpile of " weapons of mass destruction "and
that he was ready to attack the United States proper. On October 6, 2002, George W. Bush scared Americans with his big Mushroom Cloud analogy. -- It was
all bogus. -- It was a pure fabrication that the gullible (!) U.S. Congress, the corporate media, and most of the American public,
swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Now, in 2019, a short sixteen years later, the same stratagem seems to being used to start another illegal war of aggression,
this time against the country of Iran. The masters of deception are at it again. Their secret agents and those of their Israeli and
Saudi allies, in the Middle East, seem to have just launched an unprovoked attack, in international waters, against a Japanese tanker,
and they have rushed to the cameras to accuse Iran. They claim that the latter country used mines to attack the tanker.
This time, they were unlucky. -- The owner of the Japanese
tanker , the Kokuka Courageous, immediately rebuked that "official" version.
Yutaka Katada , president of the Kokuka Sangyo shipping company, declared that the attack came from a bombing from above
the water. Indeed, Mr. Katada told reporters:
" The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying toward them, then there was an explosion,
then there was a hole in the vessel ."
His company issued a statement saying that " the hull (of the ship) has been breached above the waterline on the starboard
side ", and it was not hit by a mine below the waterline, as the Trump administration has insinuated. -- [N. B.: There was also
a less serious attack on a Norwegian ship, the Front Altair.]
Thus, this time the false flag makers have not succeeded. But, you can be sure that they will be back at it, sooner or later,
just as they, and their well financed al-Qaeda allies, launched a few false flag "chemical" attacks in
Syria, and blamed them on the Syrian Assad government.
Donald Trump has too much to gain personally from a nice little war to distract the media and the public from the Mueller report and from
all his mounting political problems. In his case, he surely would benefit from a "wag-the-dog" scenario that John
Bolton and his friends in the Middle East could easily invent. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, warmonger
John Bolton was coincidently
in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates, just before the attacks!
Besides the Japanese ship owner's denial, it is important to point out that at the moment of the attack on the Japanese tanker,
the
Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Shinzo Abe , was in Iran, having talks with the Iranian government about economic cooperation
between the two countries about oil shipments. Since Iran is the victim of unilateral U. S. economic sanctions, to derail such an
economic cooperation between Japan and Iran could have been the triggered motivation to launch a false flag operation. It did not
work. But you can be sure that the responsible party will not be prosecuted.
Conclusion
We live in an era when people with low morals, sponsored by people with tons of money, can gain power and do a lot of damage.
How our democracies can survive in such a context remains an open question.
..Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration.
Look at what we in the US have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the
right. I suppose we deserve this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.
Zero Hedge commenters are most libertarians (anarcho-capitalists -- unwitting supporters of neoliberalism) , but still
changes after 2016 are noticeable.
Notable quotes:
"... Today I am proposing we complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party by putting forth a 21st century economic bill of rights. ..."
"... Operación Cóndor, also known as Plan Cóndor ; Portuguese : Operação Condor) was a United States –backed campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially and formally implemented in November 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America. ..."
"... The program, nominally intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas, was created to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating governments' neoliberal economic policies, which sought to reverse the economic policies of the previous era. [6] [7] ..."
"... Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina, [8] [9] and the so-called " Archives of Terror " list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned. [5] [10] American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source, [11] and mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped, tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to be executed . . . hundreds, or thousands, of such persons -- the number still has not been finally determined -- were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations." [1] Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas. [11] Although it was described by the CIA as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion," [12] guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national security. [13] [14] [15] Condor's key members were the governments in Argentina , Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay , Bolivia and Brazil . Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral roles. [16] [17] ..."
"... The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture [18] , technical support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson , Nixon , Ford , Carter , and the Reagan administrations. [2] Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ..."
Despite being probably robbed of the Democratic Party's nomination by the Clinton political
machine, the success of the Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign with his advocacy of "democratic
socialism" was an ominous sign of things to come and, in some sense, more telling of the
political climate than Donald Trump's improbable victory in November, 2016. The millions of
votes garnered by Sanders in the Democratic primaries has emboldened other socialists to seek
political office while socialist ideas are openly spoken of with little fear of political
recriminations.
Sanders has doubled down on his advocacy of democratic socialism in a recent speech at
George Washington University, calling for the completion of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New
Deal of the 1930s:
Today I am proposing we complete the unfinished work of Franklin Roosevelt and the
Democratic Party by putting forth a 21st century economic bill of rights.
Even supposedly "moderate" Democrats are trying to tout their "progressive" credentials,
such as creepy Joe Biden who recently said:
I'm told I get criticized by the New Left. I have the most progressive record of anybody
running for... anybody who would run.
While Sanders' chance of becoming the Democratic nominee in 2020 is still uncertain,
President Trump has already indicated what is going to be a centerpiece of his election
strategy: oppose socialism. The first hint of the strategy came at this year's State of the
Union address when the President declared:
America will never be a socialist country.
While President Trump will espouse his supposed accomplishments (tax cuts, deregulation,
trade) as a contrast to democratic socialism, his emphasis will also deflect attention away
from his most solemn campaign pledge which has not been achieved – a border wall and a
crack down and deportation of illegal immigrants.
Whether this is a winning formula remains to be seen. If the Democrats are led by Bernie
Sanders in 2020, they will probably lose, unless the economy falls off a cliff (very possible)
or the Donald follows the suicidal advice of the war-mongering team of Messrs Bolton and Pompeo
and start a war with Iran.
While the Trump campaign narrative for 2020 may convince the masses who may still not be
ready to vote for outright socialism, the country, like most of the Western world, has long ago
imbibed and adopted many of the philosophy's tenets.
Frank Chodorov, one of the most perceptive and courageous writers of what was affectionately
known as the "Old Right," pointed out over a half century ago that America had enacted many of
the ideas which were enumerated in Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto . Chodorov constantly
chided the Cold War warriors of his time, such as William Buckley, that communism had come to
America without one shot being fired by the Soviets.
Frank Chodorov, 1887-1966
In one of his most penetrating essays, "How Communism Came to America," Chodorov incisively
pointed out the "long-term objectives of communism:"
Among them are government ownership of land, a heavy progressive income tax, abolition of
inheritance rights, a national bank, government ownership or control of communication and
transportation facilities, state-owned factories, a government program for soil conservation,
government schools, free education.
He trenchantly asked:
" How many of these planks of the Communist Manifesto do you support? Federal Reserve
Bank? Interstate Commerce Commission? Federal Communications Commission? Tennessee Valley
Authority? The Sixteenth (income tax) Amendment? The inheritance tax? Government schools with
compulsory attendance and support?"
Further in his piece, Chodorov describes how the American economy, even at the time, had
taken on many features of state capitalism: deficit financing, insurance of bank deposits,
guaranteed mortgages, control of bank credits, regulation of installment buying, price
controls, farm price supports, agricultural credits, RFC loans to business, social security,
government housing, public works, tariffs, foreign loans.
He again asked: "How many of these measures . . . do you oppose?"
The next financial downturn, which is staring America in the face, will be far more
devastating than the last since nothing has been resolved financially while the cause of the
Great Recession – the Federal Reserve – continues to operate with impunity. As
things continue to deteriorate, there will be even greater calls and support for more
socialism. The free market will be blamed.
Ever notice that no real socialist ever proposes killing lots of people? On the other
hand, our capitalist ruling-class is always looking to do lots of killing.
--------------
Trump's Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It
Do you know what you never heard Bernie Sanders say and never will hear him say?
The most famous Karl Marx quote of all time, "Workers of the world, unite!" Why do you
suppose that is?
---------------
Bernie Sanders: A right-wing capitalist posing as a socialist
By Tom Hall
18 June 2019
Last Wednesday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders gave a speech on "democratic socialism" at
George Washington University. The main function of the speech was to define his supposed
"socialism" as entirely in conformity with the politics of the Democratic Party -- that is, a
"socialism" devoid any opposition to capitalism and war.
Sanders' speech comes within the context of a ruling class that is increasingly fearful of
the growing popularity of socialism. Donald Trump has presented himself over the last several
months as a bulwark against a "socialist takeover" in America. This theme has also been taken
up by many in the Democratic Party, who insist that any reference to socialism in the party's
primaries is impermissible.
Sanders' speech attempts to accomplish the same ends through different means. It exposes
Sanders' effort to combine populist and "socialist" rhetoric with a defense of American
capitalism and the Democratic Party.
Three basic elements of Sanders' speech demonstrate this political fraud. First is
Sanders' dishonest presentation of Franklin Roosevelt and the history of the Democratic
Party.
In a speech billed as defining his conception of "democratic socialism," Sanders
explicitly placed his own politics within the tradition of the Democratic Party, particularly
the liberal New Deal reforms of President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.
"Over eighty years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt helped create a government that made
transformative progress in protecting the needs of working families. Today, in the second
decade of the 21st century, we must take up the unfinished business of the New Deal and carry
it to completion," Sanders said. "This is the unfinished business of the Democratic Party and
the vision we must accomplish."
Sanders quoted the "Economic Bill of Rights" proposed by Roosevelt, but never seriously
pursued, in his 1944 State of the Union speech. The centerpiece of Sanders' speech was his
call for a "21st Century Economic Bill of Rights" guaranteeing the right to a high-quality
standard of living.
Sanders portrays Roosevelt as the leader of a popular revolt involving "organized labor,
leaders in the African American community and progressives inside and outside the Party," and
which "led a transformation of the American government and the American economy."
He declared, "Despite [the opposition of the rich], by rallying the American people, FDR
and his progressive coalition created the New Deal, won four terms, and created an economy
that worked for all and not just the few," Sanders claimed.
Sanders' glowing references to Roosevelt are designed to obscure the fact that the
Democratic Party was, and is, a party of the ruling class. Roosevelt was not the political
representative of popular struggles, much less a "democratic socialist," but a particularly
astute representative of the capitalist class, who understood that concessions had to be made
in order to preserve the capitalist system, which was in a state of collapse and widely
discredited, and prevent the danger of socialist revolution.
The gains that were won during this period came not from the political establishment, but
through the mass, insurrectionary struggles of the working class, which Roosevelt and the
Democratic Party sought to contain. Moreover, poverty and unemployment remained endemic
throughout the United States even after the New Deal. The gap between rich and poor, while
lower than before, remained massive. In the South, which remained mired in rural
backwardness, African-Americans continued to face segregation and lynch mob terror.
The New Deal reforms also proved unable to lift the United States out of economic crisis.
This came through World War Two and its destruction of much of the European and world
economy, and at least 60 million lives. Under Roosevelt's leadership, the United States
entered World War II in December 1941.
Prior to and during the war, the "progressive" Roosevelt cracked down on democratic
rights, jailing leaders of the
Trotskyist movement, the most class conscious representatives of the working class, enforcing
a ban on strikes with the assistance of the union bureaucracy and imprisoning hundreds of
thousands of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps.
Roosevelt's "Economic Bill of Rights," proposed but never acted upon towards the end of
the war, was a left-feint that reflected his fear that, if the end of the war brought with it
a return to Depression-era conditions, world capitalism would face even more serious
revolutionary convulsions than in the 1930s. One year after the speech, Roosevelt replaced
his vice president, Henry Wallace, with Harry Truman -- a concession to the right-wing of the
Democratic Party.
After the war, Roosevelt's program of liberal reforms, now coupled with Cold War
anticommunism, was continued only as long as it could be financed out of rising productivity
made possible by the emergence of the United States as world superpower. But the "Economic
Bill of Rights," even during the zenith of American capitalism, remained a dead letter. By
the end of the 1960s, with the end of the postwar boom and the beginning of the long-term
decline of American hegemony, the Democrats abandoned these programs and moved sharply to the
right.
But this is precisely the point at which Sanders' historical excursion stops. This enables
him to suppress the fact that the Democratic Party long ago repudiated these reforms and is
now a full partner in undermining and dismantling the very social programs whose further
development Sanders presents as the "unfinished business" of the Democratic Party. In fact,
as far the Democratic Party is concerned, their "unfinished business" is destroying every
gain won by the working class in a century of struggle.
The second element of Sanders' speech is the complete absence of any reference to foreign
policy or war. Events outside of the United States are barely mentioned at all. This guilty
silence, which Sanders has long maintained in speeches meant for a broader audience, is aimed
at covering for Sanders' support for imperialist war
and American nationalism.
Sanders gives indirect signals to the ruling class of his support for war at points
throughout his speech. When Sanders lists off a series of "authoritarian rulers" throughout
the world, he tops off the list with Vladimir Putin in Russia and Xi Jinping in China, a sign
of support for both his party's demands for confrontation with Russia and
Trump's trade war measures against China .
Significantly, Sanders manages to avoid even mentioning World War II in a speech
supposedly centered on the political legacy of Franklin Roosevelt. He also favorably cites
former presidents Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson, without referencing the fact that both
were widely reviled as warmongers and mass murderers: Truman for his dropping of the atomic
bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and for the Korean War, and Johnson for his massive
escalation of the Vietnam War.
The reference to Johnson is particularly significant. Johnson's Great Society programs
foundered against the massive costs of the war in Vietnam, signaling the end of the whole
period of liberal reform. By the late 1960s, the Democratic Party could no longer balance
within itself welfare programs aimed at securing the support of working class with the needs
of American imperialism.
As Sanders knows well, having begun his political career as a student protester in the
1960s, this pushed a whole generation of students and working-class youth to the left towards
anti-capitalist and radical politics, among whom Johnson's name became virtually an epithet.
A popular slogan during the protests against the Vietnam War was "Hey, Hey, LBJ, How many
kids did you kill today?"
By glossing over this and presenting Johnson in a favorable, even "democratic socialist"
light, Sanders is not only rehabilitating Johnson, he is promoting a more basic falsehood --
that an imperialist and militaristic foreign policy is compatible with democracy and social
equality at home, a lie which forms the center of Sanders' own politics.
The third element of Sanders' speech is that he does not explain how it is possible to
guarantee a high standard of living for everyone without a frontal assault on the capitalist
system, especially under conditions where the ruling class considers even a modest increase
in the share of income going to workers impermissible. In Sanders' "socialism," there is no
there there He proposes a whole series of "rights," without any suggestion that they would
require a fundamental change in social relations.
Moreover, the turn towards authoritarian forms of rule, a fact which Sanders himself is
obliged to note, demonstrates that the levels of social inequality are no longer compatible
with democratic rights. This is not only expressed in Trump, as Sanders implies, but also
within the Democratic Party itself, which is engaged in palace coup methods in its
internecine struggle against Trump.
If an "Economic Bill of Rights" was unachievable during the high point of American
economic and political power, then it is all the more impossible today, when American
capitalism is mired in a terminal decline. There can be no doubt that Sanders, were he
elected president, would jettison this proposal even more rapidly than Roosevelt.
Indeed, while Roosevelt was prepared to take on powerful elements within the political
establishment in order to force through his program of reforms, Sanders has already
demonstrated his political spinelessness. The defining moment of Sanders' political career
remains his groveling capitulation to Hillary Clinton in 2016 after an election campaign
marred by corruption and fraud.
A genuine fight for the social rights of the working class, including the right to a job,
a secure retirement, high quality healthcare and education, requires an uncompromising
struggle of the working class against the capitalist system. This means the establishment of
a workers government, in the United States and internationally, to massively redistribute
wealth and transform the giant banks and corporations into publicly-owned utilities,
democratically controlled by the working class.
This requires a persistent struggle against the influence of all forms of bourgeois
ideology within the working class, above all "left" variants such as that promoted by
Sanders.
Gotta love the Trumptards and Trailer Park Rednecks touting Capitalism. They've, never
experienced real Capitalism or they'd be crying like babies, begging for mercy. Since FDR's
New Deal in the 1930s the US has been partly (badly) Socialist.
So let's go Full Capitalist, tough guys: no minimum wage, line up each morning and bid
lowest for a job; no health care at all, get sick, go die; food stamps, ha!, eat grass; no
pension, work till you drop, then pauper's grave; no unions, every man for himself against
the bosses. Like it so far?
Denmark is Socialist, cradle-to-grave health care, free education, minimum wage $43/hr.
Oh, it's expensive but everyone's healthy, active and pretty friendly. No ********
billionaires like the Trumpster, Soros, Gates, people who wouldn't throw a starving man a
crust. No American Dream, only Danish reality.
But no Walmart AR15 to shoot your neighbors. Right. America's better.
Capitalist Barack Obama gave rich capitalists trillions of dollars in free-stuff bailouts
and free-stuff military spending and free-stuff imperialist wars. Capitalist Donald Trump
then came along and gave those raping, looting, murderous capitalists $1.5 trillion in
free-stuff tax cuts.
Definitions
Socialism: Trillions of dollars of free stuff for the 99%, paid for by their labor
Capitalism: Trillions of dollars of free stuff for the super-rich 1%, paid for by the
labor of the 99%.
Ever notice that your beloved ruling-class capitalists whose great wealth gives them the
power to set all the laws and determine all the policy never make any attempt to stop crony
capitalism?
Capitalism is inherently cronyism. The cronyism cannot be separated out and no rich
capitalist would have any interest in doing so even if it could.
Your support of a death cult ideology is duly noted and capitalism has lifted more people
out of poverty than any other ism. Marx was a lunatic who never worked a day in his vile
useless life. His writings inspired Stalin and Mao to murder millions.
The government on both sides of the fence subsidize corporations at the expense of the
masses, so your solution is to give the government total control and ownership? You're a
fuckwit if you believe the elites won't have an even better time under socialism. They would
have nothing in their way. The only solution is to privatize everything if you actually
wanted a better life for the ones getting screwed, but I won't even waste my time. Carry on
with your idiotic thoughts.
That government you right-wingers have all experienced in America and all despise is a
capitalist government.
The battle between socialism and capitalism is the battle between the workers who produce
the wealth and the parasites who take that wealth from the workers. That's why capitalism
tells you that socialism is government. They can't tell you that socialism is society run by
the producers of wealth rather than the parasites. Capitalists like to leave the
working-class completely out of the equation. That's because they're scared shitless that the
99% might realize that they are actually all socialists.
Capitalism has nothing to do with the offenses you describe. You're simply gullible enough
to believe politicians when they blame capitalism for their ill gotten gains, grease and
dirt. When they have the rest of the masses as dumb as you, then socialism will make their
job even easier.
RIGHT-WING MORONS: We trust our lying, cheating, stealing, warmongering, murderous,
corrupt, criminal capitalist elite to tell us everything we need to know about socialism.
They would never lie to us about socialism. They would never just define the working-class
masses completely out of the equation even as Karl Marx specifically wrote, "Workers of the
world, unite!"
The program, nominally intended to eradicate communist or Soviet influence and ideas,
was created to suppress active or potential opposition movements against the participating
governments' neoliberal economic policies, which sought
to reverse the economic policies of the previous era. [6][7]
Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to
Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be
attributed to Condor, roughly 30,000 of these in Argentina, [8][9] and the so-called
" Archives of
Terror " list 50,000 killed, 30,000 disappeared and 400,000 imprisoned.
[5][10]
American political scientist J. Patrice McSherry gives a figure of
at least 402 killed in operations which crossed national borders in a 2002 source,
[11] and
mentions in a 2009 source that of those who "had gone into exile" and were "kidnapped,
tortured and killed in allied countries or illegally transferred to their home countries to
be executed . . . hundreds, or thousands, of such persons -- the number still has not been
finally determined -- were abducted, tortured, and murdered in Condor operations."
[1]
Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns,
students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas. [11]
Although it was described by the CIA as "a cooperative effort by the intelligence/security
services of several South American countries to combat terrorism and subversion,"
[12]guerrillas were used as an excuse, as they were never substantial enough to control
territory, gain material support by any foreign power, or otherwise threaten national
security. [13][14][15] Condor's key
members were the governments in Argentina , Chile , Uruguay , Paraguay , Bolivia and Brazil . Ecuador and Peru later joined the operation in more peripheral
roles. [16][17]
The United States government provided planning, coordinating, training on torture
[18] , technical
support and supplied military aid to the Juntas during the Johnson , Nixon ,
Ford ,
Carter
, and the Reagan administrations.
[2]
Such support was frequently routed through the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA).
You've never read Marx. He never advocated overthrowing Capitalism; rather he predicted
its demise due to its inherent chaos, waste and selfishness. It cannot exist in civilized
society. Just look at America, and see he was right.
During the extended interview, Gundlach made two bold predictions - that Joe Biden's "time
had passed" and would not be the Democratic Party nominee ; and perhaps even more notable, that
President Trump may pull out of the 2020 race.
"I think Joe Biden is a placeholder type of candidate," Gundlach scolded, "he's been
running for president for 32 years and amassed exactly zero delegates."
"So it's almost hilarious that he is called this electable candidate because he dropped
out in 19[88] on a scandal, then he made it to Iowa in 2008 and got less than one percent of
the vote," he said.
"His time has passed."
"I have a nickname for him, Jurassic Joe. It's not a reference to his age. It's a
reference to the fact that he is a politician from a different era. "
Of Trump, Gundlach said, "I am not even sure he's going to really run," noting that his
second term will be determined by the success of the U.S. economy...
"If the economy goes into recession and he can't pullout by removing the tariffs, there's
very little for him to run on," he said.
Gundlach said, as long as the economy doesn't falter, Trump will win re-election. But he
warns, there's a chance Trump might pull out of the presidential race.
"Lyndon Johnson ran for a while too and then pulled out because of the war problems,"
Gundlach said.
It might be time to retire one of the most enduring cliches in modern politics: When it
comes to choosing their presidential nominees, Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall
in line.
Democrats in the last half century have frequently selected fresh faces for president:
George McGovern over party elders like Edmund Muskie, the little-known Jimmy Carter, a freshman
senator named Barack Obama. Meanwhile, Republicans time and again rewarded the runner-up from
the last round of competitive primaries -- Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John
McCain, and Mitt Romney.
In the cases of Dole and McCain in particular, it felt as if Republicans were handing out
their presidential nomination like a gold watch at a retirement party.
A general election match-up between Donald Trump and Joe Biden would seem to throw these old
patterns out the window.
"... A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every 12 minutes . What's more, after decades of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do homicides , even though the murder rate gets so much more attention. ..."
"... In some states the upsurge was far higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%). ..."
"... Since 2008 , suicide has ranked 10th among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between 35 and 45, fourth. The United States also has the ninth-highest rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Globally , it ranks 27th. ..."
"... The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half of all such acts in this country. ..."
"... Education is also a factor. The suicide rate is lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill themselves. Suicide rates also tend to be lower among people in higher-income brackets. ..."
"... Evidence from the United States , Brazil , Japan , and Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases, so does the suicide rate. ..."
"... One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling. Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways) than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly higher . ..."
"... The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide's disproportionate effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have labeled " deaths of despair " -- those caused by suicides plus opioid overdoses and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it's hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and its ripple effects do appear to matter. ..."
"... Trump has neglected his base on pretty much every issue; this one's no exception. ..."
Yves here. This post describes how the forces driving the US suicide surge started well before the Trump era, but explains how
Trump has not only refused to acknowledge the problem, but has made matters worse.
However, it's not as if the Democrats are embracing this issue either.
BY Rajan Menon, the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New
York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University's Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. His latest book is The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention
Originally published at
TomDispatch .
We hear a lot about suicide when celebrities like
Anthony Bourdain and
Kate Spade die by their own hand.
Otherwise, it seldom makes the headlines. That's odd given the magnitude of the problem.
In 2017, 47,173 Americans killed themselves.
In that single year, in other words, the suicide count was nearly
seven times greater than the number
of American soldiers killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars between 2001 and 2018.
A suicide occurs in the United States roughly once every
12 minutes . What's more, after decades
of decline, the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 people annually -- the suicide rate -- has been increasing sharply since
the late 1990s. Suicides now claim two-and-a-half times as many lives in this country as do
homicides , even
though the murder rate gets so much more attention.
In other words, we're talking about a national
epidemic of self-inflicted
deaths.
Worrisome Numbers
Anyone who has lost a close relative or friend to suicide or has worked on a suicide hotline (as I have) knows that statistics
transform the individual, the personal, and indeed the mysterious aspects of that violent act -- Why this person? Why now? Why in
this manner? -- into depersonalized abstractions. Still, to grasp how serious the suicide epidemic has become, numbers are a necessity.
According to a 2018 Centers for Disease Control study , between
1999 and 2016, the suicide rate increased in every state in the union except Nevada, which already had a remarkably high rate. In
30 states, it jumped by 25% or more; in 17, by at least a third. Nationally, it increased
33% . In some states the upsurge was far
higher: North Dakota (57.6%), New Hampshire (48.3%), Kansas (45%), Idaho (43%).
Alas, the news only gets grimmer.
Since 2008 , suicide has ranked 10th
among the causes of death in this country. For Americans between the ages of 10 and 34, however, it comes in second; for those between
35 and 45, fourth. The United States also has the ninth-highest
rate in the 38-country Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Globally , it ranks 27th.
More importantly, the trend in the United States doesn't align with what's happening elsewhere in the developed world. The World
Health Organization, for instance, reports
that Great Britain, Canada, and China all have notably lower suicide rates than the U.S.,
as do all but
six countries in the European Union. (Japan's is only slightly lower.)
World Bank statistics show that, worldwide,
the suicide rate fell from 12.8 per 100,000 in 2000 to 10.6 in 2016. It's been falling in
China ,
Japan
(where it has declined steadily for nearly a
decade and is at its lowest point in 37 years), most of Europe, and even countries like
South Korea and
Russia that
have a significantly higher suicide rate than the United States. In Russia, for instance, it has dropped by nearly 26% from a
high point of 42 per 100,000 in
1994 to 31 in 2019.
We know a fair amount about the patterns
of suicide in the United States. In 2017, the rate was highest for men between the ages of 45 and 64 (30 per 100,000) and those 75
and older (39.7 per 100,000).
The rates in rural counties are almost double those in the most urbanized ones, which is why states like Idaho, Kansas, New
Hampshire, and North Dakota sit atop the suicide list. Furthermore, a far higher percentage of people in rural states own
guns than in cities and suburbs, leading to a
higher rate of suicide involving firearms, the means used in half
of all such acts in this country.
There are gender-based differences as well.
From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost four-and-a-half times higher in the first of
those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last.
Education is also a factor. The suicide rate is
lowest among individuals with college degrees. Those who, at best, completed high school are, by comparison, twice as likely to kill
themselves. Suicide rates also tend to be lower
among people in higher-income brackets.
The Economics of Stress
This surge in the suicide rate has taken place in years during which the working class has experienced greater economic hardship
and psychological stress. Increased competition from abroad and outsourcing, the results of globalization, have contributed to job
loss, particularly in economic sectors like manufacturing, steel, and mining that had long been mainstays of employment for such
workers. The jobs still available often paid less and provided fewer benefits.
Technological change, including computerization, robotics, and the coming of artificial intelligence, has similarly begun to displace
labor in significant ways, leaving Americans without college degrees, especially those 50 and older, in
far more difficult straits when it comes to
finding new jobs that pay
well. The lack of anything resembling an
industrial policy of a sort that exists in Europe
has made these dislocations even more painful for American workers, while a sharp decline in private-sector union membership
-- down
from nearly 17% in 1983 to 6.4% today -- has reduced their ability to press for higher wages through collective bargaining.
Furthermore, the inflation-adjusted median wage has barely budged
over the last four decades (even as
CEO salaries have soared). And a decline in worker productivity doesn't explain it: between 1973 and 2017 productivity
increased by 77%, while a worker's average hourly wage only
rose by 12.4%. Wage stagnation has made it
harder for working-class
Americans to get by, let alone have a lifestyle comparable to that of their parents or grandparents.
The gap in earnings between those at the top and bottom of American society has also increased -- a lot. Since 1979, the
wages of Americans in the 10th percentile increased by a pitiful
1.2%. Those in the 50th percentile did a bit better, making a gain of 6%. By contrast, those in the 90th percentile increased by
34.3% and those near the peak of the wage pyramid -- the top 1% and especially the rarefied 0.1% -- made far more
substantial
gains.
And mind you, we're just talking about wages, not other forms of income like large stock dividends, expensive homes, or eyepopping
inheritances. The share of net national wealth held by the richest 0.1%
increased from 10% in the 1980s to 20% in 2016.
By contrast, the share of the bottom 90% shrank in those same decades from about 35% to 20%. As for the top 1%, by 2016 its share
had increased to almost 39% .
The precise relationship between economic inequality and suicide rates remains unclear, and suicide certainly can't simply be
reduced to wealth disparities or financial stress. Still, strikingly, in contrast to the United States, suicide rates are noticeably
lower and have been declining in
Western
European countries where income inequalities are far less pronounced, publicly funded healthcare is regarded as a right (not
demonized as a pathway to serfdom), social safety nets far more extensive, and
apprenticeships and worker
retraining programs more widespread.
Evidence from the United States
, Brazil ,
Japan , and
Sweden does indicate that, as income inequality increases,
so does the suicide rate. If so, the good news is that progressive economic policies -- should Democrats ever retake the White
House and the Senate -- could make a positive difference. A study
based on state-by-state variations in the U.S. found that simply boosting the minimum wage and Earned Income Tax Credit by 10%
appreciably reduces the suicide rate among people without college degrees.
The Race Enigma
One aspect of the suicide epidemic is puzzling. Though whites have fared far better economically (and in many other ways)
than African Americans, their suicide rate is significantly
higher . It increased from 11.3 per 100,000
in 2000 to 15.85 per 100,000 in 2017; for African Americans in those years the rates were 5.52 per 100,000 and 6.61 per 100,000.
Black men are
10 times more likely to be homicide victims than white men, but the latter are two-and-half times more likely to kill themselves.
The higher suicide rate among whites as well as among people with only a high school diploma highlights suicide's disproportionate
effect on working-class whites. This segment of the population also accounts for a disproportionate share of what economists Anne
Case and Angus Deaton have labeled "
deaths of despair
" -- those caused by suicides plus
opioid overdoses
and liver diseases linked to alcohol abuse. Though it's hard to offer a complete explanation for this, economic hardship and
its ripple effects do appear to matter.
According to a study by the
St. Louis Federal Reserve , the white working class accounted for 45% of all income earned in the United States in 1990, but
only 27% in 2016. In those same years, its share of national wealth plummeted, from 45% to 22%. And as inflation-adjusted wages have
decreased for
men without college degrees, many white workers seem to have
lost hope of success of
any sort. Paradoxically, the sense of failure and the accompanying stress may be greater for white workers precisely because they
traditionally were much
better off economically than their African American and Hispanic counterparts.
In addition, the fraying of communities knit together by employment in once-robust factories and mines has increased
social isolation
among them, and the evidence that it -- along with
opioid addiction and
alcohol abuse -- increases the risk of suicide
is strong . On top of that,
a significantly higher proportion of
whites than blacks and Hispanics own firearms, and suicide rates are markedly higher in states where gun
ownership is more widespread.
Trump's Faux Populism
The large increase in suicide within the white working class began a couple of decades before Donald Trump's election. Still,
it's reasonable to ask what he's tried to do about it, particularly since votes from these Americans helped propel him to the White
House. In 2016, he received
64% of the votes of whites without college degrees; Hillary Clinton, only 28%. Nationwide, he beat Clinton in
counties where deaths of despair rose significantly between 2000 and 2015.
White workers will remain crucial to Trump's chances of winning in 2020. Yet while he has spoken about, and initiated steps aimed
at reducing, the high suicide rate among
veterans , his speeches and tweets have never highlighted the national suicide epidemic or its inordinate impact on white workers.
More importantly, to the extent that economic despair contributes to their high suicide rate, his policies will only make matters
worse.
The real benefits from the December 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act championed by the president and congressional Republicans flowed
to those on the top steps of the economic ladder. By 2027, when the Act's provisions will run out, the wealthiest Americans are expected
to have captured
81.8% of the gains. And that's not counting the windfall they received from recent changes in taxes on inheritances. Trump and
the GOP
doubled the annual amount exempt from estate taxes -- wealth bequeathed to heirs -- through 2025 from $5.6 million per individual
to $11.2 million (or $22.4 million per couple). And who benefits most from this act of generosity? Not workers, that's for sure,
but every household with an estate worth $22 million or more will.
As for job retraining provided by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the president
proposed
cutting that program by 40% in his 2019 budget, later settling for keeping it at 2017 levels. Future cuts seem in the cards as
long as Trump is in the White House. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that his tax cuts alone will produce even bigger budget
deficits in the years to come. (The shortfall last year was
$779 billion and it is expected to
reach $1 trillion by 2020.) Inevitably, the president and congressional Republicans will then demand additional reductions in spending
for social programs.
This is all the more likely because Trump and those Republicans also
slashed corporate taxes
from 35% to 21% -- an estimated
$1.4
trillion in savings for corporations over the next decade. And unlike the income tax cut, the corporate tax has
no end
date . The president assured his base that the big bucks those companies had stashed abroad would start flowing home and produce
a wave of job creation -- all without adding to the deficit. As it happens, however, most of that repatriated cash has been used
for corporate stock buy-backs, which totaled more than
$800 billion last year. That, in turn, boosted share prices, but didn't exactly rain money down on workers. No surprise, of course,
since the wealthiest 10% of Americans own at least
84% of all stocks and the bottom
60% have less than
2% of them.
And the president's corporate tax cut hasn't produced the tsunami of job-generating investments he predicted either. Indeed, in
its aftermath, more than 80% of American
companies stated that their plans for investment and hiring hadn't changed. As a result, the monthly increase in jobs has proven
unremarkable compared to President Obama's
second term, when the economic recovery that Trump largely inherited began. Yes, the economy did grow
2.3%
in 2017 and
2.9% in 2018 (though not
3.1% as the president claimed). There wasn't, however, any "unprecedented economic boom -- a boom that has rarely been seen before"
as he insisted in this year's State of the Union
Address .
Anyway, what matters for workers struggling to get by is growth in real wages, and there's nothing to celebrate on that front:
between 2017 and mid-2018 they actually
declined by 1.63% for white workers and 2.5% for African Americans, while they rose for Hispanics by a measly 0.37%. And though
Trump insists that his beloved tariff hikes are going to help workers, they will actually raise the prices of goods, hurting the
working class and other low-income Americans
the most .
Then there are the obstacles those susceptible to suicide face in receiving insurance-provided mental-health care. If you're a
white worker without medical coverage or have a policy with a deductible and co-payments that are high and your income, while low,
is too high to qualify for Medicaid, Trump and the GOP haven't done anything for you. Never mind the president's
tweet proclaiming that "the Republican Party Will Become 'The Party of Healthcare!'"
Let me amend that: actually, they have done something. It's just not what you'd call helpful. The
percentage of uninsured
adults, which fell from 18% in 2013 to 10.9% at the end of 2016, thanks in no small measure to
Obamacare , had risen to 13.7% by the end of last year.
The bottom line? On a problem that literally has life-and-death significance for a pivotal portion of his base, Trump has been
AWOL. In fact, to the extent that economic strain contributes to the alarming suicide rate among white workers, his policies are
only likely to exacerbate what is already a national crisis of epidemic proportions.
Trump is running on the claim that he's turned the economy around; addressing suicide undermines this (false) claim. To state
the obvious, NC readers know that Trump is incapable of caring about anyone or anything beyond his in-the-moment interpretation
of his self-interest.
Not just Trump. Most of the Republican Party and much too many Democrats have also abandoned this base, otherwise known as
working class Americans.
The economic facts are near staggering and this article has done a nice job of summarizing these numbers that are spread out
across a lot of different sites.
I've experienced this rise within my own family and probably because of that fact I'm well aware that Trump is only a symptom
of an entire political system that has all but abandoned it's core constituency, the American Working Class.
Yep It's not just Trump. The author mentions this, but still focuses on him for some reason. Maybe accurately attributing the
problems to a failed system makes people feel more hopeless. Current nihilists in Congress make it their duty to destroy once
helpful institutions in the name of "fiscal responsibility," i.e., tax cuts for corporate elites.
I'd assumed, the "working class" had dissappeared, back during Reagan's Miracle? We'd still see each other, sitting dazed on
porches & stoops of rented old places they'd previously; trying to garden, fix their car while smoking, drinking or dazed on something?
Those able to morph into "middle class" lives, might've earned substantially less, especially benefits and retirement package
wise. But, a couple decades later, it was their turn, as machines and foreigners improved productivity. You could lease a truck
to haul imported stuff your kids could sell to each other, or help robots in some warehouse, but those 80s burger flipping, rent-a-cop
& repo-man gigs dried up. Your middle class pals unemployable, everybody in PayDay Loan debt (without any pay day in sight?) SHTF
Bug-out bags® & EZ Credit Bushmasters began showing up at yard sales, even up North. Opioids became the religion of the proletariat
Whites simply had much farther to fall, more equity for our betters to steal. And it was damned near impossible to get the cops
to shoot you?
Man, this just ain't turning out as I'd hoped. Need coffee!
We especially love the euphemism "Deaths O' Despair." since it works so well on a Chyron, especially supered over obese crackers
waddling in crusty MossyOak™ Snuggies®
This is a very good article, but I have a comment about the section titled, "The Race Enigma." I think the key to understanding
why African Americans have a lower suicide rate lies in understanding the sociological notion of community, and the related concept
Emil Durkheim called social solidarity. This sense of solidarity and community among African Americans stands in contrast to the
"There is no such thing as society" neoliberal zeitgeist that in fact produces feelings of extreme isolation, failure, and self-recriminations.
An aside: as a white boy growing up in 1950s-60s Detroit I learned that if you yearned for solidarity and community what you had
to do was to hang out with black people.
" if you yearned for solidarity and community what you had to do was to hang out with black people."
amen, to that. in my case rural black people.
and I'll add Hispanics to that.
My wife's extended Familia is so very different from mine.
Solidarity/Belonging is cool.
I recommend it.
on the article we keep the scanner on("local news").we had a 3-4 year rash of suicides and attempted suicides(determined by chisme,
or deduction) out here.
all of them were despair related more than half correlated with meth addiction itself a despair related thing.
ours were equally male/female, and across both our color spectrum.
that leaves economics/opportunity/just being able to get by as the likely cause.
Actually, in the article it states:
"There are gender-based differences as well. From 1999 to 2017, the rate for men was substantially higher than for women -- almost
four-and-a-half times higher in the first of those years, slightly more than three-and-a-half times in the last."
which in some sense makes despair the wrong word, as females are actually quite a bit more likely to be depressed for instance,
but much less likely to "do the deed". Despair if we mean a certain social context maybe, but not just a psychological state.
Suicide deaths are a function of the suicide attempt rate and the efficacy of the method used. A unique aspect of the US is
the prevalence of guns in the society and therefore the greatly increased usage of them in suicide attempts compared to other
countries. Guns are a very efficient way of committing suicide with a very high "success" rate. As of 2010, half of US suicides
were using a gun as opposed to other countries with much lower percentages. So if the US comes even close to other countries in
suicide rates then the US will surpass them in deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods#Firearms
Now we can add in opiates, especially fentanyl, that can be quite effective as well.
The economic crisis hitting middle America over the past 30 years has been quite focused on the states and populations that
also tend to have high gun ownership rates. So suicide attempts in those populations have a high probability of "success".
I would just take this opportunity to add that the police end up getting called in to prevent on lot of suicide attempts, and
just about every successful one.
In the face of so much blanket demonization of the police, along with justified criticism, it's important to remember that.
As someone who works in the mental health treatment system, acute inpatient psychiatry to be specific, I can say that of the
25 inpatients currently here, 11 have been here before, multiple times. And this is because of several issues, in my experience:
inadequate inpatient resources, staff burnout, inadequate support once they leave the hospital, and the nature of their illnesses.
It's a grim picture here and it's been this way for YEARS. Until MAJOR money is spent on this issue it's not going to get better.
This includes opening more facilities for people to live in long term, instead of closing them, which has been the trend I've
seen.
One last thing the CEO wants "asses in beds", aka census, which is the money maker. There's less profit if people get better
and don't return. And I guess I wouldn't have a job either. Hmmmm: sickness generates wealth.
Neocon donors ask Trump for favors and he can't refuse... Trump foreign policy is a direct continuation of Bush II and Obama
foreign policy and is dominated by neocons, who rule the State Department. Pomeo is a rabid neocon, to the right of
Condoleezza Rice, Hillary and John Kerry. Actually anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli bias was clearly visible even during 2016
campaign, but few voters paid any attention. Now they should.
It is clear that Trump is the most pro-Israel President after Johnson.
Notable quotes:
"... In contrast, in the Middle East the president has been extraordinarily bellicose. In April, the Administration revoked waivers that allowed certain countries to buy oil from Iran without violating U.S. sanctions [ U.S. Won't Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran's Oil , by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 22, 2019]. In early May, the president imposed new sanctions on Iranian metals, a direct threat to the regime's economic viability. ..."
"... The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War , by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2019]. ..."
"... Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation. ..."
"... But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War . There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the "intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories After Tanker Attacks , RedState, June 14, 2019] ..."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
Later that month, the president said a fight would mean "the official end of Iran" [
Trump threatens Iran With 'Official End' by Kenneth Walsh, US News and World
Report, May 20, 2019].
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation.
But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and
its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War
. There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly
question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the
"intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international
investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories
After Tanker Attacks, RedState, June 14, 2019]
This is not the same country that re-elected George W. Bush in 2004. The trust in
institutions is gone; America is war-weary.
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There's something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It's akin
to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the Rhine.
The border situation is so outrageous it appears like something out of a black comedy. "We
are in a full blown emergency," said acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John
Sanders, "and I cannot say this stronger: the system is broken". [ 32% increase
in migrants encountered or arrested at the southern border in May, by Priscilla
Alvarez, CNN, June 5, 2019] Why is this happening? Migrants all
over the world from Guatemala
to
Angola know the loopholes in immigration border enforcement imposed by a
treasonous Leftist
kritarchy , especially the claim of "
credible fear " potentially qualifying people for asylum.
[ While everyone sleeps, the courts are abolishing all immigration enforcement, by Daniel Horowitz, Conservative Review, March 11, 2019] Thus, most migrants
are not sneaking across the border: they are eagerly turning themselves in at ports of entry,
knowing they will soon be released into the country on the promise, which they intend to break,
that they will show up for adjudication.
Remember, President Trump has the authority to solve this problem without Congress. The
Supreme Court has already ruled that the president can impose a
travel ban on certain countries . Conservative Review's Daniel Horowitz argues the
president has inherent powers under Article II to exclude asylum applicants from entering the
country, authority that has been reaffirmed by Congress and repeatedly sanctioned by the
Supreme Court. [ No
judge has jurisdiction to erase our border, ConservativeReview, November 26,
2018]
But Trump won't do it -- partially because he has inexplicably surrounded himself with
political foes who won't back strong action . Instead, he's blaming the Democrats for not
undertaking the "simple" measure of closing the "loopholes."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
... ... ...
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There’s something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It’s
akin to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the
Rhine.
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack
a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in
https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions
were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most
powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far
fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.
This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they
are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.
You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character...
pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG
Then there are the many problems of their "proof".
Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location
of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high
boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv
The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after
the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!
The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this
false flag mission.
But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A
mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel.
"We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.
Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".
Finally, there is the question of "why"?
What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one
establishment source that tried to rationalize.
Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag
operation by Israel's Mossad.
If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would
still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.
To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the
regime in Tehran is a rational actor.
The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even
for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.
Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under
hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place,
but that seems to only be true with our allies.
As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories
involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.
Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through
waters within reach of the IRGC.
The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers,
then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.
There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining
chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran
was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently
threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.
Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the
sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.
This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the
U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?
US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians
who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism
-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239)
June 14, 2019
The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are
that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative
theory .
For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing
Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom
"the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't
have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something
about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels,
or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division,
discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other
horrible thing you can think of.
Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.
That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo,
Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?
The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation.
The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible
weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.
My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.
But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but
this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.
The establishment is reluctant to return to paper votes or paper trail as paper ballots increases accountability.
While that danger of tampering is IMHO overblown (machines themselves are not connected to Internet) there is a point here. For
example in NJ voting machines are just counting devices. Which definitely allows machinations with votes by election officials. So
manning the booth by representatives of two opposing parties will help.
Caitlin Johnstone is wrong: for Sunders it was not propagandas which derailed him: it was criminal machinations of DNC
Notable quotes:
"... We are already seeing this same pattern repeated today, arguably in an even more egregious way. A recent article by Matt Taibbi for Rolling Stone titled " We've Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces " documents some jaw-droppingly obnoxious smears leveled against the two Democratic candidates who are taking the most flack from the mass media, Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. The Daily Beast added to the growing mountain of MSM Gabbard smears with an article titled "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists", claiming on essentially zero evidence that the Hawaii congresswoman has a suspicious amount of support from Kremlin loyalists, a smear which was elevated into mainstream consciousness by ABC and CNN. Sanders was smeared by the New York Times for his previous opposition to US interventionism in Nicaragua. ..."
"... It is therefore an indisputable fact that the very wealthy therefore have an immensely disproportionate influence over the way that people think and vote, which means the plutocratic class has the fully legal ability to practice election interference. Both the plutocratic media and the US government have already tacitly admitted that this is true in the frantic, hysterical way they've been talking about Russian Facebook memes as election interference, despite the fact that those social media posts are a microscopic drop in the barrel of the billions and billions of dollars that goes into mass media election coverage. If the Internet Research Agency of St Petersburg was election meddling, then the plutocratic class which consistently manipulates public narratives to its favor certainly is as well, to an extent that is greater by orders of magnitude. ..."
"After the Mueller report was released, our president called Vladimir
Putin, spent an hour on the phone with him,"
Democratic presidential
candidate Beto O'Rourke
said
on
CBS's
Face The Nation
yesterday. "Described the report as a hoax, giving Putin
a green light to further interfere in our democracy."
"Russia interfered in the 2016 election,"
tweeted
presidential
candidate Kamala Harris the other day. "If we don't do anything to upgrade our election
infrastructure, we will leave our nation vulnerable to future attacks."
We've been seeing
many
such hysterical warnings
about Russian interference in the upcoming 2020 elections, and
as the election gets nearer we are 100 percent guaranteed to see a lot more.
Another concern people have been voicing, which has far more legitimacy, is the
fear of election tampering from domestic actors.
An
article
published the other day by
Roll Call
reports that experts are warning
America's 2020 elections "will be held on voting machines that are woefully outdated and
that any tampering by adversaries could lead to disputed results." An
article
published last month
by the
Guardian
warns that new voting machines aren't
necessarily an improvement.
"The purchases replace machines from the turn of the century that raise serious
security concerns," the
Guardian
reports. "But the same companies that made and
sold those machines are behind the new generation of technology, and a history of
distrust between election security advocates and voting machine vendors has led to a
bitter debate over the viability of the new voting equipment -- leaving some campaigners
wondering if America's election system in 2020 might still be just as vulnerable to
attack."
Initiatives are sprouting up to bring more election security and reliability to
the United States, which is currently
ranked
dead last
in election integrity among all western democracies.
Support for
paper ballots is picking up steam with
support
from Senate Democrats
and multiple presidential candidates, and rightly so; hand-counted
paper ballots is considered
the
gold standard
for election integrity, and every nation should want that for their voting
systems.
But neither foreign interference nor domestic vote tampering will be the most
egregious form of election meddling that we will see in America's 2020 presidential
elections.
We are already seeing this same pattern repeated today, arguably in an even more
egregious way.
A recent article by Matt Taibbi for
Rolling Stone
titled "
We've
Hit a New Low in Campaign Hit Pieces
" documents some jaw-droppingly obnoxious smears
leveled against the two Democratic candidates who are taking the most flack from the mass
media, Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. The
Daily Beast
added to the
growing
mountain of MSM Gabbard smears
with an article titled "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being
Boosted by Putin Apologists", claiming on essentially zero evidence that the Hawaii
congresswoman has a suspicious amount of support from Kremlin loyalists, a smear which was
elevated into mainstream consciousness by ABC and CNN. Sanders was smeared by the
New
York Times
for his previous opposition to US interventionism in Nicaragua.
We're not even halfway through 2019 and there are already far too many of such
mass media hit pieces for me to list in this article.
These plutocrat-owned outlets
are doing everything they can to make sure that Trump will be running against a more polite
version of himself come November 2020. Hell,
Fortune Magazine
just published an
article titled "
Why Joe Biden
Is the Only True Progressive Candidate
", which attempts to argue exactly what the
headline promises. Once the primaries are over, this manipulation will shift toward
whoever's the oligarchic favorite for the general election.
As soon as you see someone become extremely wealthy, you immediately see them
start buying up public narrative control.
They buy and invest in media outlets,
they pour money into influential think tanks, they send lobbyists into government offices to
persuade politicians to think a certain way about a given subject. Ordinary people can't
afford to do these things, so they have relatively little control over the dominant
narratives about what's going on in our society and our world.
It is therefore an indisputable fact that the very wealthy therefore have an immensely
disproportionate influence over the way that people think and vote, which means the
plutocratic class has the fully legal ability to practice election interference. Both the
plutocratic media and the US government have already tacitly admitted that this is true in
the frantic, hysterical way they've been talking about Russian Facebook memes as election
interference, despite the fact that those social media posts are a
microscopic
drop in the barrel
of the
billions
and billions of dollars
that goes into mass media election coverage. If the Internet
Research Agency of St Petersburg was election meddling, then the plutocratic class which
consistently manipulates public narratives to its favor certainly is as well, to an extent
that is greater by orders of magnitude.
Of course it's good that people are pushing for paper ballots, and it's not a bad idea to
take precautions against foreign interference as well, but we must become aware that the
greatest share of election interference happens before anyone sets foot in a polling booth.
The way the American psyche is pummeled with mass media narratives designed to
manufacture
consent
for war, economic injustice, ecocide, Orwellian government intrusiveness, and
the politicians who promote these things will influence far more votes in 2020 than any
other election tampering, foreign or domestic.
Mass media propaganda is the single most overlooked and under-appreciated aspect
of our society.
The ability of an elite class to control the way a supermajority of
the population thinks, acts and votes has
shaped our entire world in the favor of a
few sociopaths driven by an insatiable lust for money and power
who got to where
they are because they were willing to do anything to get ahead. If we can't find a way to
get a handle on that, then it won't matter how pristine your elections are, how ethical the
DNC primary process becomes, or what the Russians are up to this year.
Do you want to live in a world which is
built around the selfish desires of
powerful, amoral manipulators and hoarders?
No? Then you're going to have to start
doing what you can to oppose such a system, and to convince as many of your brothers and
sisters as possible to join you.
It is not a secret that the USA have a very powerful MIC lobby that by-and-large defines the USA foreign policy. Israel can be considered
as a yet another MIC lobbyist. This lobby in interesting in launching the war (especially pro-Israel faction of the MIC lobby)
The USA can definitely crush Iran military, but the cost might be higher that in case of Iraq. Also without occupation of the country
that will not be anything like a decisive victory. In Iraq, the USA was helped by the fact that military quickly crumbed and was undermined
by betrayals of several high ranking generals. Whether the same will be the case in Iran is difficult to predict.
Theocratic regimes tend to became more fragile with time, so at that stage is Iran now is difficult to predict without being in
the country. So counting on the fragility of the regime might be a valid consideration. But the war typically unites nations so to exploit
those weaknesses with war is more difficult task, then just waiting for the regime collapse.
That USA has at least two firm allied in such a war: Israel and Saudis.
Notable quotes:
"... It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as
Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.
..."
"... Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was
followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization. ..."
"... U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, including
an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that
injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility. ..."
"... Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false
flag" attacks to instigate a war. ..."
"... Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down a Fragile
Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with
Iran would be a cakewalk. ..."
"... "Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part,
adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan." ..."
"... This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the
Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse? ..."
"... Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who
oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. ..."
"... Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region
that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that. ..."
Such a war, no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world's seaborne
oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump's reelection.
It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large
as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.
And if war comes now, it would be known as "Trump's War."
For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though, according to U.N. inspectors and the other signatories
– Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China – Tehran was complying with its terms.
Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This
was followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization.
Then came the threats of U.S. secondary sanctions on nations, some of them friends and allies, that continued to buy oil from
Iran.
U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands,
including an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack
that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility.
The war hawks are back.
"This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes," said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.
But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks,
helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war.
If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely
to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made
to experience similar problems.
Yet if the president and the ayatollah do not want war, who does?
Not the Germans or Japanese, both of whom are asking for more proof that Iran instigated the tanker attacks. Japan's prime
minster was meeting with the ayatollah when the attacks occurred, and one of the tankers was a Japanese vessel.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down
a Fragile Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash,
and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk.
"Iran is in no shape for a prolonged confrontation with the U.S. The regime is in a politically precarious position. The sullen
Iranian middle class has given up on the possibility of reform or prosperity. The lower classes, once tethered to the regime by
the expansive welfare state, have also grown disloyal. The intelligentsia no longer believes that faith and freedom can be harmonized.
And the youth have become the regime's most unrelenting critics.
"Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most
part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan."
This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and
the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse?
Trump seems to have several options:
Negotiate with the Tehran regime for some tolerable detente.
Refuse to negotiate and await the regime's collapse, in which case the president must be prepared for Iranian actions that
raise the cost of choking that nation to death.
Strike militarily, as Cotton urges, and accept the war that follows, if Iran chooses to fight rather than be humiliated
and capitulate to Pompeo's demands.
One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I's demand he get his army
out of Kuwait.
Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and
who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars.
Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked
region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that.
There is a
report that the Trump administration may be preparing an attack on Iran:
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
If this report is true, that would mean that the worst of the Iran hawks in the
administration are prevailing once again. The report goes on to say that "Trump himself was not
enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would
grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants." If that is
true, that is an absurdly casual way to blunder into an unnecessary war. Trump should
understand that if he takes the U.S. into a war against Iran, especially without Congressional
authorization, it will consume the rest of his presidency and it should cost him his
re-election. Starting an unnecessary war with Iran would go down as one of the dumbest, most
reckless, illegal acts in the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Congress must make absolutely clear that the president does not have the authority to
initiate hostilities against Iran. Both houses should pass a resolution this week saying as
much, and they should block any funds that could be used to support such an action. There is no
legal justification for attacking Iran, and if Trump approves an attack he would be violating
the Constitution and should be impeached for it.
The risk of war with Iran is greater than it was six months ago, and it is much greater than
it was two and a half years ago when Trump took office. The U.S. and Iran are in this dangerous
position solely because of the determined efforts of Iran hawks in and around this
administration to drive our country on a collision course with theirs. Those efforts
accelerated significantly thirteen months ago with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the
reimposition of sanctions, and things have been getting steadily worse with each passing month.
It is not too late to avert the collision, but it requires the U.S. to make a dramatic change
in policy very soon. Since we know we can't count on the president to make the right decision,
Congress and the public need to make him understand what the political price will be if he
makes the wrong one.
For her entire career, Warren's singular focus has been the growing fragility of America's
middle class. She made the unusual choice as a law professor to concentrate relentlessly on
data, and the data that alarms her shows corporate profits creeping up over the last 40 years
while employees' share of the pie shrinks. This shift occurred, Warren argues, because in the
1980s, politicians began reworking the rules for the market to the specifications of
corporations that effectively owned the politicians. In Warren's view of history, "The constant
tension in a democracy is that those with money will try to capture the government to turn it
to their own purposes." Over the last four decades, people with money have been winning, in a
million ways, many cleverly hidden from view. That's why economists have estimated that the
wealthiest top 0.1 percent of Americans now own nearly as much as the bottom 90 percent.
As a presidential candidate, Warren has rolled out proposal after proposal to rewrite the
rules again, this time on behalf of a majority of American families. On the trail, she says "I
have a plan for that" so often that it has turned into a T-shirt slogan. Warren has plans
(about 20 so far, detailed and multipart) for making housing and child care affordable,
forgiving college-loan debt, tackling the opioid crisis, protecting public lands, manufacturing
green products, cracking down on lobbying in Washington and giving workers a voice in selecting
corporate board members. Her grand overarching ambition is to end America's second Gilded
Age.
"Ask me who my favorite president is," Warren said. When I paused, she said, "Teddy
Roosevelt." Warren admires Roosevelt for his efforts to break up the giant corporations of his
day -- Standard Oil and railroad holding companies -- in the name of increasing competition.
She thinks that today that model would increase hiring and productivity. Warren, who has called
herself "a capitalist to my bones," appreciated Roosevelt's argument that trustbusting was
helpful, not hostile, to the functioning of the market and the government. She brought up his
warning that monopolies can use their wealth and power to strangle democracy. "If you go back
and read his stuff, it's not only about the economic dominance; it's the political influence,"
she said.
What's crucial, Roosevelt believed, is to make the market serve "the public good." Warren
puts it like this: "It's structural change that interests me. And when I say structural, the
point is to say if you get the structures right, then the markets start to work to produce
value across the board, not just sucking it all up to the top."
Some timely Analogy. What one fails to understand is: how incessantly pointing out a known
proactively contributes to altering its dimensions.
DT is a self-serving, narcissistic, lying conman. Okay! What else is new?
What are we actually able to do about it while the system is actively being deconstructed
from within? All that intellectualized writing is achieving, in the world of today, is
comparable to spitting in the wind blow-back, against an unassailably entrenched power
structure.
We have been, masterfully, psychologically conditioned to forever await a next election,
wherein we blindly believe we can simply 'throw them out' of office and all will be well
again.
If we have the mental capacity to recognize that we are all Julian Assange, Charlie Hebdo,
or Palestinian, or any other phrase expressing solidarity, then why are we incapable of
recognizing too, that the 'leaders' and politicians we elect in the first place are us.
How has one's blind faith belief in his/her own 'democratic' systems institutional
exceptionalism served us – we, the entirety of the people – so far; looking back
over only these past seventy-plus years?
Repeatedly demonizing the despicable doesn't alter the facts of our powerlessness in the
face of the injured beast. Taunting a wounded bear only intimidates it to further attack. It
viscerally knows it is in a fight to the death. Talking to it, negotiating 'deals' with it
are futile.
We, however, continue to act like mere onlookers to the attack, gloating over the spectacle,
not even recognizing ourselves, in toto, as the injured party.
Anyone recall the definition of the Stockholm syndrome – we identify with our
attackers? We simply wait, and watch, jabbering amongst ourselves, as death plays itself out
in front of our eyes. Then we quietly disperse into our individual hedonism's while
continuing to chase illusions.
We have been psychically enfeebled, from birth, through years of subliminal nurturing –
programming, to delude ourselves from the one truth – humanity is a universal species.
This self-delusional 'unthinking' is a causative of our acting against the universal –
acting against our own best interests.
Change the system from within!
History repeatedly tells that we appear to be incapable of recognizing, let alone
acknowledging, necessary truths, prior to full systemic collapse. We, those of the new
millennium, will definitely not be the first, but may very well be the last, given our
advancement in all 'things' inessential, for species continuance.
We have developed an immunity to the disease corroding us from within.
The converse medical analogy would be: We are NOT the host! We are the malignancy that is
relentlessly eating the body – Earth, which we are destroying, in the name of
anthropomorphic vanity; not aware enough to realize that once the body dies all that remains
is perpetual space-time consciousness.
The inhumane Empire has begun its descent, and is beginning to implode in on itself.
The name of the disease entity is oligarchic, unbridled capitalist plutocracy, reigning
supreme. The power in its destructive capacity is that it is relentless. It will not cease
until it has utterly destroyed itself, and all of us with it.
It is an addiction we have no interest in weaning ourselves from. The drug is too all
powerful!
Just some personal thoughts!
No worries, as was the cultural idiom in Australia, and which now seems to have spread around
the globe, thanks to the universal media brainwash.
"... He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like an ultimatum to me. ..."
He can keep his tax returns. I want to see a brain scan. You know, of all the things to call CT, I would advise against the Ukraine portfolio. It's been vetted by US intelligence,
for starters. That's why we won't issue travel Visas to the Ukrainian attorneys involved.
to Ukraine. Nope. He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them if they didn't fire the prosecutor
who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like an ultimatum to me.
The other reason why the Ukraine attorneys won't be allowed here is because they might expose how Hillary got them to play
along with Russia Gate. And those charges against Manafort? Obama knew all about that in 2014 , but he decided to hold on to them
just in case he needed them down the road.
The thing is that Manafort was trying to get Yanukovich to take the EU deal instead
of the Russian one. But again I want to know when Podesta is going to be charged for doing the same things that Manafort did?
Oh yeah he's in the Clinton side of things.
"... Trump's National Security Advisor is the equally unhinged John Bolton. It is no secret that Bolton is itching for war with Iran, something even Trump has been hesitant to do. But what if a ship of the sacred United States, in an area of the world where it has no legitimate business to be, were to be attacked? Then, of course, U.S. retaliation would be swift and harsh. ..."
The world awoke today to the alleged 'news' that U.S. authorities were investigating attacks on two ships in the Gulf of Oman.
For anyone paying attention, this is déjà vu all over again. Let's put this in the context of current world politics as directed
through the skewed lens of that self-proclaimed stable genius, United States President Donald Trump. The man who so considers himself,
and has commented in the past on his own good looks, has stated that, regardless of what his advisors tell him, he rules by his 'gut'
feelings. In 2017, against the advice of all allies except Israel, and also against the advice of his closest advisors, he withdrew
from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
This was an international agreement by which sanctions against Iran would be withdrawn, in exchange for Iran making adjustments
to its nuclear program. By so violating this agreement, and threatening sanctions against the other signatories if they continued
to abide by it, the U.S. basically nullified it, yet expected Iran to comply. Iran has done so for over a year, with the hope, if
not the expectation, that the other parties to the agreement would figure out a way to bypass U.S. threats. This has not happened.
The U.S. wants Iran to return to the bargaining table; why on earth it would is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable person.
If Iran signed another agreement with the U.S., Trump could decide in a month, or a week, or even a day, that that, too, was 'the
worst deal ever'.
Trump's National Security Advisor is the equally unhinged John Bolton. It is no secret that Bolton is itching for war with
Iran, something even Trump has been hesitant to do. But what if a ship of the sacred United States, in an area of the world where
it has no legitimate business to be, were to be attacked? Then, of course, U.S. retaliation would be swift and harsh. MORE...
Recently, there was alleged sabotage against U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. Nothing came of that smoke screen. But today, a new
violation of U.S. sanctity is alleged. While time alone can tell how this will play out, it is not without deadly and devastating
precedence. On August 4, 1964, a U.S. ship, the Maddox, was in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of China and northern Vietnam. That
night, instruments on the Maddox indicated that the ship was either under attack or had been attacked. The Maddox and another U.S.
vessel, the C. Turner Joy, fired into the darkness with support from U.S. warplanes. The Navy notified Washington that naval vessels
in the Gulf of Tonkin were being attacked. Washington launched Operation Pierce Arrow (where oh where do these stupid names originate?):
sixty-four sorties from nearby aircraft carriers pounded North Vietnam that evening. When the so-called retaliatory attack concluded,
President Lyndon Johnson appeared on American television to announce that "gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam"
had been attacked by American aircraft. Had U.S. ships actually been attacked? Personnel on both vessels soon " decided they had
been shooting at 'ghost images' on their radar; the preponderance of available evidence indicates that there was no attack." [1]
But this was just what Congress wanted, so its members could prove their anti-Communist credentials, as important than as anti-terrorism
hubris is today; it was the perfect ploy to escalate the war. Yet like the personnel on the ships, U.S. government officials knew
very quickly that there had been no attack. Just a few days later, Johnson, upon learning the truth said this: "Hell, those dumb,
stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish." [2] The truth did nothing to stop violent U.S. escalation. By the end of the following
year, the number of U.S. soldiers invading Vietnam increased from 23,000 to 184,300. Eleven years later, with over 55,000 U.S. soldiers
dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, and, by conservative estimates, 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, the U.S. fled Vietnam in defeat.
Fast forward fifty-four years, an eternity in terms of U.S. governance. An independent nation (Iran) is minding its own business,
protecting its borders and assisting its allies (including Syria), but it refuses to kowtow to U.S. demands. The mighty U.S., whose
actions are not to be questioned by any nation that wants to survive, must determine some reason to invade it that will fly with
the U.S. public. In 1964, its desire to invade Vietnam was given legitimacy by the lies of the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. In 2019,
will its desire to invade Iran gain U.S. support because of the Gulf of Oman non-incident? If so, one can only hope that, unlike
the devastation that the U.S. wrought on Vietnam before that country was victorious over the U.S., Iran will be able to defeat the
U.S. more quickly, and with fewer Iranian casualties. There really isn't much that the United States needs to do to diffuse the tension
between it and Iran. Simply abide by its own international agreement, the JCPOA. But in for this to happen, Trump would have to find
some reason to say that the sanctions were successful; he will never admit to making a mistake. But the workings of his brain are
a conundrum; it's possible he could invent and believe such a scenario. For the sake of the U.S., Iran, and much of the world that
could easily be dragged into a major war should the U.S. invade Iran, it is to be hoped that Trump does, indeed, invent such a reason.
Endnotes [1] Chambers, (John Whiteclay II. ED. 1999. The Oxford Companion to American Military History . New York: Oxford
UP). Jian, Chen. China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation, P. 151. [2] Donald E. Schmidt, The
Folly of War: American Foreign Policy, 1898-2005 (New York: Algora, 2005), 265.
Gulf of Oman Incident
Where Oman differs from Tonkin is today we are facing a far more dangerous scenario. We could all 'be dragged into a major
war should the US invade Iran'. Vietnam did not lead to nuclear Armageddon, nor did any other confrontation of the Cold War. There
is much talk of a new Cold War. But the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we now live in a pre-world war environment.
Humanity has experienced long periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two
Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The Congress System finally
collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World
War Two. That was followed by the United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not prevent
a third world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at
the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation
that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.
The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation
being touted by the neo-cons.
The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by
Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil
despite sanctions.
It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control. That Iran would target a Japanese ship
and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous
"... A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant. ..."
"... Probably a 50/50 chance it was an American-Saudi-Israel false flag. ..."
"... Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the Enabling Act all ready to go. ..."
"... If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel! ..."
"... Remember the USS Liberty! Never Forget! ..."
"... This updated post from "Moon of Alabama" is definitely worth reading: "Today's Attacks On Ships In The Gulf Of Oman Are Not In Iran's Interest – Or Are They? (Updated)": https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/todays-attacks-on-ships-in-the-gulf-of-oman-are-not-in-irans-interest.html#more ..."
"... Maybe Colin Powell can come out of retirement and deliver the US/neocon presentation at the UN Security Council: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rp6WuTSTyS8 ..."
"... The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now. ..."
"... As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'. ..."
"... Who wants war? Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble? Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC? Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military contractor donors? Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists? Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran? ..."
"... I forgot one more who wants war: Bolton because he is an immoral idiot who wants to strut. ..."
Back in the 1960's as the Cuban missile crisis was brewing, JFK conferred with then French
president Charles DeGaulle and offered to show him the reconnaissance pictures showing the
Russian missiles in Cuba. DeGaulle is said to have replied "No, I do not need to see
pictures. The word of the President of the United States is enough."
It's impossible to imagine anyone saying that today, unless they still believe in the
tooth fairy.
It very well could an act by a state that according to an elite Army warfare college, is
"known to disregard international law to accomplish mission" and also a
"wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act."
What state? See "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study," Washington Times, September 10,
2001.
A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What
Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly
against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant.
Yes, Iran is to be blamed! Absolutely true, US President himself said so!
Let's look at some facts and then deductions. So, the US drone was following the Iranian
boat. Iranians saw the drone, fired at it and missed. Regardless, they continued their
"journey" to the tanker, all the while their supreme leader was trying to persuade Abe to
help Iran.
Tump: It was Iran the terrorist nation, not leaders but the nation. Not long ago Trump lauded
Iranians as very nice people. If the drone was there, why don't we see the beginning of the
boat's journey and then where that boat with the mine went? According to Mr Pompeo and Mr
Bolton, the nation of terrorists is not only evil but stupid too. Yet no other actor in the
region has the sophistication to perform such an act (that is stupid act) – according
to Mr.Pompeo.
Hm who else, I wonder would be interested in bringing down Iran? I can't think even of one
such actor.
Lest we forget. Gen. Wesley Clark's revelation. This was first revealed to General Wesley
Clark in 1991 by neo-con Paul Wolfowitz. The seven countries which were to be invaded and
blessed with regime change were Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and the big
prize, Iran with its wealth of resources and potential market of over 70 million persons.This
same plan was revealed again to General Clark during a visit to the Pentagon ten days after
9-11, the event that presented the neo-cons, and no doubt others behind the scenes, with
their Pearl Harbor, their justification to proceed with the plan, somewhat conveniently. You
can see Clark say it in person on YouTube if you don't believe it.
The only thing missing is a bunch of Iranian passports "just accidentally found" near the
ships with a big floating arrow pointing towards them, just in case we're clueless. If we get dragged into a bunfight with Iran because of this we deserve all the opprobrium
anyone hurls at us–if only for our outright stupidity.
""This assessment is based on intelligence [I think we already know what the Saudis and
Israelis want us to think], the weapons used [which were what again?], the level of expertise
needed to execute the operation [more than what was needed to prove the existence of fake
WMDs], recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping ['Iranian attacks' according to who,
exactly?], and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and
proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication [so sophisticated there's no
evidence they did it]," the Secretary said, without taking questions [or citing proof]"
He doesn't even bother with a Colin Powell style PowerPoint to convince us he believes any
of the horsesh!t he's peddling. Real contempt for the American public.
Let's quote that fellow with the little moustache, shortly before he ordered the invasion of
Poland: "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The
victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."
To think that the only obstacle between peace and war is a president too stupid to
understand that he brought this on himself.
It's very sad that I trust the word of the Ayatollah Khameni more than the President of the
United States or any of his spokesman. The proxy which had the weapons, level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication is called the
Central Intelligence Agency.
How utterly convenient!
Abe is meeting with the Iranian leadership, what better time to attack Japanese tankers
(what better time for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the neocons, that is)? Not 24 hours go by after the supposed attack and Pompeo already knows who did it and has a
response ready. Why, it's almost like his mind were already made up! (But when it comes to,
say, that Saudi prince who chops up journalists, it seems that we can never ever ever really
know what happened!)
Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the
Enabling Act all ready to go.
Sarcasm aside, everyone knows that Pompeo is lying, looking for an excuse to escalate
tensions. The question is whether anyone will do anything about it.
If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or
any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our
Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel!
Jason Ditz, the News Editor at Antiwar.com reports: "Pompeo's declaration of Iran's guilt was
based chiefly on similar incidents happening in mid-May. John Bolton and Pompeo blamed Iran
then, and since this was the same sort of thing, they blame Iran now. The problem is, they
have offered no evidence Iran was responsible for the first incidents, let alone today's, and
are just tying them all together. Pompeo rattled off a list of things to blame Iran for,
including multiple incidents that were done by Yemen's Houthis, a rocket fired in Iraq that
was never convincingly blamed on anyone, and an Afghanistan bombing that clearly was nothing
to do with Iran at all."
Jason Ditz goes on to report: "The big questions are, as always, motive. Iran has no
conceivable reason to attack such ships. In this case, one of the ships is even
Japanese-owned. Japan is a very important trading partner of Iran, and Japan's prime minister
Abe Shinzo is visiting Iran right now, trying to reduce tensions. Abe has also declared Iran
to have no intention to make nuclear arms. This would be a preposterous move for Iran to even
consider. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif declared that 'suspicious doesn't begin to
describe' what happened, noting that the attacks were timed to when Japanese PM Abe Shinzo
was meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader. Abe's meeting was also a subject of Pompeo's
comments, as Pompeo falsely accused Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of having refused the meeting with
Abe. In reality, the meeting took place, and Khamenei simply rejected a proposal to trade
messages with President Trump. Pompeo went on to declare the attack on a Japanese ship during
Abe's Iran visit as an Iranian 'insult to Japan.' This all rests on the US assumption of
Iran's guilt, and as Zarif points out, makes the attack look suspiciously like it might have
been carried out for the benefit of the anti-Iran narrative. "
I read somewhere that the Iranians used weapons of mass destruction given to them by Saddam
to attack the USS Maine in the Gulf of Tonkin, taking American lives on American soil.
I had forgotten that basically all wars are "protected by a bodyguard of lies," according
to the video. Most poignant to me was the Iraqi woman pleading to Congress about Sadam
Hussein's destruction of incubators, which George HW Bush later referenced as the "babies
strewn about the floor like firewood." Except it was all fabricated by a PR firm!
Is anyone really that delusional to believe that Iran is going to attack a Japanese tanker
while the Japanese PM is meeting with the Ayatollah? The ONLY explanation that makes sense is
that it was planned in the White House by Pompeo and Bolton. Whether it was with or without
Trump's knowledge and approval is irrelevant. P & B have been openly salivating for any
excuse to start a war with Iran, and Trump has given them free rein. It is a war crime, and
all three are guilty.
The USS Liberty is spot on. That was our Versailles Treaty and Johnson ceded much of our
foreign policy and intelligence to Israel – we capitulated and have continued to
capitulate to Israel. Things are looking grim and look like a repeat of Iraq. What can stop
this momentum to war?
Well, it seems that just about 100% of those who comment here have this figured out. Once
these things were a bit more sophisticated, but now the Empire doesn't seem to care if its
schemes are blatantly transparent.
Abe has been closely consulting with Trump and the Iranians as a go-between to create the
conditions which can allow Trump to save face now that Bolton's and Pompeo's campaign against
Iran is a big fat failure.
It is clear who hopes to gain by this little stunt, which will not go anywhere. Abe is
certainly not going to be fooled by any of this. Don't expect the WaPo or the NYT to expose
this obvious false flag.
Iran is a rather divided country, and some groups regard USA with as much hatred and
suspicion as the neocons hold towards them. The responsible party might have been IRGC,
intending to raise tensions enough to make their government's current fence-straddling act
unviable and force them to scrap the JCPA.
I'd try to avoid the logic that it must have been
Saudis/Israel/USA, because if it was Iran, the likes of Bolton would somehow be in the right.
They're not. So far, Iran hasn't been the one responsible for the vast majority of
provocations, and even if it elements on their side were did this, the chickenhawks running
USA's national security won't bother to secure proof before escalating. It's not a secret
that they want war and aren't particularly picky about how they get it.
Saudi Arabia.
The other agencies speculated here are off the mark: Israel would fear getting caught, CIA
leaks like a sieve, MI6 has no incentive. But the Saudis? They have the combination of economic incentives, religious hatred,
technical knowledge, advanced (American) weaponry, and who-gives-a-crap-if-we-get-caught
attitude.
Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program, might
all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit premature? How
about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments? (:
I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine from a
tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965 Tonkin Gulf
incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was 54 years
ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common. Why is
the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home movie
set-up?
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
What "history of endless deception"? Every third party has confirmed that Iran has
complied strictly with the JCPOA.
The United States, on the other hand, has a long track record of blatant lies to get the
wars it seeks ..
Exactly what I am hoping for IF the US attacks Iran. All depends on the Iranian
capabilities to cripple the flow of oil from the ME. So I say: Go Iran, make us pay! And
don't forget to throw some missiles on the royal Saudi palace and Riyad. Make that a few
dozen. Or hundred.
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom
I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear
weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now.
As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are
caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'.
Mr. Bone Saw has got to be extremely cocky now.
And both of them could reasonably expect that if they succeed in triggering a US-Iran war,
that even later exposure wouldn't matter.
Yesterday (June 13th) Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a Democratic candidate for President in
2020, was interviewed by the Washington Post's Robert Costa. Here (at 23:58-28:06) is a brief
excerpt of Rep. Gabbard's excellent views on US Iran policy:
Who wants war?
Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble?
Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC?
Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military
contractor donors?
Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists?
Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran?
There are some plausible choices but none of them is the Iranian government.
I frankly just don't believe anything coming form the US government anymore, especially
warmongering neo-cons in charge of foreign policy, the Pentagon, and Deep State actors.
What on earth would Iran have to gain from attacking a Japanese oil tanker while their
leader is meeting with the Japanese PM? More likely a false-flag CIA operation.
"I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine
from a tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965
Tonkin Gulf incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was
54 years ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common.
Why is the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home
movie set-up?"
100%. When I heard on the news this morning that there was video showing Iranians, I
thought "They have them". Then I saw the video. Now I call BS.
Are these the same guys that provided the irrefutable "evidence" of weapons of mass
destruction in Iran?
I am sure that since the Mossad provides us with intelligence in that area of the world, they
are completely objective, and have the best interest of the American military at heart.
@Snark: I tend to agree that the video raises more questions: -what would be the purpose of a
mine above the water line?
-why does it take a group of 10-20 people milling about on the bow to remove a mine?
-does 10-20 people really indicate a clandestine effort to remove a mine, more like a
clusterf____?
As OffGuardian remarked, does the deep state (cia,mi6,mossad) really think we are that
stupid?
Why would Iranians attack their own interests? Because they are "evil". Let's see: Front
Altair is owned by John Frederiksen, the owner of the Frontline Tanker company, who moved
Iranian oil for nearly 40 years including during the "tanker war" with Iraq siding with Iran.
Mr Federiksen was called Khomeini's blood life.
What about the Japanese tanker? While the Supreme Leader of Iran was working on Abe to help
Iran?
Who's evil, who's stupid?
"Outrage on Capitol Hill over 'completely unacceptable' US-funded scheme to shape Iran
debate," The Independent, Wednesday, June 12, 2019:
"United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that
has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime. State Department officials admitted to
Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to
counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further,
saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes
abroad. 'It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that
attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of
escalation and conflict with Iran,' a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on
condition of anonymity. 'This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not
democracies'."
The Independent article by Negar Mortazavi and Borzou Baragahi continues: "One woman
behind the harassment campaign, a longtime Iranian-American activist, has received hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the State Department over the years to promote 'freedom of
expression and free access to information.' The campaign relentlessly attacked critics of the
Iran policy on social media, including Twitter and Telegram messaging app, accusing them
without evidence of being paid operatives of the regime in Tehran. A spokeswoman for the
State Department told reporters on Monday that funding for the 'Iran Disinformation Project'
had been suspended and is under review after it was reported that it went beyond the scope of
its mandate by veering from countering propaganda from Iran to smearing domestic critics of
White House policy. State Department officials disclosed to lawmakers they had granted $1.5
million for Iran Disinfo, which repeatedly targeted, harassed and smeared critics of Trump's
tough stance against Iran on social media.
The Independent article noted: "Among those targeted were American activists, scholars,
and journalists who challenged the Trump administration's 'maximum pressure campaign' against
Iran. The revelation that US taxpayer money was being used to attack administration critics
has now sparked a flurry of queries. 'There are still so many unanswered questions here,'
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar wrote on Twitter. 'What rules are in place to prevent state-funded
organisation from smearing American citizens? If there wasn't public outcry, would the
Administration have suspended funding for Iran Disinfo?' Cold War-era US rules barring the
use of government-funded propaganda against American citizens have been flouted for decades
State Department officials speaking at the closed-door meeting admitted the project was out
of bounds, according to Congressional staffers speaking to The Independent on condition of
anonymity. Both Democratic and Republican Congressional staffers were highly critical of the
project and questioned whether US officials should continue to work with the contractor,
E-Collaborative for Civic Education. The State Department spokeswoman declined to outline
steps to prevent such an operation in the future E-Collaborative for Civic Education,
co-founded by Iranian American activist Mariam Memarsadeghi, is a long-time State Department
contractor "
Foundation for Defence of Democracies and MEK involved in creating fake articles. The
Independent continues:
"Congressional officials also confirmed to The Independent that one individual working for
the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, an influential Washington organisation with
hawkish views on Iran, is part of the E-Collaborative for Civic Education's Iran
Disinformation Project Over the weekend, The Intercept revealed that a purported Iranian
activist, who had published dozens of articles on Iran in prominent outlets such as Forbes
and The Hill, does not exist and is a fake persona run by a team of operatives connected to a
bizarre Iranian political cult. The "Heshmat Alavi" persona had a strong presence on Twitter
and harassed Iranian journalists, academics, and activists who are critical of the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq organisation, a one-time armed guerilla group now holed up in Albania.
There is no known link between the Iran Disinfo programme and the fake persona. At least one
was cited by the Trump administration as proof against the effectiveness of the Obama-era
nuclear deal. Some of the MEK articles were also picked up by US government funded Voice of
America's Persian-language service "
Let's not forget the lies our great-grandparents were told to inveigle us into WWI: "German
troops are raping Belgian nuns" and "German troops are using Belgian babies for bayonet
practice."
100 years from now a future historian, (probably Russian or Chinese), writing about the
collapse of the US, will chronicle how the Americans gullibly believed the war propagandists
asserting that Iran fired on oil tankers, which belonged to it trading partner, with the same
sense of disbelief we now feel upon reading of the crazy assertions made about German
troops.
The Japanese ship's captain came out today and said that there was no way the ship was hit by
a mine as US claimed, it was hit above sea level and sailors saw something hitting the
vessel, like a torpedo.
Why on earth would Iran want to bomb a Japanese ship in the middle of a visit by the
Japanese PM?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The US under the rule of the neocons in the Trump admin, the Pence-Pompeo-Bolton trifecta,
is a menace and a danger to the whole world. From Iran to Venezuela, Ukraine to North Korea,
China to Russia, there isn't a country these neocon stooges don't want to pick a quarrel
with. America has become the greatest threat to world peace.
Sam – When was the last time Iran invaded another country? Why is Israel pushing so
hard for us to fight yet another war on their behalf. As Ron Paul said – if they want
to fight Iran – let them, but we must stand aside as they duke it out. Israel has
created enough Gold Star mothers in the US. Time to do their own fighting. Larsen and Giraldi
make a lot of sense.
"... Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to Mossad in October to kick this one off. ..."
Well I saw/heard Tulsi on Joe Rogan too and was very impressed, her heart is in the right
place and she is anti war. However what worries me most is that Israel is only waiting for
one more surgical strike on it's enemies per Israel's shopping list revealed by Gen. Wesley
Clark and we all know that is Iran. The US will probably have to sacrifice a warship to
Mossad in October to kick this one off.
Tulsi in all liklihood will be swept away by events and I have a sneaky suspicion she is
the 'wildcard candidate' insurance for the 'kingmakers' after all she has kissed the AIPAC
arse is member of CFR etc – she was after all on the fast track before she cried
'foul'.
She is far more honest than most but sadly is still compromised and there is no getting
around that one. She owes them and they never forget. My 'outside choice' is the formidably
'loose cannon' Robert David Steele and his partnering with Cynthia McKinney.
The Zionists are in open war with them both. If they can wake up the black voters en masse
to who runs America now it could cause the biggest shock to the US system since the McCarthy
purge. Steele is appealing to 'Truthers', independents, and Alt Right Constitutionalists and
McKinney to the working class and Black vote.
Trump is trying to exploit the same groups but next time around they will be wiser. The
problem now is the Evangelist 'Christian Zionist' rump. Kushner/Trump and Netanyahu have got
them all at fever pitch for the 2nd coming.
"... If Bernie happens to survive the collusion going on to tank his campaign, Trump and the GOP will "socialist" him to death from sun up to sun down. The clown car of establishment Democrats will also take more than a shot or two. His speech was simply his attempt to embrace and frame this dirty word into something Americans can relate to. For that, he gets mocked by the media and butchered by neolibs, libertarians, right-wingers, corporatists, and pompous lefties. ..."
"... He referenced MLK, FDR, and Marx trying to name a just few socialists that people can compare, contrast and relate to. ..."
"... The day after Bernie's speech, Trump came out with a plan to subsidize farmers, aka big ag, to make up for losses from his tariffs. No one asked "how will you pay for it". No hue or cry anywhere. ..."
"... I think it is highly probable that Bernie's ship, our ship, sailed in 2016; and he missed the boat by remaining in a system so vile and so corrupt that it can only be reformed by rising from the ashes. ..."
"... Warren hid in 2016, and she is sabotaging 2020. She is the real sheepdog that so many here, me on occasion too, accuse Bernie of being. She talks like a progressive and votes like a Republican. She is Obama 2.0, 2020's Trojan Horse. ..."
dkmich on Fri, 06/14/2019 - 12:36pm By all means, speak your piece.
But will someone please explain to me how in the hell everyone turned Bernie from social
democrat into fucking Marx? Never once have I heard Bernie say that capitalism should not exist
in the United States.
If Bernie happens to survive the collusion going on to tank his campaign, Trump and the
GOP will "socialist" him to death from sun up to sun down. The clown car of establishment
Democrats will also take more than a shot or two. His speech was simply his attempt to embrace
and frame this dirty word into something Americans can relate to. For that, he gets mocked by
the media and butchered by neolibs, libertarians, right-wingers, corporatists, and pompous
lefties.
He referenced MLK, FDR, and Marx trying to name a just few socialists that people can
compare, contrast and relate to.
Oh there are many, and of course we must define what qualifies someone to be a
'socialist'. For example, Bernie Sanders is largely considered a social democrat although
many 'true' or 'hardcore' socialists will adamantly say he is not a true socialist because he
doesn't advocated for the means of production to be controlled democratically by the
workers.
For argument's sake we'll only use people who advocated or had a philosophy of altering
the current system of economy to that of a traditionally socialist one. For this reason also,
it will include Marxists whom were types of socialists too (until the term socialist was
later used to differentiate itself from authoritarian communism).
Without further ado, I shall take you through the fascinating (and sometimes violent)
world of socialism.
Albert Einstein
Che Guevara
Rosa Luxemburg
Emma Goldman
George Orwell
Oscar Wilde
Nelson Mandela
V. I. Lenin
Mao Zedong
Malcolm X
Martin Luther King Jr. - Yep, he was a democratic socialist. History tends to gloss
over the fact that many human rights activists and movements were actually linked to
socialism and even communism. I like to call it 'capitalist whitewashing'
Leon Trotsky
Bertrand Russell
John Lennon
Pete Seeger
The point being, pick your choose. I bet people can argue over this list for days. It
doesn't change the fact that Bernie was absolutely right. The government provides billionaires
and corporations with cash and safety nets no questions asked. Privatize the profits and
socialize the losses to use that word again.
The day after Bernie's speech, Trump came out with a plan to subsidize farmers, aka big
ag, to make up for losses from his tariffs. No one asked "how will you pay for it". No hue or
cry anywhere.
Jamie Dimon took his government handout and a bonus for committing fraud that no one ever
went to jail for. He didn't even have to pass a drug test to get it.
Roads, firemen, cops, school are paid for with our public dollars. That means we own them
and their means of production/service: fire halls, police stations, cop cars, school buildings,
and wages. Why do you think privatization so outrageous and pisses so many people off? Because
capitalists are taking our assets for pennies on the dollar so they can then charge us to use
what we own. Again, privatizing the profits and socializing the losses.
I think it is highly probable that Bernie's ship, our ship, sailed in 2016; and he missed
the boat by remaining in a system so vile and so corrupt that it can only be reformed by rising
from the ashes. The party is manufacturing candidates faster than Bezos makes a billion
hoping one of them will stick. At worst, they'll dilute the first round of voting enough for
the superdelegates to step in and tell us kids where to sit.
Warren hid in 2016, and she is sabotaging 2020. She is the real sheepdog that so many
here, me on occasion too, accuse Bernie of being. She talks like a progressive and votes like a
Republican. She is Obama 2.0, 2020's Trojan Horse.
Here is the debate schedule. Since Warren is tied with Bernie for second place in CA, does
it look like they set this up to protect her? Who at the kiddies table is going to lay a glove
on her? Helping to assure people tune in for the warm up debate, they put it on night one.
Wednesday:
Booker
Castro
de Blasio
Delaney
Gabbard
Inslee
Klobuchar
O'Rourke
Warren
Thursday:
Biden
Bennet
Buttigieg
Gillibrand
Harris
Hickenlooper
Sanders
Swalwell
Williamson
Yang
"... The US now has the politics of a third world nation - namely Brazil. Corrupt oligarchs using news media outlets to further their own interests, corrupt politicians using the justice system to indict and jail their political opponents (regardless of whether they are guilty or not). The police and the intelligence agencies being co-opted by some political interests to hound their political rivals. In my opinion - this is what happens when wealth inequality becomes too great (and no - I am not a communist or even all that socialist, I just would like to see wealth inequality return to what it was in the US in the 1970s). ..."
"... Watching Kamala Harris from my California vantage point, she is a very haughty, mean person now trying desperately to appear more relatable. ..."
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said the Justice Department would have "no choice" but to
charge President Donald Trump with obstruction of justice if he finished his term without being
impeached.
Speaking with NPR's Scott Detrow in an interview published Wednesday, Harris said special
counsel Robert Mueller essentially set the stage for criminal charges against Trump with his
investigation into the 2016 election. Longstanding Justice Department policy says that a
sitting president cannot be indicted, and Harris said that was essentially the only reason
Mueller did not charge Trump was the DoJ policy against indicting sitting presidents.
All that would change in 2021 if the Democratic presidential hopeful were in the White House
and the Justice Department were under her watch, she said.
"I believe that they would have no choice, and that they should," Harris said of the Justice
Department's charging Trump with obstruction. "I believe there should be accountability.
Everyone should be held accountable. And the president is not above the law."" politico
------------
So, the new rule will be - if you lose a federal election in the US your victorious
opponents will prosecute you and seek to imprison you. I know a lot of American political
history and I really think this has never been done before. But, now, the Harpies (Pelosi,
Gilliland, K. Harris) have promised the left wing foule that if they win they will seek
to imprison Trump. Uncle Joe is far ahead, and unless some instance of molestation comes to
light or he nods off during an interview, he has a good chance of getting the nomination.
My SWAG is that he would choose a VP nominee whose persona and age would to some extent
offset his doddering foolishness.
Kamala Harris looks to me to be the most likely; woman, photogenic, California, a jurist,
radical enough to satisfy the mob. If he did that then we would have a high chance of seeing a
KH presidency. God help us. pl
That's what I have been telling my husband since she announced her candidacy at the
beginning of the year. She has expectations to be selected as the VP by Biden , even before he
made his own announcement ( remember their meeting on a train going to DC before her
announcement at Howard Uni)
She knows that she won't get the nomination (Warren has more oomph than her in that race)but
it will be nice riding on the coat tails of Uncle Joe and be three heart beats away from the
presidency.
The Arabs living along the borders with Israel should be wary about her !
This is the opinion of a Canuck looking in from the border.
The US now has the politics of a third world nation - namely
Brazil. Corrupt oligarchs using news media outlets to further their own interests, corrupt
politicians using the justice system to indict and jail their political opponents (regardless
of whether they are guilty or not). The police and the intelligence agencies being co-opted by
some political interests to hound their political rivals. In my opinion - this is what happens
when wealth inequality becomes too great (and no - I am not a communist or even all that
socialist, I just would like to see wealth inequality return to what it was in the US in the
1970s).
Now I see that Vanity Fair is attacking AOC using the same playbook the media has used
against Trump for the last 2 years - anonymous "insiders" making all sorts of allegedly
informed criticisms of AOC. Nobody can defend themselves from such anonymous mud slinging, and
the idiots on the left can't see that this is the exact same playbook they have been
fascilitating against Trump. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3dUK-Tdyuk
"..Harris declined to
criticize Biden for his abrupt shift against his prior support for the Hyde Amendment.." (from
the NPR piece). Is the fix already in?
As for the "lock him up" talk, I suspect it may turn out to be just that if KH did ever find
herself on the other side of that particular Rubicon. The foule are a fickle lot. And
besides, immediately locking up the former incumbent is the sort of thing new presidents do in
shithole countries.
You may be absolutely right Col. Lang. With Harris as the VP
nominee, it certainly seems like a probable Democratic Party ticket especially since she
provides gender and racial diversity. For some reason though, I have a feeling Biden isn't
going to make it to the finish line, either because he looks kind of frail to me and isn't
drawing crowds, or because Obama crony Axelrod is expressing doubts about his candidacy.
Even
if Biden DOES make it, he may not inspire enough younger voters to cast ballots. Plus, Harris
hails from California - a state Democrats can easily take for granted - so she adds nothing on
that score.
Since I doubt Sanders can get the nod, that leaves Warren. The Clinton Resistance/Sore
Losers would LOVE for a woman beat Trump. If she chose Buttigieg as her running mate there's a
[slim] chance she could flip Indiana. If she chose Booker she'd attract more black voters. In
both cases she'd probably inspire better turnout among younger voters.
Trump probably doesn't have
too much to be worried about, even if he does lose the next election. After all, he himself
never went after Hellary, so the DNC has no reason to go after him. It would be a serious
breech of protocol, unprecedented in our history.
Kamala is seriously courting
the big unions who make decisions for the Democrat Party - funding and campaign ground
troops.
She promises them the most, but they see her as unelectable. They got burned on Clinton
after eight rosy Obama years being in bed with SEIU. So your instincts may be right - Biden is
claiming the "union turf", and they get her for VP as their POC counterpoint.
Only problem is Kamala Harris does not let anyone define her and whether she will let
herself get defined by Biden is another story - both are very gaffe prone so each of them could
be stepping all over the other as they rumble on down to the 2020 finish line. Watching Kamala
Harris from my California vantage point, she is a very haughty, mean person now trying
desperately to appear more relatable.
I don't think this is what Ben Franklin and the Founders had in mind when we embarked on
this excpetional experiment in self-governance.
Trump led chants of "Lock her up!" but the first thing he did after winning was promise to
do no such thing. We have entered a period of raw populism, and all that candidates say in the
course of rallying their base is quickly forgiven.
Our govt agencies are more empowered to interfere in our elections. I don't see anything
that will reverse this trend. We are Color Revolutioning ourselves. The apparatus we built for
other countries is turning inward. Our MSM is oblivious to it, all they care about is, 'does it
help my team'.
Yeah, I'm a blast at parties too, slumped in a chair, my catch phrase 'it's getting
late'.
Given what the Obama
administration seems to have perpetrated against the Trump campaign, and what the Clintobama
lackeys continued to perpetrate against the legitimately elected Trump administration, I don't
think the Democrats have any qualms about serious breeches of protocol.
Their interests lie
purely in the acquisition and retention of power, and they will treat short-term, short-sighted
gains as permanent wins. They lack all semblance of vision or foresight. This is true of all
the die-hard leftists I talk to (I live in a college town).
They can't seem to see that in
their pursuit of power, demolishing the precedents (legally defined or otherwise) that hold our
country together and legitimize our system of government could somehow come full circle to be
used against them by their adversaries, should their efforts to overturn legal elections, etc.
come to naught.
The point I was trying to make is that the fools at "The Young Turks" are happy to
breathlessly repeat leaks from anonymous sources as fact - but only when they make Trump look
bad. When the same tactic is used to make AOC look bad they push back.
The people on the left need to stop getting sucked in to believing that Trump is the
problem, and the people on the right need to stop getting sucked into believing AOC is the
problem. We need to work together if we are going to reign in The Borg.
"... This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change. ..."
The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
The why is because the democrats are not really against the things he is doing. Oh sure they
will give some speeches about how they don't like what he is doing, but so far enough democrats
have voted with republicans on almost every bill that has come up. The only one that they
didn't vote for was to rescind the ACA. Deregulation of the banks? Yup. More unconstitutional
spying on us? Yup. The military budget? Yup. Confirming his horrible cabinet picks? Yup again
except for DeVos. Warren voted for Ben Carson. Why? She said that she was afraid that Trump
would pick someone worse. How about just keep voting no until he chose someone qualified? His
horrible right wing judges? Yup. Schumer continues to make deals with McConnell to get them
done. DiFi and of course Manchin and other blue dawgs are right there voting with them. I don't
remember which democrat told McConnell that he should have let all of congress in on the tax
bill because he could have gotten 70 or more votes on it.
This after McConnell refused to let Obama's judges get a vote and then there's Garland and
the kabuki confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh.
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria. And made nice with Kim
and Vlad.
So yeah if ByeDone or Warren doesn't get the nod then they will be just fine with Trump
again. And since ByeDone's latest gaffes they are now pushing Warren as coming from behind. I
think Harris was supposed to be the nominee, but she isn't going anywhere.
This is their world, after all. They're fighting for the future, and they have more of
it to fight for.
At the same time, I've noticed a flurry of anti-centrist and Biden-warning articles
coming from all directions.
What I know for sure, is that at this point Trump is set to win in 2020 and the backlash
from the Russia Hoax is just getting started. I don't think it matters which way Barr
decides to play it. The establishment is going to take the hit. There is an army of
potential voters out there who will not vote for more of the same, and that includes Trump.
Nor will they waste their votes on the established third party slush pile. Only a bold
vision from an uncompromising candidate will bring this army forward, and many voters will
join them. There are only a few candidates who can bring it. But they all pretended to fall
for the Russia Hoax. Or, maybe they are just that dumb.
There are enough Millennial votes to carry the win, and the Left will provide back-up.
Who knows with the so-called Progressives? In Congress, they'll vote for anything with a
back-end pay-off that keeps them in DC. On the street, they may be genuine and will vote
with the uncompromised. Tulsi Gabbard can carry this off. She is the first Millennial
presidential candidate -- if she can get past the media black-out.
Bottom line: The Democrats engineered another win for Trump. Now why is that?
up 32 users have voted. --
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and stupidity
of her own people.
- strife delivery
Democrats are passing bills to keep Trump from pulling the troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria and we saw what happened when he tried to pull them out of Syria.
This is why it wouldn't matter even if we got Sanders/Gabbard by some miracle. If we got a
Sanders/Gabbard presidency, you can be sure congress would start doing everything they can to
make sure absolutely nothing happened to change the status quo. It would be like what the Rs
did to Obama, but it would be both Ds and Rs pushing back and nothing would change.
I give her and the Left a pass on that grey area. Tulsi has never embraced the Russia Hoax
to the extent that Sanders and Warren have -- and still do. One thing I don't need is a
purity pledge from members of the Left who try to climb on the political stage with the
American duopoly, who in turn throw every lie and ugly smear they can at them.
The Russia Hoax is falling apart on its own. The Democrats have been deeply stained by it.
Americans grow increasingly shocked and disgusted with the media monopolies. They have all
lost the trust of the American people. The candidates are trying to evolve as fast as they
can on this issue. It will come up in the debates. Answer wrong and watch out, but that will
change week by week as the public begins to realize what happened in 2016.
bringing the evidence, but my stars, the hundreds of subtweeters gave her an education.
okay, it's a grey area for you, as likely is her voting to sanction russia for stealing
crimea, sanctioning north korea for...whatever.
@Pluto's Republic Russiagate from early on, Prof Stephen Cohen, is a backer and
contributor to Tulsi Gabbard. If she's good enough for the Prof on this issue, she's good
enough for me.
She might be alone among candidates in calling for a substantial pullback in the hostility
directed at Russia by the US, a thawing of the new cold war. And how many of the Ds running
for prez have explicitly called out the undue influence of the MIC?
I see her overall as a young pol, still in her 30s, evolving in the right direction in a
number of areas. I wish she had been perfect on this issue from the get go, but I must take
my candidate with all her flaws.
"... The author states that " A future in which the next president will be decided in a race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is a hopeless future. " What did we just go thru that some of us said was the end of the line in this country, verifiable proof that we don't live in even close to a democracy - Clinton vs Trump. This is obviously going to keep a lot of naïve people going until Bernie Sanders croaks. Of course then there will be some other "party" apparatchik for the masses to lay their hope in. ..."
"... ....which is most of the damaged goods who vote Democratic, including many Independents and even some Republicans -- those folks will find Biden to be a better choice. They'd prefer a more sedate ride to the horrific Neocon apocalypse. Trump's carriage is too jerky and has bad shock absorbers. ..."
"... Even with the best of rides, where do the American people think they are going? They enabled and funded the rise of the latest pseudo-Nazi regime. The US is all-in at a high-stakes table. What do you think is going to happen if the US loses its deadly bid for Empire? ..."
"... As to those "vaunted intellectuals and academics" figuring it out, a good percentage of them are vested in the system and either act as gatekeepers or are dependent on keeping the show rolling. Like the professional activist circuit there is now with all the conferences and whatnot always headlined by the same professional activists who do their thing while always, like the preachers in the churches, always asking for money to "help them get the word out". What they're really doing and vested in is perpetuating the system, walking the tightrope of anti-establishment rhetoric and working within the system to prevent any major movement of revolt. ..."
"... As this 1973 speech proves, nobody can accuse Joe Biden of inconsistency. Despite decades of proof to the contrary -- including the 8 he served as VP -- Biden has always maintained a firm belief in the essential goodness of the GOP. pic.twitter.com/WZAqn2rKX4 ..."
"... Force these people to run on their record. Recalling their votes and the consequences of same is important because in elections Amnesia is the first symptom of political posturing. ..."
"... He is not even trying to look like he won't be friendly to the banks and lobbyists. It's almost like he knows that the fix is in and he's going to get the nomination. Gee... I wonder if the PTB have decided to put the mask back on the oligarchy and pretend that things are great? ..."
"... It's a tough challenge to take out an incumbent, in any case. Rarely achieved. Joe's facing even greater obstacles. The Republicans already have Ukraine lined up with testimony about election meddling, bribery, nepotism, and illegal election funding. That's not going away. What's he running on besides "Not Trump?" ..."
"... He can keep his tax returns. I want to see a brain scan. ..."
"... He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like an ultimatum to me. ..."
"... The other reason why the Ukraine attorneys won't be allowed here is because they might expose how Hillary got them to play along with Russia Gate. And those charges against Manafort? Obama knew all about that in 2014 , but he decided to hold on to them just in case he needed them down the road. The thing is that Manafort was trying to get Poreshenko to take the EU deal instead of the Russian one. But again I want to know when Podesta is going to be charged for doing the same things that Manafort did? Oh yeah he's in the Clinton side of things. ..."
There's tons of video of Joe showing his affection for and interest in very young
children. At least girls. If you haven't seen those, you certainly will if he is the
nominee.
Or is someone counting on YouTube, TwitFaceGoo to ban those; TV to refuse ads? It's
bloody insane to run him if winning is the objective.
I mean no disrespect in calling that article a load of hopelessness advocating bullshit.
What I mean is the author pins all hope for America and hope in general on making I presume
Bernie Sanders the democratic party nominee for president. Not only that, the author seems to
presume that the electoral system and our duopoly political system is the only way to address
our "crisis". The author states that we're in a "time of crisis" that has hit "some
Americans" (good grief) and it's coming for "us too". Are you kidding me. Who is us? Who is
this person?
"If the American left in 2020 fails to respond with a more inspired choice than Joe Biden,
who will almost certainly do nothing on the issues that matter and could very well pave the
way for a nightmare electoral reaction in 2022 and 2024, we will forfeit our right to
hope."
The author states that " A future in which the next president will be decided in a
race between Joe Biden and Donald Trump is a hopeless future. " What did we just go thru
that some of us said was the end of the line in this country, verifiable proof that we don't
live in even close to a democracy - Clinton vs Trump. This is obviously going to keep a lot
of naïve people going until Bernie Sanders croaks. Of course then there will be some
other "party" apparatchik for the masses to lay their hope in.
Imo, it's people like this that put all hope in either of these two political parties to
address what the author himself terms a crisis period are doing as much damage if not more
than those fighting against change.
....which is most of the damaged goods who vote Democratic, including many Independents
and even some Republicans -- those folks will find Biden to be a better choice. They'd prefer
a more sedate ride to the horrific Neocon apocalypse. Trump's carriage is too jerky and has
bad shock absorbers.
Even with the best of rides, where do the American people think they are going? They
enabled and funded the rise of the latest pseudo-Nazi regime. The US is all-in at a
high-stakes table. What do you think is going to happen if the US loses its deadly bid for
Empire? What happens when it stands in the ruin of its murder and mayhem policy, no longer
the MonoPower? How do they settle up and pay for what they have done?
"What do you think is going to happen if the US loses its deadly
bid for Empire? What happens when it stands in the ruin of its murder and mayhem policy
?"
What it always does, turn on segments of American society, it's own citizens, and brand
them traitors.
@wendy davis Stein. But like Howard Zinn said, we should focus on elections as much
as it takes to mark a ballot, everything else should be on how to take down the
establishment.
As for when, that's the eternal question. As to those "vaunted intellectuals and
academics" figuring it out, a good percentage of them are vested in the system and either act
as gatekeepers or are dependent on keeping the show rolling. Like the professional activist
circuit there is now with all the conferences and whatnot always headlined by the same
professional activists who do their thing while always, like the preachers in the churches,
always asking for money to "help them get the word out". What they're really doing and vested
in is perpetuating the system, walking the tightrope of anti-establishment rhetoric and
working within the system to prevent any major movement of revolt.
The Democrats extended unemployment benefits when they controlled the presidency and both
chambers of congress. It saved my sister from foreclosure. That helped her. The Republicans
took it away.
Mitch McConnell was videoed saying the Republican tax cut would at least break even and he
thought it would turn a profit. Recently he said the resulting deficits meant we had to take
on social security and Medicare. Would a dozen Democrats slither over and vote with him?
Probably. Bill Clinton got NAFTA, which Bush negotiated, passed with universal Republican
support and a few Democrats. But that doesn't taint the majority who wouldn't go along with
some sort of political original sin.
The Republicans are in a class of their own in the war against women's reproductive
rights.
For the record, I didn't vote Democratic or Republican for president. They may not be as
high as yours, but I have some standards.
#5.2 Uh, my victory? Well, how about you tell me how your voting for democratic or
republican party politicians is going to help me?
And what advice are you talking about?
He is on tape talking about how we have to do something about it recently when he was
talking to his fellows at some convention and Bill Clinton was working with the republicans
to gut it, but fortunately the Lewisinsky saga started and he had to table it. Next Obama
tried to make a deal on it but McConnell said that he wasn't interested in doing it. This was
during the discussions on extending unemployment benefits. And IIRC they were meant to expire
once the economic numbers moved up which they did. I remember this because I was on them at
the time. This was a bipartisan decision.
Recently (McConnell) he said the resulting deficits meant we had to take on social
security and Medicare.
Both parties are eventually going to work together on finally doing something about it. I
hope that you aren't counting on the democrats standing in the way.
@snoopydawg
And I agree there will be Democratic sellouts. The question is how many. I believe Warren,
Gabbard and Sanders are in favor of increasing social security. I think Warren has a plan to
pay for it.
There are 2 or 3 climate change denying Democrats in congress too and more trying to split
the difference. When Biden tried to split the difference it wasn't his finest moment in the
campaign. I'm not sure there are 3 Republicans who accept the science.
As this 1973 speech proves, nobody can accuse Joe Biden of inconsistency. Despite
decades of proof to the contrary -- including the 8 he served as VP -- Biden has always
maintained a firm belief in the essential goodness of the GOP. pic.twitter.com/WZAqn2rKX4
Force these people to run on their record. Recalling their votes and the consequences
of same is important because in elections Amnesia is the first symptom of political
posturing.
on Friday. It'll be so amusing to see how they stack it so that none of Bernie, Tulsi, or
Gravel get anywhere near any of their bubblepack-wrapped anointed candidates. Mark my words-
they will all be relegated to the children's table through whatever slight-of-hand is
necessary. There is zero, and I repeat ZERO, chance of them diluting the official "Trump bad,
we less bad, ook ook" message.
Bidenwarrenmalabooker will stand there and politely "ook ook" at one another, while the
people who should really be heard will not be. And the press, bless their hearts, will revel
in it; endlessly amplifying the message buried in the "those 'progressive' people can't be
taken seriously: they didn't even make it to the main debate!" subtext.
He is not even trying to look like he won't be friendly to the banks and lobbyists. It's
almost like he knows that the fix is in and he's going to get the nomination. Gee... I wonder
if the PTB have decided to put the mask back on the oligarchy and pretend that things are
great?
Trying to decide which of "Wall Street: they're all positive" or "Republicans know
better" would be a more fitting slogan for the @JoeBiden campaign. pic.twitter.com/lPnbdH5421
It's a tough challenge to take out an incumbent, in any case. Rarely achieved. Joe's
facing even greater obstacles. The Republicans already have Ukraine lined up with testimony
about election meddling, bribery, nepotism, and illegal election funding. That's not going
away. What's he running on besides "Not Trump?"
Not Socialist?
Moreover, I suspect Joe's cheese slips off his cracker when he gets confused. I imagine
all the candidates plan to hang in as long as they can for that. There could be some radical
reshuffling in the near term.
He is not even trying to look like he won't be friendly to the banks and lobbyists. It's
almost like he knows that the fix is in and he's going to get the nomination. Gee... I
wonder if the PTB have decided to put the mask back on the oligarchy and pretend that
things are great?
Trying to decide which of "Wall Street: they're all positive" or "Republicans know
better" would be a more fitting slogan for the @JoeBiden campaign. pic.twitter.com/lPnbdH5421
Didn't you know that? Yep. The kids declared that it's CT just like the DNC putting its
thumb on the scale for Hillary. And Bernie told his supporters to not vote for her and he
didn't try to get her elected and a bunch of other things. The kids just make up their
reality as they go.
What is Biden running on? He is going to Make America Great Again and fix
everything that Trump has done. Roll back the tax bill. Put regulations back on the banks.
Stop deregulating the agencies that keep us safe from the corporations even though Obama let
Boeing and others do their own regulating. And he will reverse everything else that Trump has
done.
But the biggest thing he will do is get the republicans to work with him. I think that is
what most people are afraid of if he gets the nod. He has worked with them all during his
loooonnngggg career. This is why we are where we are. Bipartisanship baby!
He can keep his tax returns. I want to see a brain scan.
You know, of all the things to call CT, I would advise against the Ukraine portfolio. It's
been vetted by US intelligence, for starters. That's why we won't issue travel Visas to the
Ukrainian attorneys involved.
to Ukraine. Nope. He just said that he would withhold the $1 billion that we promised them
if they didn't fire the prosecutor who was going after his son. This sure seems to sound like
an ultimatum to me.
The other reason why the Ukraine attorneys won't be allowed here is because they might
expose how Hillary got them to play along with Russia Gate. And those charges against
Manafort? Obama knew all about that in 2014 , but he decided to hold on to them just in case
he needed them down the road. The thing is that Manafort was trying to get Poreshenko to take
the EU deal instead of the Russian one. But again I want to know when Podesta is going to be
charged for doing the same things that Manafort did? Oh yeah he's in the Clinton side of
things.
and he has a very bad habit of touching women and girls along with sniffing their hair and
saying things to them that shouldn't be said. Just looking at the photos here give you a good
idea of what he does. Even after being called out and promising not to do it he still is.
is biden being #MeToo'ed, or is there reliable evidence that he's some sort of sexual
predator? as in: that photo collage.
"... They lie. They lie to pour money to military contractors. They lie to enforce American hegemony. They lie to send children to the slaughter. They lie for their relection campaign. They lie, they lie, they lie. https:// twitter.com/thedailybeast/ status/1139481358139559936 ..."
"... This campaign is just heating up and with the looming threat of war with Iran, a new cold war with China, and the terrifying emptiness that is Joe Biden's candidacy, we need Mike on stage more than ever to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The elite class of this country has no qualms about shipping you off to Afghanistan or watching your house submerged in order to make sure their investments aren't taxed and they can still buy a third home. Don't believe them when they tell you they care. They don't. ..."
"... For so many, opposition to Trump is centered on a dislike of his aesthetic. Obviously Trump is gauche and tasteless. But who cares? Care about his policies, his racism, his appointees. You're not going to sway anyone, or save any lives, by pointing out his typos. ..."
"... The elite class has no loyalty to common people -- they're only interested in "justice" so long as it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. It's either win this idiot's money or earn the votes of the poor and voiceless. https:// twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/st atus/1137145949606879232 ..."
"... Joe Biden's a bum. A right-wing chauvinist, good time prick, arrogant bastard creep who thinks that because he's got a $3,000 suit and the cachet of a lifetime sinecure in the Senate we should bow down to his beaming smile. A real racist piece of work. https:// twitter.com/WalkerBragman/ status/1125121786021019654 ..."
"... The most consistent through line of Biden's career is his lack of respect for a woman's autonomy. Not only does he pet and paw at women publicly, but he refuses to work to make abortion easier by supporting the monstrous Hyde Amendment. https:// twitter.com/NARAL/status/1 136272132231577606 ..."
"... Why is it that after Democrats' experiment with centrism -- which gave us mass incarceration, financial deregulation, and the destruction of our working class -- so many candidates are eager to return to the halcyon days of Bill Clinton's triangulations? It's all about the Benjamins. ..."
"... If international law was applied as written, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would be charged with crimes against humanity. Let's build a world where they have to. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
"... Joe Biden voted to send your kids to Iraq and Afghanistan, to let the big banks grow bigger, to let the credit card companies squeeze you, to ship your job overseas. What makes you think he's in your corner now? ..."
"... Mike Gravel: "It hurts to be part of the leadership of a nation and a citizen of a nation that is killing innocent human beings. That hurts so much we should all cry over it." Joe Biden: "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again." ..."
"... The strategy of those who own the world and want to keep it is simple, captured well in a memo on Cuba written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in 1960: 1) Starve them out. 2) Feign concern. 3) Make war. 4) Make MONEY. https:// buff.ly/2EGKtAq pic.twitter.com/qZqv0tNSn8 ..."
"... American money and arms have supported bloodshed everywhere from Angola to Yemen. We've propped up dictators, instigated civil wars, and funded death squads. Isn't it time we just gave peace a chance? http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
"... On this Memorial Day, we should remember not only the fallen American soldiers but indeed the fallen of every side in every war. War is the most destructive force known to man, and Memorial Day should serve as a reminder: we must say "never again" to its death and destruction. ..."
"... The essential moral crisis of this country is this: we spend billions in Afghanistan and then act like we can't afford a good education for our children or decent healthcare for all. Our leaders are lying to us, and they know it. ..."
"... When Republicans are in power, Democrats call them warmongers. When Democrats are in power, Republicans call them warmongers. The truth is: they're both right. Send someone to the debate stage to speak that truth. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche ..."
Though we didn't qualify for June (we didn't expect to) we're more than on track to
qualify for the July debates. Donations are surging and we expect to hit 65,000 by the end of
the month or earlier. Our strategy will be shared with supporters soon! Find the press
release here. pic.twitter.com/KEMt2qFfuN
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:55 AM - 14 Jun 2019
We're going to be doing a tour of the Midwest (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Michigan) later this month. Mike is probably going to do a speech in Iowa as well. Do you
have ideas for what we should do? Are you willing to host an event? Email us at
[email protected]!
They lie. They lie to pour money to military contractors. They lie to enforce American
hegemony. They lie to send children to the slaughter. They lie for their relection campaign.
They lie, they lie, they lie. https://
twitter.com/thedailybeast/ status/1139481358139559936
This campaign is just heating up and with the looming threat of war with Iran, a new cold
war with China, and the terrifying emptiness that is Joe Biden's candidacy, we need Mike on
stage more than ever to speak truth to power. Your dollar gets him there. https:// secure.actblue.com/donate/mikegra
vel2020?refcode=campaignupdate&amount=1
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:56 AM - 13 Jun 2019
No war with Iran!
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:30 AM - 13 Jun 2019
Campaign HQ: [story about John Bolton on the news] Mike: [chanting] hague, hague- Teens:
hague, HAGUE Twitter: [shaking their fists] HAGUE, HAGUE, HAGUE!
We're facing a global wave of right-wing authoritarianism, bankrolled by legions of elites
desperate to retain their wealth and power. If your answer to this threat is "the power of
hope" instead of transformative policy, you're a worthless shill named Beto O'Rourke.
If you live in Virginia House of Delegates District 50 make sure to get out today to vote!
National fights matter but more important than that is supporting progressive candidates like
@carterforva at
every level of our government, the people taking politics into our hands. https:// twitter.com/carterforva/st
atus/1138378422634369024
You can't recognize Pride Month and also support sending tens of billions of dollars in
weapons to a kingdom that beheads gay people.
Sen. Mike Gravel 3:20 PM - 10 Jun 2019
Wall Street didn't welcome the New Deal, it didn't welcome the Great Society, it didn't
welcome Obamacare. Of course shills will tell you the logical next steps forward -- like
Medicare for All -- are "impractical" or "political suicide." They'll fight you every inch of
the way.
Sen. Mike Gravel 12:40 PM - 10 Jun 2019
The elite class of this country has no qualms about shipping you off to Afghanistan or
watching your house submerged in order to make sure their investments aren't taxed and they
can still buy a third home. Don't believe them when they tell you they care. They don't.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:45 AM - 10 Jun 2019
Just as you can't control whether one is born rich or poor, you can't control whether
you're strong or intelligent. A comfortable life shouldn't depend on that. As Rawls wrote:
having a certain trait doesn't entitle you to live well. EVERYONE has a right to live
well.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:20 AM - 10 Jun 2019
For so many, opposition to Trump is centered on a dislike of his aesthetic. Obviously
Trump is gauche and tasteless. But who cares? Care about his policies, his racism, his
appointees. You're not going to sway anyone, or save any lives, by pointing out his
typos.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:00 AM - 10 Jun 2019
We're currently preparing our Pentagon Rolling Papers for shipping! Our apologies for the
wait. Picture below! pic.twitter.com/TnKv6TjbpJ
In a time when the global fight is between progressivism and fascism, history will not
look kindly on those who declared themselves "moderates."
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:14 AM - 9 Jun 2019
The elite class has no loyalty to common people -- they're only interested in "justice" so
long as it doesn't affect their pocketbooks. It's either win this idiot's money or earn the
votes of the poor and voiceless. https://
twitter.com/IbrahimAS97/st atus/1137145949606879232
Marianne Williamson 6:33 AM - 8 Jun 2019
The DNC should be helping all the candidates to get our word out to the voters, not just
its handpicked choices. We shouldn't have to fight our way in. Yang and I got into the
debates; now let's help Gravel. https://
twitter.com/tipping6103746 8/status/1137350407339032576
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:10 PM - 7 Jun 2019
Millions of Americans are living day to day scared to death they'll get sick and be robbed
blind by heartless crooks like these. It makes ME sick. It's an abomination. https:// twitter.com/Gizmodo/status
/1136585123900604416
Joe Biden's a bum. A right-wing chauvinist, good time prick, arrogant bastard creep who
thinks that because he's got a $3,000 suit and the cachet of a lifetime sinecure in the
Senate we should bow down to his beaming smile. A real racist piece of work. https:// twitter.com/WalkerBragman/
status/1125121786021019654
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:52 PM - 5 Jun 2019
The legacy of U.S. imperialism is dictatorship, massacres, and genocide. We need to face
up to our legacy abroad -- and that means reparations for the Global South and worldwide
military withdrawal. The U.S. must become a moral international actor. Anything else is
suicide. https://
twitter.com/means_tv/statu s/1125717447380803584
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:45 PM - 5 Jun 2019
The most consistent through line of Biden's career is his lack of respect for a woman's
autonomy. Not only does he pet and paw at women publicly, but he refuses to work to make
abortion easier by supporting the monstrous Hyde Amendment. https:// twitter.com/NARAL/status/1 136272132231577606
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:40 AM - 5 Jun 2019
Why is it that after Democrats' experiment with centrism -- which gave us mass
incarceration, financial deregulation, and the destruction of our working class -- so many
candidates are eager to return to the halcyon days of Bill Clinton's triangulations? It's all
about the Benjamins.
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:20 AM - 5 Jun 2019
Savage capitalism has devastated our communities, treating social relations as commodities
and reducing everything to an item to be bartered and sold. We need politicians willing to
admit that, to constrain the market and restore decimated towns riven by opioids and
joblessness.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:30 AM - 5 Jun 2019
The idea that America doesn't have a radical history is a lie forced on us by a dishonest
and venal establishment -- erasing figures like Hubert Harrison, pretending the American
Dream always meant radical individualism. The truth: Americans have always strived for
radical equality.
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:00 PM - 4 Jun 2019
Mike will not be on Fox News tonight. Don't worry, they canceled to cover something
something very newsworthy and vital: Trump's pomp & circumstance state visit to the Queen
in jolly old England. Chip in a buck to help get Mike on the debate stage! https:// buff.ly/2KF3mcd
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:32 PM - 4 Jun 2019
Lee Zeldin is a disgrace who spends his time harassing his female Muslim colleagues and
once defended Trump by calling President Obama a racist. Teaming up with him is one rung
above teaming up with Steve King, and @DWStweets and @RepLawrence should be ashamed.
https:// twitter.com/AJCGlobal/stat
us/1135637608283934720
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
But all of that lies in the future. Today, we wish American Muslims and Muslims around the
world a day of peace and tranquility. #EidMubarak
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
We need a foreign policy that sees Jews and Muslims as equal citizens in Israel, and is
willing to find a path to peace without condoning land grabs by Netanyahu. We need to stop
funding the slaughter of Muslims in Yemen. And we need to end FBI domestic surveillance of
Muslims.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
We need to protect the right to free speech by refusing to discriminate against those who
support BDS. We need to end Trump's Muslim and refugee bans. And we need a national office in
the White House to address the surge in hate crimes, especially against Muslims.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:14 AM - 4 Jun 2019
Sen. Gravel wants to wish every Muslim a wonderful Eid al-Fitr. American Muslims ought to
be valued members of our American community: but for too long we have pursued an Islamophobic
path here and abroad. We need to build a nation that embraces all who live within it.
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:30 AM - 4 Jun 2019
Our authoritarian policies are self-perpetuating: they create problems that justify more
authoritarian policies. If we hadn't deposed Central American leaders, worked with drug
cartels, and supported the Contras, Central Americans wouldn't need to come to America.
Sen. Mike Gravel 12:44 PM - 3 Jun 2019
ICE, the American Gestapo, should be dismantled and abolished on Day 1 of any Democratic
presidency. It has done nothing but fill immigrants' lives with terror and, when it does
detain immigrants, treat them so poorly that some die. A criminal investigation is needed.
https:// twitter.com/kenklippenstei
n/status/1135579639617851394
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:20 AM - 3 Jun 2019
No matter who the Democrats nominate, Republicans will attack them as radical and
socialist. That's a given. The only real choice Democrats have is whether or not to inspire
people in the process with policies that improve people's lives.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:16 AM - 3 Jun 2019
The idea of apolitical institutions within politics, like the Supreme Court, is a fantasy
that Republicans use to dupe Democrats. Appointing "apolitical justices" (as if any
constitutional question can be apolitical), as Buttigieg suggests, is idiotic.
Our punitive, militaristic approach to drugs has destabilized Latin America, criminalized
our own neighborhoods, and enabled the police to grossly abuse their power. It has done
nothing but harm to our communities. The War on Drugs must end immediately.
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:08 PM - 1 Jun 2019
While the GOP stole one Supreme Court seat, placed a rapist on another, rigged the Census,
implemented power-grabs in WI and NC, and passed voter ID laws, Democratic "opposition" has
meant Pelosi asking Melania and Pence to step in. It's pathetic. Take the fight to Trump.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:15 AM - 1 Jun 2019
A bit late on this, but we're proud to announce that we've exceeded 40,000 donors! We need
just 25,000 more to qualify for the July debates. Help Mike climb the mountain by getting
your loved one to donate! Just $1 will do (though $4.20 is preferred)! http:// bit.ly/Gravelanchepic.twitter.com/OCjOEXk5ea
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:00 PM - 31 May 2019
Our condolences to @ericswalwell , @SenGillibrand , @sethmoulton , and @amyklobuchar (all fake
progressives and stooges for corporate power) for polling below us in the new Harvard/Harris
poll. There's always next time!
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:20 PM - 31 May 2019
If international law was applied as written, George W. Bush and Donald Trump would be
charged with crimes against humanity. Let's build a world where they have to. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:34 AM - 31 May 2019
U.S. out of Afghanistan. U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. out of Berlin. U.S. out of Okinawa. U.S.
out of Niger. U.S. out of Syria. U.S. out of Cameroon. U.S. out of South Korea. This list
isn't close to complete. Get Mike in the debates. Get the U.S. out. https:// buff.ly/2KF3mcd
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:20 AM - 31 May 2019
Joe Biden voted to send your kids to Iraq and Afghanistan, to let the big banks grow
bigger, to let the credit card companies squeeze you, to ship your job overseas. What makes
you think he's in your corner now?
Sen. Mike Gravel 9:10 AM - 31 May 2019
Mike Gravel: "It hurts to be part of the leadership of a nation and a citizen of a nation
that is killing innocent human beings. That hurts so much we should all cry over it." Joe
Biden: "I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again."
Sen. Mike Gravel 6:30 AM - 31 May 2019
Ours is a country led by hollow men like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg, "leaders" who think
of nothing but their own egos, who will do nothing as we're drowned by floods, starved by
drought, choked by poisoned air. That is the way the world ends.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:41 AM - 30 May 2019
Jacobin Magazine has an excellent, comprehensive piece on Mike's political history. From
highs to lows, this piece is an exhaustive look at his time in the Senate: the courageous
stands he took and the compromises he made. And the conclusion is clear: help get Mike on the
stage. https:// twitter.com/jacobinmag/sta
tus/1133931536082882560
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:47 AM - 30 May 2019
We're proud to be endorsed by the inimitable Mick Wallace, Teachta Dála for Wexford
and (most likely) an MEP-elect for Ireland South. Mick is a proud fighter against imperialism
and for progressive causes, and we're honored to have his support. https:// twitter.com/wallacemick/st
atus/1133989813772857345
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:33 AM - 30 May 2019
Dick Cheney should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:11 PM - 29 May 2019
The strategy of those who own the world and want to keep it is simple, captured well in a
memo on Cuba written by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in
1960: 1) Starve them out. 2) Feign concern. 3) Make war. 4) Make MONEY. https:// buff.ly/2EGKtAqpic.twitter.com/qZqv0tNSn8
Sen. Mike Gravel 2:10 PM - 29 May 2019
The embargo against Cuba has always had one goal: to cripple vital sectors of its economy
and then step back to claim their system cannot work. It's an ideological project, the
consequences for ordinary people, Cuban and American, be damned. https:// buff.ly/30SBzsX
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:34 AM - 29 May 2019
Russian internet trolls aren't the reason we have a racist authoritarian as president.
Blaming other countries for our own diseased national consciousness is straight from our
foreign policy playbook -- a posture that has materialized into drone strikes, sanctions, and
invasions.
Sen. Mike Gravel 10:00 AM - 29 May 2019
When was the last time nominating a boring establishment candidate with no enthusiastic
support, a huge amount of baggage, and several past scandals backfired for the Democratic
Party?
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:30 AM - 29 May 2019
Joe Biden Donald Trump
creepy around women racist history "tough on crime" brash no policies authoritarian
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:20 AM - 29 May 2019
So much of the reason people like Joe Biden is because he "acts like a normal president."
What have normal presidents given us? A country in such turmoil that nearly half of voters
supported Donald Trump. It's insane to try the same thing and expect better results.
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:20 AM - 29 May 2019
Not only is Joe Biden's creepiness around young girls not something to be dismissed
lightly, his refusal to fully apologize and change his ways is indicative of how little he
cares about sexual assault. We deserve a meaningful improvement over Donald Trump: Joe ain't
it.
Our wars abroad have only made us less safe: they've killed foreign civilians, diminished
the perception of America in the world, and tightened the stranglehold of the
military-industrial complex. Donate so Mike can say that on the debate stage. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 9:14 AM - 28 May 2019
if you want a vision of the future under Cory Booker, imagine a boot stamping on a human
face - forever. and every once in a while it stops for an inspirational lecture on how we
should never stop dreaming
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:12 AM - 28 May 2019
There's no Hail Mary pass that saves the day from fascism - it doesn't turn around at the
last second. The world is walking down a path it has trodden before; the result last time was
war and the death of a hundred million. Waiting around isn't going to stop it, action
will.
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:00 PM - 27 May 2019
American money and arms have supported bloodshed everywhere from Angola to Yemen. We've
propped up dictators, instigated civil wars, and funded death squads. Isn't it time we just
gave peace a chance? http://
bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 5:30 PM - 27 May 2019
McDonald's workers, like workers all over the world, are tired of being paid less they
produce and being harassed. I urge everyone to join them in their struggle and remind you to
never cross a picket line. Raise the minimum wage, end workplace harassment at work.
#fightfor15
Sen. Mike Gravel 4:30 PM - 27 May 2019
How can there be justice in a country where Bill Kristol has a net worth of $5 million
while 20 percent of people have less than nothing?
Sen. Mike Gravel 3:00 PM - 27 May 2019
On this Memorial Day, we should remember not only the fallen American soldiers but indeed
the fallen of every side in every war. War is the most destructive force known to man, and
Memorial Day should serve as a reminder: we must say "never again" to its death and
destruction.
Sen. Mike Gravel 1:30 PM - 27 May 2019
The essential moral crisis of this country is this: we spend billions in Afghanistan and
then act like we can't afford a good education for our children or decent healthcare for all.
Our leaders are lying to us, and they know it.
Sen. Mike Gravel 11:00 AM - 27 May 2019
Six migrant children have died under the custody of the U.S. Border Patrol since December.
This growing trail of death is caused by our authoritarian, racist border policy, and the
blame lies with Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, and other racists. Humane immigration reform
now!
Sen. Mike Gravel 8:30 AM - 27 May 2019
When Republicans are in power, Democrats call them warmongers. When Democrats are in
power, Republicans call them warmongers. The truth is: they're both right. Send someone to
the debate stage to speak that truth. http:// bit.ly/Gravelanche
Sen. Mike Gravel 7:00 AM - 27 May 2019
Congratulations on a wonderful victory yesterday for a few allies in Europe, like
@catarina_mart
and @mmatias_ . The
results show that the fascist tide is being beaten back and left-wing populism is on the rise
-- a welcome development.
Warren (D)(1): "Elizabeth Warren to introduce bill cancelling up to $50,000 in student debt
for most borrowers" [
MarketWatch ]. "The Democratic Senator of Massachusetts plans to introduce legislation in
the coming weeks that mirrors her presidential campaign proposal
Under the proposal
Warren released as part of her presidential campaign in April, borrowers with a household
income of less than $100,000 would have $50,000 of their student debt cancelled and borrowers
with an income between $100,000 and $250,000 would be eligible for some student debt
cancellation -- though not the full $50,000. Borrowers earning $250,000 or more would receive
no debt cancellation.
Her campaign estimated the plan would cost $640 billion, which would be paid through a tax
on the ultra-wealthy." • I don't think it makes sense to introduce free college without
giving relief to those who, because they chose to be born at the wrong time, are subject to a
lifetime of debt, so kudos to Warren.
That said, note the complex eligibility requirements; Warren just can't help herself. Also,
of course, you can drown in an inch of water, so pragmatically, even $50,000 might not mean all
that much, especially since servicers gotta servicer.
Warren (D)(2): "Elizabeth Warren's plan to pass her plans" (interview) [Ezra Klein,
Vox ]. Klein: "Do you think that there's a way to sequence your agenda such that you're
building momentum as opposed to losing it?" Warren: "Here's my theory: It starts now. That's
what true grassroots building is about. Green New Deal. More and more people are in that fight
and say that matters to me. Medicare-for-all, that fight that matters to me [No, it doesn't.
–lambert]. As those issues over the next year and a quarter get clearer, sharper, they're
issues worth fighting for, and issues where we truly have leadership on it, have people out
there knocking doors over it . You asked me about my theory about this. This is the importance
of engaging everyone. The importance not just of talking to other senators and representatives
but the importance of engaging people across this country." • This language seems awfully
vague, to me. For example, when Sanders says "Not me, us," I know there's a campaign structured
to back the words up. I don't get that sense with Warren. I also know that Sanders knows who
his enemies are ("the billionaires"). Here again, Warren feels gauzy to me ("the wealthy"). And
then there's this. Warren: "I believe in markets But markets without rules are theft." This is
silly. Markets with rules can be theft too! That's what
phishing equilibria are all about! (And the Bearded One would would argue that labor
markets under capitalism are theft , by definition.) But I'd very much
like to hear the views of readers less jaundiced than I am. Clearly Warren has a complex piece
of policy in her head, and so she and Klein are soul-mates.
Bernie to give a speech on democratic socialism. Clearly sets him apart from others and
has huge implications in regards to policy, organizing, and strategy:
yes, he directly quoted fdr in the context of that historical moment, got a standing o,
then smiled and said something like "that does seem to apply to our era, doesn't it?"
it seemed a little like he'd planned on getting applause
makes me wonder, does someone over there visit nc regularly?
He's definitely bringing the heat! If you thought he might shy away from Republican cries
of 'socialism', banish those thoughts.
It's a little slow for the 1st 25 min or so. But he really gets going in the latter part
of it. Talks a lot about "freedom" around the 40 minute mark.
Pitches a 21st Century 'Economic Bill of Rights'.
– right to a job
– paid living wage
– right to health care
– right to education
– right to affordable housing
– right to clean environment
Too many imponderables with this analogy. Such as, can you hear the Neo saying under
his/her breath: "The Finance is strong with this one!" Or, an endless montage of ghostly
voices whispering in political ears, "Run XXX, run!" And finally, where is the young and
innocent farm toiler who will redeem the New Deal? Chelsea? She might fit the bill. She's the
'hidden' scion of powerful and 'connected' Nouveaux Aristocrats.
I think the livestream is over now. It was being broadcast on C-span. I called my mother
to see if she was watching, and she was, but it was "interrupted"
The oligarchy has two choices, Trump or Bernie. Which do you think they will pick?
Will the former pick cause the general strike?
Where's my popcorn?
Will youtube ban this video for inappropriate content?
Exciting times, in the 6th, happening "faster than expected".
They won't need to talk about Gabbard after the first debates, unless she can get polling
over 2% there will be no more for her. Like all the other 20 she will get her maybe broken 10
minutes of fame in the first debate, it won't be enough to really make a rational case for
anything probably. The Dems aren't generous like R's in having second tier debates, they cull
fast. Sanders yea he'll be around.
The problem with Warren's definition of capitalism, is when she describes herself as
capitalist, she pretends she literally has no idea what capitalism is. The ingenue! In her
description: it's about individuals trading, or corporations trading, or individuals trading
with corporations. When back in the world we live in it's about power and raw power
relations. Her definition of capitalism IS WAY WAY WAY more inaccurate than any definition
Bernie has of socialism which does approach some definitions of socialism. It's just zero
correspondence with reality for Warren.
Tucker Carlson asked whether someone can be elected if Google and Facebook don't want them
to be. His answer was No.
I think a similar question can be asked: "Can someone be elected if the DNC don't want
them to be?". Unfortunately for this election cycle I think the answer will also be No.
But it will set the stage for something bigger, and worse (from the PTB point of view).
Those who make gradual change impossible make revolutionary change inevitable" JFK
So if we haven't all been Raptured Up, 2024 is Year Zero for our New Thermidor.
Indeed she does. That New York Mag article was quite an accomplished hit-piece; now Tulsi
is possibly a Manchurian candidate from a twisted Krishna cult! Aside from the accurate quote
on the Blob cited by Lambert, this is perhaps the most disgusting piece of s**t on Gabbard
I've read yet -- and that's saying something. The reason is that it is so detailed and
skilled; it really demonstrates your point that they want to destroy her. The article
*pretends* to be sympathetic to her anti-interventionist stance in places (thus the Blob
quote), but the author actually draws selectively from her life -- mainly from past
acquaintances and relatives (who seem antagonistic) and almost nothing from Gabbard herself
-- to paint a picture of a strange and perhaps unstable character unknown to the general
public. Some of the questions raised might be legitimate, but that was not the purpose here.
Rather, bits and pieces of her life were selected to construct a finely crafted narrative
designed to destroy whatever credibility her anti-war position might have had among educated
liberal readers.
For those who want to know about Gabbard, watch the Joe Rogan interviews. For those who
want to deconstruct a first-rate character assassination, I highly recommend this article.
You are right, John. The nomenklatura are pulling out all the stops.
I agree, this article had "hit job" written all over it. The author spent as much time
discussing her father's guru as it did her from what I could tell. A piss-poor, and obvious,
attempt at Guilt By Association.
I actually went into "skim mode" after this leading paragraph statement,
Here are the details: Bashar al-Assad is a depraved dictator best known for his
willingness to murder his own people, including many children, with chemical weapons.
It was pretty obvious to me that the rest of the article would carry as much lie as this
statement so clearly did. It's too unfortunate that too many will fall for all this
tripe.
Which in many ways surprises the hell out of me. Biden is a big reason that most of the
over 50 population should be wary of neoliberal politicians. He has a history of clearing the
way for any preferred policies of our bankster 'betters. This includes being on the wrong
side of plans to 'rescue' Medicare and Social Security, not to mention financial services
reform that has made many of their pensions and retirement plans far more insecure. This
doesn't even consider how many of their children and grandchildren now face decades of debt
from student loans. (I am pretty sure most of them don't know how much student loan default
might hurt them, so I'll leave that part of it out.)
For at least 3/4 quarters of those responding it really does have to be name recognition
and misguided love of the last 'good' President. Anything else is, well, voting against their
own interests. Not that Democrats haven't been doing that for a long time despite what they
have thought.
A poll came out recently among black voters and they too support him in decently large
numbers. Amazingly, they cite pocket book issues as a reason to support him. I think the poll
was cited here yesterday(?). That, to me, is even more mind blowing, given his record. I just
have to conclude that, to this point, people aren't paying attention to his record, or there
is an emotional angle there that isn't at root very logical; his connection to Obama. But,
given his record, he should be dead last among black voters of all age groups. His entire
candidacy is infuriating.
Which in many ways surprises the hell out of me. Biden is a big reason that most of the
over 50 population should be wary of neoliberal politicians. He has a history of clearing
the way for any preferred policies of our bankster 'betters.
Two reasons why the plus 50 crowd doesn't care:
1. They have theirs, *$#@ you. Plus they got their degrees before all the college loan
reform happened.
2. There is a difference between knowing you have been had, and admitting that you were
had.
I'll give you the second one, but most of the older Americans I have met actually
recognize the value of Social Security and a few have flat out said to me "I need to protect
it for my kids, they are going to have even less retirement security than I have."
One reason I agree with your second is not just 'been there, done that', but most of those
same peoples' fondness for Obama. They even deny that he had Social Security in his sights
despite the massive evidence he wanted to do the 'Grand Bargain'. They know it was happening,
but ___insert excuse here____was why Obama was playing along. But lack of familiarity with
Biden's record is a killer. (It somewhat reminds me of how Kaine's record was and has
continued to be whitewashed by so many of HRC's fans. They wouldn't have promoted
anyone like that )
Its not just Biden and Kaine, its the state of whole Democratic Party. I really thought
about it, and Mark Warner is the best of the five state wide Democrats in Virginia right now.
He was a better governor than Kaine (by a wide margin), and he has no black face problems or
accusations of sexual assault.
Pelosi and Schumer offered to build a smaller wall for Trump instead of just saying no or
demanding the GOP do it on their own. Acknowledging the state of Team Blue means many of
these people who have sat on the sidelines or applauded blindly might have to take
responsibility. Baseball was investigated, but we still haven't investigated into what
happened in the run up to the Iraq War. Eric Holder said prosecuting white collar crime is
hard so he didn't want to do it. Its easier to pretend Republicans are using tricks and
legerdemain to defeat "generic Democrats". Recognizing AOC isn't a radical as much as a
representative of the views of the American people is a problem because it means all these
electeds are as bad as they seem.
They even deny that he had Social Security in his sights despite the massive evidence he
wanted to do the 'Grand Bargain'. They know it was happening, but ___insert excuse
here____was why Obama was playing along.
Ugh, he wasn't "playing along," Obama
initiated it:
The president convened a bipartisan debt reduction commission in February 2010,
co-chaired by Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan
Simpson (R-Wy.), and charged it with forging a fiscal "grand bargain."
(I realize you're giving what other people's perspective is, not yours.)
I agree, the elite Democrats don't care about winning. Even if she were a good candidate
(which I don't think she is), and a real Democrat (which I don't think she is, either), Liz
could never, ever beat Trump. Bernie is the only candidate who possibly could.
Nobody can really "beat" a sitting President, he mostly has to beat himself. If Trump
(family blogs) up enough even 'lil Pete could beat him. So don't use that as your guide, just
find who suits you and cross your fingers that that Trump can screw this up like he has
everything else in his life
by polling apparently, ALL the leading Dem candidates beat Trump (non-leading candidates
weren't included). Which actually is also an argument for voting for who you like!
However that depends on who actually votes, polls have been inaccurate before, and there
is awhile until that election.
Well ambrit, if the 30 and under crowd have their say, the Hallucinator aka UnkaJoe, will
be up in smoke for sure, and without the benefit of Hunter's 'that's-a-gas' stash either
!
Really, I think that this next election 'season' is the last stand for the belt-way geriatric
crowd.
So many conjectures. My unscientific poll of 14 people who I would lend my house keys
to;
It's either a vote for President Sanders and Vice-President Gabbard, for National Health
Care, Student Debt Relief and fewer losing foreign wars,
or, barring that nomination, screwing the corporate 'democrats,'
with votes for President Trump and Q-tip, to mercilessly stomp on the social justice empire
and deep state's face.
The problem with that strategy polecat, is that there is always a belt-way geriatric
political faction to contend with. Absent a major social political dislocation, the 'dry rot'
of 'status quo' politics replicates itself down the years like a particularly sleazy slime
mold. I guess that is why most "real" revolutions go through a phase of "Terror." The 'old
wood' has to be cleared away and burned. I remember thinking a few years ago that we had seen
the last of the Neo-con policy crowd. Then Trump, who had talked a good game during the
campaign, appoints dyed in the wool neo-cons to his inner circle.
I'm sort of curious to see who from the Republican side rises up to contest the candidacy
with Trump. If anyone.
I will concede to your point, ambrit, only so far as not having a seething, pissed-off
constituency engaging in a no-holds-barred ruckus .. and I'm not talking about the minority
of greater, (or shall I say lesser) Academic Snowflakistan. I see things coming to an
eventual head, where people who are not makin it, will blow ! There are millions .. MILLIONS
!! out there who are close • to • the • edge !
Let the scuzzy f#cks in the DNC do their election skullf#ckery this next time and see were
THAT leads.
The 'important' part with this is that, to succeed, any broad based social movement has to
have, first, a simple and easily comprehended focus point around which to coalesce. In the
early 1930's it was the WW1 Bonus issue, coupled with the early effects of the Great
Depression. Secondly, a 'movement' needs an organizing cadre to 'hustle' it along. Using the
previous example, the 'Bonus March' organizers fulfilled that function. Thirdly, any movement
has to generate some visible popular support. This can be supplied by the Organizing Cadres,
or be 'organic.'
So, today, what issue will carry the load? I do not, at this point, have a clue. There are so
many 'issues' that could catch fire and ignite a bigger conflagration.
To change metaphors, the present situation is like moisture in the atmosphere, just waiting,
without agency of course, for some particles of dust around which to coalesce into a
deluge.
The neo-cons never went away. They just moved from the Pentagon to the State Department.
Who promoted Victoria Nuland? Who approved Nuland's coup in Ukraine -- she couldn't have
pulled that off without an official imprimatur. Who hired Robert Kagan as a foreign policy
consultant? When they were in the Pentagon they got arrogant and we learned their names. In
the State Department only Nuland was so arrogant, but they were dug in there. Still are,
unless Tillerson got rid of some of them. And Bolton is in a position of real influence and
power.
Gabbard (D)(1): "Tulsi Gabbard Had a Very Strange Childhood" [ New York
Magazine ]. " A Hindu veteran and millennial congresswoman of Samoan descent hailing from
Hawaii, [Gabbard] brings together disparate constituencies: most noticeably, Bernie Sanders
fans who love that she resigned from the Democratic National Committee to endorse him in 2016,
but also libertarians who appreciate her noninterventionism, Indian-Americans taken by her
professed Hinduism, veterans attracted to her credibility on issues of war and peace, and
racists who interpret various statements she has made to be promising indications of
Islamophobia.
That she is polling at one percent, sandwiched between Andrew Yang and Amy Klobuchar,
suggests that bringing together these constituencies is not nearly enough, but the intensity of
emotion she provokes on all sides sets her apart. When FiveThirtyEight asked 60 Democratic
Party activists whom they didn't want to win, Tulsi Gabbard came in first out of 17
candidates." • Also, Gabbard is a self-described introvert (a plus in my book). And then
there's this:
The most obvious obstacle between any noninterventionist candidate and mainstream success
is D.C.'s foreign-policy Establishment -- the think-tankers and politicians and media
personalities and intelligence professionals and defense-company contractors and, very often,
intelligence professionals turned defense-company contractors who determine the bounds of
acceptable thinking on war and peace. In parts of D.C., this Establishment is called "the
Blob," and to stray beyond its edges is to risk being deemed "unserious," which as a woman
candidate one must be very careful not to be.
The Blob may in 2019 acknowledge that past American wars of regime change for which it
enthusiastically advocated have been disastrous, but it somehow maintains faith in the
tantalizing possibilities presented by new ones.
The Blob loves to "stand for" things, especially "leadership" and "democracy." The Blob
loves to assign moral blame, loves signaling virtue while failing to follow up on civilian
deaths, and definitely needs you to be clear on "who the enemy is" -- a kind of obsessive
deontological approach in which naming things is more important than cataloguing the effects
of any particular policy.
It's fair to say that whoever The Blob is for -- ***cough*** Hillary Clinton ***cough*** --
should be approached with a hermaneutic of suspicion.
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard took the media to task for what she called
biased and misleading coverage of her campaign, arguing the facts no longer matter to some
outlets. Speaking at an event in New York recently, Tulsi said the press had given up on any
semblance of balanced or accurate reporting, replacing news coverage with panels of jabbering
pundits.
Instead of factual reporting, she said: "We see opinions, we see panels of people on all
the news channels – I don't care which one you watch – sharing their
opinions."
tulsi mocking george stephanopoulos is one of the greatest things you'll hear from any
of the candidates pic.twitter.com/aIBxWyZ5t1
The 2020 hopeful also described what she said were intentional smear efforts against her
campaign in the media.
"Me and my campaign have been on the receiving end of very intentional smear efforts
trying to undermine our campaign coming through, you know, NBC News quoting articles that are
completely baseless," Gabbard said.
She referred to a recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, wherein the pundit
echoed the suggestion that Gabbard's campaign was boosted by "Putin apologists."
"Well, you know, this article in the Daily Beast says Putin supports your campaign,"
she said, imitating Stephanopolous's question in the interview.
An article "based on what?" she asked the audience in New York rhetorically.
"Nothing. Really, nothing."
The story in question intimated that Gabbard's presidential bid was backed by "Kremlin
sympathizers," such as the Nation magazine's Stephen F. Cohen, an expert in international
relations who argues for better ties between the US and Russia.
Gabbard has come under fire for her foreign policy positions, such as her call for detente
between the US and other nuclear-armed states like Russia. Tulsi's opposition to US regime
change policies have also made her a target in some quarters. After refusing to endorse
American efforts to topple the Syrian government, she was branded as an 'apologist' for Syria's
President Bashar Assad.
Warren (D)(1): [Team Warren, Medium ]. "The
rising cost of rent reflects a basic supply-and-demand problem. There aren't enough places to
rent that are affordable to lower-income families. That's because developers can usually turn
bigger profits by building fancier new units targeted at higher-income families rather than
units targeted at lower-income families. The result is a huge hole in the marketplace."
•
I'm not a housing maven by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a story that doesn't
consider the role of private equity in snapping up distressed housing after the Crash is likely
to be a fairy tale.
Warren (D)(2): "The Memo: Warren's rise is threat to Sanders" [
The Hill ]. "'She certainly does seem to be taking votes away from him,' said Democratic
strategist Julie Roginsky. 'It seems as if, as she is rising, he is falling.'" • The
national averages don't show that.
"... As it is, it seems that the corporate Democrats and Clintonites new strategy is to promote Warren and then start leaning on
her heavily in an effort to convert Warren to the neoliberal "dark side" or have her not be a problem for them. ..."
"... Her stance on single payer is troubling and telling, and her foreign policy positions and worldview are absolutely atrocious.
She has good policy ideas (not great political instincts), but none of the ideas at the present time have movements behind them and
would need those movements to push them through. ..."
"... As for Warren, I believe she could have value in a narrowly defined (finance-related) role in a Sanders administration. I will
not vote for her for president. Her foreign policy is atrocious, she doesn't support single payer, and she has proven herself to be
a garden variety neoliberal on all but her own niche issues. ..."
As it is, it seems that the corporate Democrats and Clintonites new strategy is to promote Warren and then start leaning
on her heavily in an effort to convert Warren to the neoliberal "dark side" or have her not be a problem for them.
Warren has unfortunately shown just how easy it is to get her to back down under pressure and there is also the fact that she
has been willing to carry water for the Clintonites before to advance her own political career like she did in the 2016 election.
At this point, I would seriously consider Yang to be my third choice after Sanders and Gabbard if it came down to it. Warren
would probably be either incapable or unwilling to face any serious political opposition either from Trump or neoliberal Democrats
and would probably cave.
Her stance on single payer is troubling and telling, and her foreign policy positions and worldview are absolutely atrocious.
She has good policy ideas (not great political instincts), but none of the ideas at the present time have movements behind them
and would need those movements to push them through.
Is she the person to lead movements and to help them grow? I can't see anyone making that case. She has had an impact on issues,
with the CFPB, which is good, but that was her work within academia. Different animal than actual movement building. Here, we
have single payer and she has backtracked.
So, changes that may happen down the road, great. At least provides some alternatives and possibly a path from here to there.
But, the fights we could win in the shorter term? Waffles. No thanks. I think she can play a great role in her current position
or if Bernie were to win, in his administration, but I think she would be very problematic as a general election nominee. Just
my opinion. I like her more than Biden and a number of others running but that says more about them than her.
The first thought that entered my mind when I saw that quote from Biden was that he really is suffering from cognitive decline.
As for Warren, I believe she could have value in a narrowly defined (finance-related) role in a Sanders administration.
I will not vote for her for president. Her foreign policy is atrocious, she doesn't support single payer, and she has proven herself
to be a garden variety neoliberal on all but her own niche issues.
The only candidates besides Sanders I would vote for (Gabbard and Gravel) have less chance of getting the nomination than he
does. If Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, I will once again be voting Green.
A new poll from Democracy Fund Voter Study Group shows that President Trump could lose swing
voters on economic issues, and the President responded in a tweet calling it "Fake
Polling".
So Russiagater was not fired. Madcow was promoted to more freely spead her "Madcow desease"
(Neo-McCarthysim actually) into unsuspecting public ...
Notable quotes:
"... Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news. Especially in trying times like these. ..."
"... She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman. ..."
"... In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a journalist. ..."
"... maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will be ..."
On Tuesday, NBC announced that its lineup of moderators will include Rachel Maddow of
MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show , Lester Holt of NBC Nightly News and Dateline
NBC, José Diaz-Balart of Noticias Telemundo and NBC Nightly News
Saturday , Savannah Guthrie of Today , and Chuck Todd of Meet the Press .
... ... ...
UltraViolet Action co-founder and executive director Shaunna Thomas praised the moderator
decision to the Cut. "NBC's decision to ensure that four out of the five moderators for the
first Democratic presidential primary debate are women or people of color is a huge win for
representation at the debates and a welcome change from the status quo," Thomas said in a
statement. She also stated that she hopes other networks follow suit.
Cags
Almost none of the "celebrity" tv journalists have earned one sniff of their regard by having
a sufficient amount of smarts, insight, and humility it requires to deliver the news.
Especially in trying times like these.
joaniesausquoi, 3 hours ago
Whattya got against Rachel, Cags?
Cags, 2 hours ago
She's a borderline conspiracy theorist and more of a star than a newswoman.
Daxter , 6 hours ago (Edited)
In what alternate universe does Maddow even have a hint of non-bias? She is not a
journalist.
Having Rachel Maddow moderate is like having Sean Hannity moderate.
indigo710, 5 hours ago
maddow is all about opinion, hers, and the one given out to msm by the dem party
everyday. aka : the meme of the day. maddow is an partisan idiot. always was, always will
be . "lawer" is spelled "lawyer".
"... "When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief, it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise -- to deny the political character of the modern corporation -- is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that disguise are those we instruct in error." ..."
"There
was time when average Americans could be counted upon to know correctly whether the country was going up or down, because in those
days when America prospered, the American people prospered as well. These days things are different.
Let's look at it in a statistical sense. If you look at it from the middle of the 1930's (the Depression) up until the year
1980, the lower 90 percent of the population of this country, what you might call the American people, that group took home 70
percent of the growth in the country's income. If you look at the same numbers from 1997 up until now, from the height of the
great Dot Com bubble up to the present, you will find that this same group, the American people, pocketed none of this country's
income growth at all.
Our share of these great good times was zero, folks. The upper ten percent of the population, by which we mean our country's
financiers and managers and professionals, consumed the entire thing. To be a young person in America these days is to understand
instinctively the downward slope that so many of us are on."
Thomas Frank, Kansas City Missouri, 6 April 2017
"When the modern corporation acquires power over markets, power in the community, power over the state and power over belief,
it is a political instrument, different in degree but not in kind from the state itself. To hold otherwise -- to deny the political
character of the modern corporation -- is not merely to avoid the reality. It is to disguise the reality. The victims of that
disguise are those we instruct in error."
John Kenneth Galbraith
One of the older male anchors on financial TV today noted, in a very condescending tone, that for some reason Elizabeth Warren
'has an attitude' when it comes to corporations.
I hope she and some of her like minded fellows get their opportunity to extend the hand of equal justice to these smug serial
felons, pampered polecats, and corporatist clowns. It has been a long time coming.
that's a real insult. Madcow is probably the worst person to sk any question you can imagine... she is kind of female McCarthy
re-incarnation -- crazy Russiagater...
Why have any moderators? They should have an auctioneer instead. He'll
quickly determine who is willing to offer us the biggest bribes with our own money, in exchange
for a vote.
And we'll learn how many different ways can one say "FREE! FREE! FREE!" 5 hours ago
XXX:
"The questions will be available for a small fee?" DJT
How about Tulsi on the top of that ticket? I like all her positions. Unfortunately RT and
Sputnik are recommending her, which will kill her chances of getting the Democratic
nomination.
No way will I vote for Donald again. His kissing of Prince bin Salman's ring, doing
Netanyahoo's bidding, and starting trade wars are a disaster IMHO. I'm voting for Billy Weld.
Too bad he won't get anywhere close in the primary.
Phil Csttar - I don't quite get your points. Yes, Warren's particular distribution of genes
might result in her overwhelmingly Anglo looking face being perhaps more Anglo looking than
her siblings, if any. You know the bit about the tall peas and the small peas, but it is
unlikely that she would look this Anglo with a significant amount of Indian DNA.
If she did have some Indian blood it would have to be a hell of a long way back. In any
case it is her dishonesty and identity profiteering that matters. Nobody gives a damn about
her ancestry.
Concerning the Maltese, what's your point? Is it that there are Christian Arabs? Don't we
all know that here? I just think his name is funny. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maltese_language
She does have quite high cheek bones (tongue firmly in cheek). I read somewhere that her
native ancestry was 1/64 or about 1.5%. That is roughly the same as one grandparents,
grandparents, grandparent. Or put another way, her grandmothers, grandmother's grandmother
was a native.
My point Colonel is that she does not appear to have any significant amount of American
Indian dna in her.The democrats have a problem.Their ticket must have a female on it.It also
needs a "person of color"preferably black on it.The black vote was down in the last election
and probably cost Hillary a win.A winning ticket for the democrats could well be a
Warren/Booker ticket.He is very ambitious, and young enough to be the vice president for the
almost 70 year old Warren, and then run for president.He also has executive and legislature
experience.He is also black enough ..Kamela Harris who refers to herself as "person of color"
is half Asian ,her Jamacian born father is a college professor and she is married to very
rich, very white businessman.I am not a fan of either Warren or Booker but I can see them
helping the democrats carrying states like NC,PA,MI and maybe even FL.These all went for
Trump.Hillary's VP selection did NOTHING for her ticket in 2016,IMHO... ...
What is especially interesting to me is Peter Buttigieg's father, Joseph A. Buttigieg. He
grew up on the Island of Malta, and went to college there and in Britain, and received his
PhD doctorate at the State University of New York at Binghamton. He got a job teaching at
Notre Dame University in 1980. Now brace yourself, because his main academic interest was
Antonio Gramsci, a member of the Italian Socialist Party who was also said to be a
contributor to Marxist theory!
Buttigieg the father is the primary editor and translator of Gramsci's "Prison Notebooks",
which is a three-book set--
It appears that Joseph Buttigieg did not just look at Gramsci as an academic interest. He
was one of the founders of the International Gramsci Society, and was its president until he
passed away in January 2019--
Notre Dame published an article about him at the time of his death this year. It includes
a description of Buttigieg's interest in Gramsci--
"He is also the editor and translator of the multi-volume complete critical edition of
'Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks,' a project that has been supported by a major grant from
the National Endowment for the Humanities. Several of his articles on Gramsci, the Italian
philosopher, writer and politician, have been translated into Italian, German, Spanish,
Portuguese and Japanese. He was a founding member of the International Gramsci Society, of
which he was president, and the Italian minister of culture appointed him to a commission of
experts to oversee the preparation of the "edizione nazionale" (national edition/complete
works) of Gramsci's writings."
Since Peter Buttigieg is an announced candidate in the Democratic Party for president of
the United States, a reasonable issue for consideration and investigation is to what extent
his father passed on the ideas of Antonio Gramsci about socialism and Marxism to young Peter,
and what the candidate knows about Gramsci and what he thinks about all of it.
The New York Times newspaper published lengthy articles focusing on the entrepreneurial
Fred Trump, father of Donald Trump. Will such diligent journalistic digging be done as to
Joseph Buttigieg as the campaign progresses?
But, it could be, being keen on Gramsci ideas, in case Buttigieg the son would have inherited
this along with whatever else his father could have left him, an impediment to take office as
POTUS?
Anyway, attacking the man from that flank, could result a bit muddy.. Not so rarely
happens that offspring takes the opposite, or simply different, views from those of their
parents...
Although, Gramsci, had really a bunch of good ideas, to the extent that the judge who
condemned him said, "it is necessary to avoid that brain to continue working" ...
While undoubtedly worthy of scholarly interest, notice the GLARING OMISSION of either of the
adjectives Marxist or communist in reference to Antonio Gramsci in Mr.
Buttigieg's Notre Dame obituary. One could be excused for suspecting the university didn't
want to draw attention to the politics of its professor's main area of expertise.
Gramsci is important, in the history of marxism, because he is the first who stressed the
major role of "cultural hegemony" in the power-taking processus. Especially in USA.
They're going to sandbag her at the debates, but she has 1 chance to stand tall and she'll
need to put away her soft-spoken approach and comes out swinging.
She is specifically being opposed by the Democratic establishment, who are less interested in
winning than maintaining their donation stream. At the debates she will hopefully connect to
the larger public beyond the DNC gatekeepers.
"... "I feel duped," said the voter, Renee Elliott, who was laid off from her job at the Indianapolis Carrier plant. "I don't have a lot of faith in political candidates much anymore. They make promises. They make them and break them." ..."
"... Warren rose to her feet. "The thing is, you can't just wave your arms," the she said, gesturing energetically. "You've really got to have a plan – and I do have a plan." ..."
"... But despite the burst of momentum, Warren's path to the nomination has two major roadblocks: Sanders and Biden. Her success will depend on whether she can deliver a one-two punch: replacing Sanders as the progressive standard bearer while building a coalition broad enough to rival Biden. ..."
"... "She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson told his largely Republican audience as he read from Warren's proposal during the opening monologue of his show this week. The plan calls for "aggressive intervention on behalf of American workers" to boost the economy and create new jobs, including a $2tn investment in federal funding in clean energy programs. ..."
"... His praise was all the more surprising because Warren has vowed not to participate in town halls on Fox News, calling the network a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists" ..."
The senator's 'I have a plan' mantra has become a rallying cry as she edges her way to the
top – but is it enough to get past the roadblocks of Biden and Sanders?
Elizabeth Warren at a campaign rally in Fairfax, Virginia, on 16 May. Photograph: Cliff
Owen/AP Plan by plan, Elizabeth Warren is making inroads
and gaining on her rivals in the 2020 Democratic race to take on Donald Trump.
This week a Morning Consult poll saw Warren break
into the double digits at 10%, putting her in third place behind Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
A recent
Economist/YouGov poll found Warren was making gains among liberal voters, with Democrats
considering the Massachusetts senator for the Democratic presidential nomination in nearly
equal measure with Sanders.
Her intense campaigning on a vast swathe of specific issues has achieved viral moments on
the internet – even including one woman whom
Warren advised on her love life – as well as playing well during recent television
events.
At a televised town hall in Indiana this week, Warren listened intently as a woman who voted
for Trump in 2016 described her disillusionment – not only with a president who failed to
bring back manufacturing jobs as he said he promised but with an entire political system
stymied by dysfunction.
"I feel duped," said the voter, Renee Elliott, who was laid off from her job at the
Indianapolis Carrier plant. "I don't have a lot of faith in political candidates much anymore.
They make promises. They make them and break them."
Warren rose to her feet. "The thing is, you can't just wave your arms," the she said,
gesturing energetically. "You've really got to have a plan – and I do have a plan."
That mantra – a nod to the steady churn of policy blueprints Warren's campaign has
released – has become a rallying cry for Warren as she edges her way to the top of the
crowded Democratic presidential primary field.
But despite the burst of momentum, Warren's path to the nomination has two major roadblocks:
Sanders and Biden. Her success will depend on whether she can deliver a one-two punch:
replacing Sanders as the progressive standard bearer while building a coalition broad enough to
rival Biden.
Warren began that work this week with a multi-stop tour of the midwest designed to show her
strength among working class voters who supported Trump. Ahead of the visit, Warren unveiled a
plan she described as "economic patriotism", which earned startling praise from one of Trump's
most loyal supporters.
"She sounds like Donald Trump at his best," conservative Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson
told his largely Republican audience as he read from Warren's proposal during the opening
monologue of his show this week. The plan calls for "aggressive intervention on behalf of
American workers" to boost the economy and create new jobs, including a $2tn investment in
federal funding in clean energy programs.
His praise was all the more surprising because Warren has vowed not to participate in town
halls on Fox News, calling the network a "hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to
racists and conspiracists".
The debate over whether
Democrats should appear on Fox News for a town hall has divided the field. Sanders, whose
televised Fox News town hall generated the highest viewership of any such event, argued
that it is important to speak to the network's massive and heavily Republican audience.
As Warren courts working-class voters in the midwest, she continues to focus heavily on the
early states of Iowa and New Hampshire. After jumping into the race on New Year's Eve 2018,
Warren
immediately set to work , scooping up talent and building a massive
operation in Iowa. Her campaign is betting a strong showing in the first in the nation
caucuses will propel her in New Hampshire, which neighbors Massachusetts, and then boost her in
Nevada and South Carolina.
But as Warren gains momentum, moderate candidates are becoming more vocal about their
concern that choosing a nominee from the party's populist wing will hand Trump the
election.
"If we want to beat Donald Trump and achieve big progressive goals, socialism is not the
answer," former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper told Democrats in California last weekend.
Though his comments were met with boos and jeers among the convention's liberal crowd, his
warning is at the heart of the debate over who should be the Democratic presidential
nominee.
Warren has pointedly distinguished herself as a capitalist as opposed to a socialist or a
democratic socialist, but she has not backed away from a populist platform that embraces
sweeping economic reforms.
In her address to the California Democratic party, Warren rejected appeals for
moderation.
"Some say if we all calm down, the Republicans will come to their senses," she said. "But
our country is in a time of crisis. The time for small ideas is over."
alt media-verse is currently on fire with the news that the US State Dept's answer to Al Capone, Mike Pompeo, has been caught
promising "Jewish leaders" to send the boys round to Jeremy Corbyn if he should get elected and subsequently prove to be uppity and
out of line. According to the
WaPo , who broke the story:
The remarks, which are contained in audio of a private meeting leaked to The Washington Post, make Pompeo the second senior U.S.
official to comment on Britain's turbulent leadership succession in the past week.
During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn "is elected, would you be willing to work with
us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?"
In response, Pompeo said, "It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It's possible. You should
know, we won't wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best," he said to fervent applause
from attendees.
"It's too risky and too important and too hard once it's already happened," he said.
Of course the idea the "Jewish leaders" harbor any real fear that Jeremy Corbyn (Jeremy Corbyn!) is going to make life "difficult"
for British Jews if elected is simply risible. They know, just as every moderately informed person knows, that that's absurd. They
know Corbyn has no wish to make life difficult for anybody – except possibly the uber wealthy and the profiteer class.
They know the "antisemitism" fear is just a cover for the very very real fear that a Corbyn government will break the unwritten
rules of modern western governance and reject the agenda of austerity, exploitation and perpetual war that has been creating huge
profits and ideological thrills for the blessed few over the last twenty years.
They know that what Pompeo is promising is action to prevent this possibility coming about.
People are up in arms about this, and some seem quite shocked. Apparently the idea the neoliberal elites would try regime change
or regime-control on a relatively prosperous western country was something they didn't previously think possible.
Unfortunately it's more than possible. The state apparatus of the different western nations are a tight bond of mutual regard
and interest, just as likely to foment regime change on their own or their allies' elected representatives as on those of impoverished
or "developing" countries, if they believe those representatives threaten the perceived interests of the state. Of course it
isn't too often necessary, since the same western state apparatus also works to ensure that only governments that don't threaten
perceived state interests manage to get elected. But, when the unthinkable happens, MI5 and the CIA are quite happy to step up
to the plate and throw their own or their allies' democratic governments out the window. It's happened – or nearly happened –
at least twice in the last fifty years.
In the 1960s the UK security agencies, senior military and members of the royal family were apparently
contemplating
a fullblown coup against Labour prime minister Harold Wilson.
In 1975 it was
Australia's turn , when democratically elected reforming prime minister Gough Whitlam was overthrown in a bloodless constitutional
coup organised jointly by the US and UK .
The old empire and the new have form in this regard, and this means no one should take Pompeo's words (spoken in private let's
not forget) lightly.
It's also interesting to look at how the WaPo frames the revelation. There's no sense of outrage or surprise there. In fact it's
an almost matter-of-fact piece, written with no awareness of its potential impact. Even those in the comments who object in some
form are mostly doing it within the permissible current language of dissent – blaming Trump , because in these identity politics-saturated
times, your morality resides in who or what you are NOT in what you do.
To the WaPo – and many of its readers – there's nothing intrinsically either wrong or surprising in the idea a US secretary of
state should be overtly promising to interfere in the democratic governance of another country.
"... Across-the-board rivalry with China is becoming an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies. ..."
"... An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened. ..."
"... The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers, attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order. ..."
The disappearance of the Soviet Union left a big hole. The "war on terror" was an inadequate replacement. But China ticks all boxes.
For the US, it can be the ideological, military and economic enemy many need. Here at last is a worthwhile opponent. That was the
main conclusion I drew from this year's Bilderberg meetings.
Across-the-board
rivalry with China is becoming
an organising principle of US economic, foreign and security policies.
Whether it is Donald Trump's organizing principle is less important. The US president has the gut instincts of a nationalist and
protectionist. Others provide both framework and details. The aim is US domination. The means is control over China, or separation
from China.
Anybody who believes a rules-based multilateral order, our globalised economy, or even harmonious international relations, are
likely to survive this conflict is deluded. The astonishing
white paper on the
trade conflict
, published on Sunday by China, is proof. The -- to me, depressing -- fact is that on many points Chinese positions are right.
The US focus on
bilateral imbalances is economically illiterate. The view that theft of intellectual property has caused huge damage to the US
is
questionable . The proposition that China has grossly violated its commitments under its 2001 accession agreement to the World
Trade Organization is hugely exaggerated.
Accusing China of cheating is hypocritical when almost all trade policy actions taken by the Trump administration are in breach
of WTO rules, a fact implicitly conceded by its determination
to destroy the
dispute settlement system .
A dispute over the terms of market opening or protection of intellectual property might be settled with careful negotiation. Such
a settlement might even help China, since it would lighten the heavy hand of the state and promote market-oriented reform.
But the issues are now too vexed for such a resolution. This is partly because of the bitter breakdown in negotiation. It is still
more because the US debate is increasingly over whether integration with China's state-led economy is desirable. The fear over Huawei
focuses on national security and technological autonomy.
[Neo]liberal commerce is increasingly seen as "trading with the enemy".
A framing of relations with China as one of zero-sum conflict is emerging. Recent remarks by Kiron Skinner, the US state department's
policy planning director (a job once held by cold war strategist George Kennan) are revealing. Rivalry with Beijing,
she suggested at a
forum organised
by New America , is "a fight with a really different civilisation and a different ideology, and the United States hasn't had
that before".
She added that this would be "the first time that we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian". The war with Japan
is forgotten.
But the big point is her framing of this as a civilizational and racial war and so as an insoluble conflict. This cannot be accidental.
She is also still in her job. Others present the conflict as one over ideology and power.
Those emphasising the former point to President Xi Jinping's Marxist rhetoric and the reinforced role of the
Communist party . Those emphasising the latter point to China's rising economic might. Both perspectives suggest perpetual conflict.
This is the most important geopolitical development of our era. Not least, it will increasingly force everybody else to take sides
or fight hard for neutrality. But it is not only important. It is dangerous. It risks turning a manageable, albeit vexed, relationship
into all-embracing conflict, for no good reason. China's ideology is not a threat to liberal democracy in the way the Soviet Union's
was. Rightwing demagogues are far more dangerous.
An effort to halt China's economic and technological rise is almost certain to fail. Worse, it will foment deep hostility in the
Chinese people. In the long run, the demands of an increasingly prosperous and well-educated people for control over their lives
might still win out. But that is far less likely if China's natural rise is threatened.
Moreover, the rise of China is not an important cause of western malaise. That reflects far more the indifference and incompetence
of domestic elites. What is seen as theft of intellectual property reflects, in large part, the inevitable attempt of a rising economy
to master the technologies of the day. Above all, an attempt to preserve the domination of 4 per cent of humanity over the rest is
illegitimate.
This certainly does not mean accepting everything China does or says. On the contrary, the best way for the west to deal with
China is to insist on the abiding values of freedom, democracy, rules-based multilateralism and global co-operation. These ideas
made many around the globe supporters of the US in the past.
They still captivate many Chinese people today. It is quite possible to uphold these ideas, indeed insist upon them far more strongly,
while co-operating with a rising China where that is essential, as over protecting the natural environment, commerce and peace.
A blend of competition with co-operation is the right way forward. Such an approach to managing China's rise must include co-operating
closely with like-minded allies and treating China with respect.
The tragedy in what is now happening is that the administration is simultaneously launching a conflict between the two powers,
attacking its allies and destroying the institutions of the postwar US-led order.
Today's attack on China is the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, on the wrong terrain. Alas, this is where we now are.
"... The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future. ..."
"... Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF. ..."
"... All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border. ..."
"... Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she "served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes. Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi. ..."
"... That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our crypto Jewish prez. ..."
"... The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is declared Russian propaganda. ..."
"... Not just Trump and O, but Clinton and Bush II as well. I recall Bush II's tag line of a "more humble foreign policy." How'd that work out? ..."
"... I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story. ..."
"... However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates have to pander to the far left to win nomination ..."
"... Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to import more foreign workers to work in them? ..."
"... "Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened?" ..."
"... As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one. He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama? A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed. ..."
Probably the only honest Democrat out there. OK Demo-dunces, when Dem primary comes around,
here is a candidate you can vote for without normal people saying What? Are you nuts? Dems
are honestly going to push for Feelsy Weelsy Biden, unless the Hildabeast thinks she can give
it another try.
Tulsi Gabbard needs to add one more thing to her campaign and she will win: promise a drastic
cut on immigration in favor of American workers.
America is hungry for a candidate who will actually deliver on the no-more-wars and
no-more-immigration pledge. Trump campaigned on that but has turned out to be a total fraud
who failed on both counts.
We need Tulsi to step into the void. Not only will she win over a lot of Trump voters, but
she will also win over a lot of those on the left who are sick of wars and not particularly
pro immigration.
Hilariously, the MSM trumpeted the message last time around that we simply MUST have a female
president, that it was long past time a woman was in charge, and that anyone reluctant to
vote for Hillary was an evil misogynist. Before that, we were told that we simply HAD to have
a noble Person of Color in the White House, that it was everyone's duty to vote for Obama and
not some old white guy.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's our
duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
I think she should use this to her advantage. Not resort to identity politics or faux
feminism, but simply point out the hypocrisy, draw attention to the inconsistency and get the
general public asking themselves why all this diversity / Girl Power shit suddenly gets
memory holed by the media when it's Tulsi, or any anti establishment figure, in the
spotlight.
I mat switch party registration just so I can vote for her in a primary. I wonder, however,
if once in office, she could implement her program against the Deep State
After Gabbard announced her (2020) campaign, the Russian government owned RT, Sputnik
News and Russia Insider together ran about 20 stories favorable to her. NBC News reported
that these websites were the same that were involved in Russian interference in the 2016
elections. Matt Taibbi, in Rolling Stone, called the report by NBC a "transparent hit
piece". In The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald wrote that what he found "particularly unethical
about the NBC report is that it tries to bolster the credentials of this group [New
Knowledge] while concealing from its audience the fraud that this firm's CEO just got
caught perpetrating on the public on behalf of the Democratic Party."
@Tired of Not Winning Totally agree. To those who saw it, that's what Tucker's monologue
was all about last night. Anti-war with America-first anti-immigration is the winning ticket.
Unfortunately, from what I've been able to gather, take away her principled anti-war stance
and Tulsi's just another bleeding-heart liberal democrat. She did back Sanders after all.
Maybe Tucker, who has often had her on his show, can straighten Tulsi out.
Gabbard should switch parties and challenge Trump. I would vote for her. She has no chance at
all as a Democrat. Obviously she cannot be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates.
But her reasons for running probably do not include winning the nomination. I wish her
well. But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
@Diversity Heretic That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? Both Obama and Trump were
elected as anti-war candidates, and look what happened? The Deep State, i.e. the Permanent
Government, is probably more powerful than any elected president, who will be there for at
most 8 years. But who else out there beside Tulsi has the guts to take on the Hegemon? I
think she means what she says, while Obama and Trump did not.
We'll know she's being taken serious when, like Donald Trump in 2016, AIPAC summons her to
appear before the Learned Elders of Zion to pledge fealty to Israel and the holohoax.
● 'Immigration is a tremendous economic benefit for Hawai'i and our country as a
whole.'
● 'Trump's comments on immigrants fly in the face of aloha spirit, American
values.'
She has no chance and isn't going to go against immigration.
It doesn't really matter what they say anyway, because it's just lies to get elected.
Once elected they do what the nose tells them to do.
If she's CFR, she's an open borders globalist.
Trump was adamantly anti-war during his campaign, and then the nose stepped in and fixed
it.
I read that everything Trump said, all of those lies, all of those promises, were the
result of analytics.
I was dubious at first, but now I think it's true. He quite literally just mouthed what we
wanted to hear, and then did what the nose told him to do.
Obama got the peace prize and did more drone strikes than Bush.
Tulsi would be anti-war right up to her inauguration, then the reality that the nose OWNS
her entire party would sink in and she'd realize who's the boss.
Giraldi and his fans here are cool with mass Third World migration to the USA if it means
finally electing out and proud anti-Israel politicians like Ilhan Omar and the other
Congressmuslima.
Despite Gabbard ticking off both those boxes, wouldn't you know It? Suddenly the
importance of having a non-White or female President mysteriously vanishes! Suddenly it's
our duty to have the lecherous, creepy old white dude in office! Suddenly the importance of
Diversity ("diversity is our strength" don't you know?) vanishes into the ether when Tulsi
comes up.
But I will never support a Democrat. Not even one I respect. I'm a white man. It's not
about the POC. My fear and loathing pertains to the white liberals.
I like Tulsi a lot. We've almost forgotten what a serious person looks like, and she is one
of the 3 or 4 in Washington.
Her Democrat satanic baggage poisons the well, but she is still an inspiring figure, in my
view.
The one glaring example of how the media can deep six a political candidate is the story of
Ron Paul's presidential run in 2012. After tying for first place in the Iowa Straw Poll with
Michelle Bachman he was disappeared from the media completely . His name was never
mention again, and the RNC stole his delegates. He became persona non grata. This is probably Tulsi's future.
Right now, Tulsi is the only candidate who matters.
I hope she wins the nomination by a landslide.
The United States, due to the abysmal stewardship of our neocon oligarchs , is in a wholly
unprecedented and catastrophic situation.
They know it, I know it, and the majority of Americans are fast waking up to it.
Never before in US history, has so much taxpayer solvency been squandered through acts of
wanton criminal war.
The utter decimation being wrought upon countries around the world . which never attacked
us, AT ALL, is beyond human imagination.
Moreover,our Neocon Warmongers eighteen year assault on the federal balance sheet , has
been so massive, so larcenous and so protracted it has all but eviscerated the credit
worthiness of the Nation. They have QUADRUPLED our ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT in a mere 18 years. IT IS BEYOND BELIEF.
Even as I write this, steps are being taken by all the major world powers to eject the US
dollar as the worlds reserve currency.
If this happens, nobody will continue to buy our currency ..or our bonds.
The heinous 22 trillion dollar debt, created by our neocon warmongers, will not be
underwritten anymore, anywhere.
The US will have to turn "inward" to deal with this fiscal abomination , and dare I say
that when this happens a "solvency holocaust" will truly be upon us.
The greatest nation on earth, turned belly up, in a mere twenty years .all due to
pernicious .. Neocon ..War Fraud.
@Tired of Not Winning Total fraud is correct. He refuses to characterize the illegals as
invaders and to anchor any action in response in his responsibility under Art. IV, Sect. 4 to
repel invasion. He insists on pretending that his authority to act is founded in legislation
pertaining to "emergencies" of which we possess an infinite supply.
All while he sends more troops to the ME but not to our border. As a wag on ZeroHedge
observed, Trump has spent more time at the Wailing Wall than on our southern border.
And while every month 100,000 invaders are released into the interior of the US.
Tulsi is my preferred candidate. That said, I'm disappointed that she
"served" in Iraq, a country which we invaded and devastated on a total lie that it had nukes.
Also, I believe now she has distanced herself from ring-wing US Hindu groups who are strong
supporters of the genocidal Indian prime minster Modi.
That said, I admire Tulsi for going against the grain of our Zionist-run Congress and our
crypto Jewish prez.
@Lot So what's wrong with Ilhan Omar? Is that she's Muslim? Two people in Congress I
admire are AOC (who's to young of run for prez) and Omar. Both have cojones.
@anonymous India is a polluted shit-hole run by a genocidal, Hindu nationalist PM, with
almost half of parliament members under some kind of criminal charge.
The war party has many tentacles. The mainstream media and cable are
fundamentally just their propaganda service. Fellow corporatists supporting each other's
revenue stream. Then RT comes along, and does journalism -- demonstrates some journalistic
integrity -- and the world is turned upside down. All of a sudden the truth -- mostly -- is
declared Russian propaganda.
Awakening from the bad dream of neoliberal servitude will cause cognitive dissonance,
confusion, and distress. Learning the truth, even a little bit of Truth, is almost like
poison when, for a lifetime, you've been fed nothing but lies.
@Tired of Not Winning Agree, but . . . even if elected, she would run into the same AIPAC
and pro-cheap labor lobbies that have stymied Trump (assuming Trump wanted to do anything
about these issues). Even if she wanted to do something about War and Immigrants, she would
up against a united establishment from both parties. Having a D after her name would not
count for much.
@c matt You've already been destroyed. Omar and AOC had both the brains and the balls to
identify your real enemy. Your ass is owned buddy, lock, stock and barrel ..and it took two
women to say it .not a sign of a man with any balls in congress.
Florida's Governor just signed a bill that will censor criticism of Israel throughout
the state's public schools
News
Michael Arria on June 6, 2019 23 Comments
U.S. Congressman Ron DeSantis of Florida speaking at the 2017 Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
[MORE]
On May 31, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that prohibits anti-Semitism in public
schools and universities throughout the state. However, the legislation also equates
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, effectively censoring the advocacy of Palestinian
rights.
Two days before DeSantis officially signed HB 741 into law in Florida, he carried out a
symbolic signing during a ceremonial state cabinet meeting in Israel. The session featured a
variety of Israeli speakers and culminated with Florida lawmakers issuing a declaration of
support for the country. "Since we're in Jerusalem, we may actually get some interest in our
Cabinet meetings for a change, which would be great," joked DeSantis during the meeting. A
number of news organizations filed a lawsuit against the state's government, claiming that
the meeting violated Florida's transparency law, as it took place in a foreign country and
wasn't made publicly accessible to journalists. Although they weren't officially listed as
members of DeSantis' delegation, he was accompanied by pro-Israel megadonors Sheldon and
Miriam Adelson.
HB 741 states that, "A public K-20 educational institution must treat discrimination by
students or employees or resulting from institutional policies motivated by anti-Semitic
intent in an identical manner to discrimination motivated by race." The bill identifies
anti-Semitism as calls for violence against Jews, Holocaust denial, or the promotion of
conspiracy theories that target Jewish people, but it also contains an entire section that
equates Israel critcism with the prohibited anti-Semitism. This includes, "applying a double
standard to Israel by requiring behavior of Israel that is not expected or demanded of any
other democratic nation." According to the bill's text, criticism of Israel is always
anti-Semitic unless it is "similar to criticism toward any other country."
"We know what could happen in Florida from the chilling effects we've already seen elsewhere:
human rights defenders will be smeared as antisemites, investigated by schools, and in some
cases punished. Events will be cancelled, or censored via bureaucratic harassment. Theses
will not be written. Debates in class will not take place. And many activists will
self-censor out of pure exhaustion," Palestine Legal's senior staff attorney Meera Shah told
Mondoweiss, "All of this profoundly diminishes Florida's ability to educate students to be
leaders in a global economy."
The House version of HB 741 was sponsored by State Representative Randy Fine, a rabidly
pro-Israel lawmaker who has held office since 2016. In April, after Sen. Audrey Gibson voted
against HB 741's companion bill and called it "divisive", Fine denounced the Senate
Democratic Leader and called on Democrats to "hold her accountable." "It is sad that in the
world propagated by Washington Democrats like Congresswomen Ihlan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and
Tallahassee Democrats like Audrey Gibson, fighting anti-Semitism is 'divisive', said Fine,
"In this time of rising anti-Semitism around both the country and globe, it is unconscionable
that the most powerful Democrat in the Florida Senate would vote against banning
discrimination based on anti-Semitism."
That same month, Fine made headlines for referring to a Jewish constituent as "Judenrat", a
term used to describe Jews who collaborated with the Nazis during World War 2. Fine used the
word in reference to Paul Halpern, a Palm Bay resident who organized a panel discussion
regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict. Fine took to Facebook to criticize the panel for
being anti-Semitic. "First, there is no 'Palestine,'" Fine wrote, "Second, having a bunch of
speakers who advocate for the destruction of Israel but promise that this one time they
won't, is a joke. We should not engage these bigots. We crush them." After Halpern pushed
back on this assertion and pointed out that the majority of the panelists were Jewish, Fine
responded, ″#JudenratDontCount..I know that Judenrat liked to keep tabs on all the Jews
in order to report back to the Nazis back in that time, but no one is making you continue
that tradition today."
"In my mind, Judenrat is the worst thing that you can call a Jewish person," Halpern told the
Huffington Post, "He's despicable as a representative and a person."
Governor DeSantis is a close ally of the President and some believe that the Israel trip
could help deliver Florida for Trump in 2020. "For a lot of Jewish voters, this trip puts an
exclamation point on the Republican Party's commitment to Israel and to Jewish people," the
Republican Jewish Coalition's Neil Strauss recently proclaimed, "We saw a nice rise in
support for Gov. DeSantis and we want to keep that going. Florida is the best example of
where if Republicans gain Jewish voters, it can make a real difference."
I remember in 2011, I believe it was, he was leading in the polls and I heard a
radio talking head opining: "I think we can all stipulate that Ron Paul is not a viable
candidate for the nomination, but " For a moment there I wondered why we could all stipulate
that, and then it occurred to me to notice the commentator's last name. He was using the
royal we, as in we the Chosen. RP not an Israel lickspittle? End of story.
Well a lot of the comments here are ridiculous it's like the guy who has cancer and somebody
comes along with a cure, but he says 'fuck it' because it doesn't involve ice cream
Yet these same morons support Trump who has only done things for Israel's benefit so far
and even though Trump supports legal immigration
Speaking of which why don't all these immigration zealots take up the issue with the real
bosses on the matter corporate America ?
It's the plutocracy that WANTS immigration at any and all cost because it creates a
surplus labor pool and drives wages down while driving shareholder profits up the same reason
is why industry is offshored, along with the jobs that go with it it's called labor
arbitrage
In other words this is what CAPITALISM is about yet here these monkeys are screaming about
'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches
a few corporate parasites while we foot the bill
How much do the endless, unnecessary wars cost the taxpayer ? [they don't cost the
billionaire class anything because they don't pay taxes ]
How much does corporate welfare cost the taxpayer ? ask King Bezos how many billions he's
been gifted in 'tax holidays' and other such freebies
Tulsi's entire approach is a major win-win for ordinary folks right up to and including
high earning professionals
Anybody with half a brain would be overjoyed that we even have such a person in our midst
as if we don't have enough completely briandead zombies that are going to vote for Gore or
that gay guy, or that fake 'socialist' Bernie
@Sako Sako, yours is one of the best posts ever on this site. I am tempted to volunteer
for Tulsi's campaign on the basis of her anti-war position alone. I did about fourteen years
of active duty in the Army, and when I hear her refer to soldiers as her "brothers and
sisters," I actually get teary-eyed. I have to restrain myself from adoring her completely.
Excellent expose by Philip Giraldi, for one of our best candidates Tulsi Gabbard.
Indeed the enemy is "the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States."
@Tired of Not Winning Like me. Hopefully she is still in it when super Tuesday gets here.
I'm sick of the alt right (and their tangerine leader) and sicker of blm/reparations/open
borders. I now know why non voters don't vote.
Tulsi is a Hawaii democrat, a very corrupt group. Tell her to comment on the kealohas, the
police chief of Honolulu and his wife are being tried for corruption and drug dealing by the
feds. She and all the other dems here will not comment. She likes to rock the boat about war
at the federal level but no comment on her state evolving into a third world dump.
I think the local dems want her out, Mufi wants revenge.
@follyofwar Yep, it is a big if. She is pretty far to the left on immigration, which is
unfortunate. But I appreciate her being honest. We don't need another lying scum like Trump.
However, Sanders had always been anti-immigration until he started running against Hillary
in 2016. He was both anti illegal immigration and anti H1b. The problem is, DNC candidates
have to pander to the far left to win nomination. I'm holding out hope that he would revert
back to those pre 2016 immigration positions after winning nomination. He recently came out
and railed against the border invasion.
A Sanders-Gabbard ticket might be the winning ticket.
(assuming Trump wanted to do anything about these issues).
That's just the problem. I don't think Trump ever really wanted to reduce legal
immigration. He has said more than once that he wants to let "the largest number ever" of
immigrants come in because "we" need these workers as we have "all these jobs coming back",
i.e. employers need their cheap labor, except instead of keeping the cheap labor offshore, he
wants to bring millions of them to the US like the tech sector.
Tucker said he supports Elizabeth Warren's national economic plan of bringing back
manufacturing jobs to save the heartland, as Trump is trying to do. Warren also wants maximum
legal immigration like Trump. What good are bringing back these jobs if we are just going to
import more foreign workers to work in them?
In the end the rich will just get richer, while the rest of us have to put up with even
more immigration, more congestion, overcrowded schools, crime, poverty, unemployment,
underemployment, failed schools I say no thank you! Let's just send all the immigrants
packing. We already have plenty of jobs in America, they are just all going to
foreigners.
The only job program we need is one that calls for drastic cuts in immigration. Anything
else is bullshit.
"Both Obama and Trump were elected as anti-war candidates, and look what
happened?"
As for Trump, war in fact has not "happened". Beside the silly nothing attack on an essentially unstaffed Syrian runway that was warned
ahead of time, Trump has attacked no one.
He talks a lot to placate Jews, but talk is not action. Obama?
A true war monger who bombed & bombed, & bombed.
yet here these monkeys are screaming about 'leftist' Tulsi because she wants Medicare
for all, instead of a ripoff system that enriches a few corporate parasites while we foot
the bill
Sorry, I haven't seen anyone on this thread complain about Medicare-for-all. You must have
this website confused with Conservative Treehouse or something.
@Tired of Not Winning Tulsi Gabbard won't because She is waging Democratic Party race war
against the Historic Native Born White American Working Class Majority .Tulsi Gabbard would
massively increase the H1b L1b Visa Program .she is already courting the Hindu "American"
Democratic Party Voting Bloc ..
@Robert Dolan I believe you've summed it up well. I haven't voted in a "national"
election since W's first term because the ballot-box is a non-answer to the dilemma.
@Johnny Rottenborough Her positions on immigration disqualify her from consideration
regardless of how strong her foreing policy might be at this stage. Plus, she's made woke
statements on other social issues so in a lot of ways she's perhaps only slightly to the
right of Barack Obama with a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Biden has faced
numerous mini-controversies since launching his campaign in April, as progressives challenged
his record and old videos resurfaced in which he made some fairly questionable statements.
He is taking serious heat from progressives over his role as a primary architect of the
infamous 1994 Crime Bill, which even Bill Clinton -- who signed it into law -- admitted had
made mass incarceration worse. In fact, it led to an explosion in the US prison population,
which doubled in just 10 years and disproportionately impacted minorities. Biden, however, is
still defending the bill, bragging about having written it and lying about its effects today.
How progressive?
There is just no other way to put it, the Crime Bill was catastrophic and lead to the
massive prison population, which is a majority of Black and Brown people. This was a known
fact then and Biden knew it, it was a strategy to get white voters from Republicans, he
should own it.
Fellow candidate Harris, a prosecutor who laughed and sneered about her own role in
threatening poor families with jail time over their kids truancy -- a punitive policy that does
nothing to help disadvantaged kids and families -- even took a swipe at Biden's '94 bill. Biden
was also an author of the Bush-era Patriot Act, which gave the go-ahead for the FBI to wiretap
Americans' calls and emails without a court order. Biden has repeatedly engaged in public
self-praise for his role in this debacle, too.
Where foreign policy is concerned, Biden is also a far cry from progressive. He voted for
the Iraq War, declaring that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons and hailed George W.
Bush for his "moderation and deliberation" after the September 11 terror attacks. He's
also a fan of "decent
man" Dick Cheney and the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who he said had a "brilliant strategic
mind." One wonders if Biden is referring to Brzezinski's support for arming the
mujahideen in Afghanistan ( "God is on your side," he told them) and helping create Al
Qaeda?
Biden also really likes to frame himself as a candidate of the workers, but lo' and behold,
this man of the people also likes the sound of cutting medicare and social security. He also
voted for NAFTA, TTP and the Wall Street Bailout -- hardly a record to be bragging to
progressive voters about. Forward-thinking Biden is also against the legalization of marijuana,
which he still believes is "a gateway drug," has
"no empathy" for young people and called whistleblower Julian Assange -- who faces life
in prison for exposing US crimes -- a "hi-tech terrorist." That's not to even mention
the creepy groping.
Biden voted for NAFTA; Bernie voted against it
Biden voted for the Iraq War; Bernie voted against it
Biden voted for a border fence; Bernie voted against it
Biden voted for the PATRIOT Act; Bernie voted against it
Biden voted for the Wall St. bailout; Bernie voted against it
Then there's climate change. Biden raised eyebrows last week when he claimed that he
"started this whole thing" on climate change activism back in the late 1987s. The
strange, tangent-y claim was a response to a question posed by an activist from the US Youth
Climate Strike group, who wanted to know if he would commit to a debate focused on climate
change (he didn't). This came just weeks after Biden's climate advisor Heather Zichal -- who
previously worked for a fracking company (yes, really) -- said he would seek a "middle
ground" approach to climate policy, enraging activists.
you'd think for a guy who so quickly cited his record, he'd have no problem agreeing to a
debate on climate change policy
There was once hope for a young Biden. Speaking 1974, he admitted that a system whereby
politicians need to beg for money from big donors does "produce corruption" and sounded
like he was genuinely interested in changing that.
"They always want something," the young Biden said of donors, adding that running for
office "you run the risk of deciding whether or not you're going to prostitute yourself to
give the answer you know they want to hear in order to get funded."
As the years passed, Biden seems to have mellowed out and instead of fighting to change the
system, found it easier to play by established rules. Like his fellow 2020 Democratic
candidates, he has pledged not to take cash from lobbyists and corporate PACs -- but his first
big 2020 fundraiser was hosted by lobbyists and donors and he has sneakily
taken donations from those special interests through a political action committee he set up
in 2017.
Yet, you'd hardly know anything about Biden's many failings if you were relying on
mainstream media, where there is a whole lot of fawning going on over his centrist ways and
folksy, gaffe-prone approach to politics.
Last week, Fortune Magazine published a head-scratcher of a piece headlined "Why Joe
Biden Is the Only True Progressive Candidate." The big, central argument of the article was
not that Biden was a genuine match for true progressives, but that -- no joke -- 'centrists'
are the real progressives.
As expected, the media is playing a role in amplifying establishment-favorite Biden and
praising his centrism as the best strategy to beat Donald Trump in 2020 -- but if they're not
careful, they might be in for a replay of 2016.
The voters who couldn't bear to vote for Clinton will be the same ones who would find it
hard to stomach voting for Biden -- and blaming Russia might not cut it the second time
around.
Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer based in Dublin. Her work has appeared in
Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, teleSUR, RBTH, The Calvert Journal and others. Follow her
on Twitter @DanielleRyanJ
Democratic
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took a swipe at neoconservative Bill Kristol for his
"foolish advocacy of the Iraq war," and questioned whether he had apologized to the country for
it yet. Sanders was responding to a tweet Kristol sent that said, "#Never Sanders," and
linked to a New York Times article about the longtime Vermont senator's opposition to war.
"Have you apologized to the nation for your foolish advocacy of the Iraq war?"
Sanders tweeted , adding he makes
"no apologies for opposing it."
Sanders' record of opposing wars like Vietnam and Iraq, and US meddling in Nicaragua, has
recently been highlighted by the media as the 2020 presidential primaries approach.
-- Meghan McCain's Tears™
(@Smedley_Butler) May 25,
2019
NBC's Meet the Press came under fire last week for tweeting , "Sanders
said he won't apologize for supporting anti-Vietnam War efforts and voting against the war in
Iraq," which sparked ridicule among social media users and inspired Sanders to release a
video in which he stood by his anti-war stance and promised to do everything to prevent a war
with Iran.
I was right about Vietnam.
I was right about Iraq.
I will do everything in my power to prevent a war with Iran.
Kristol tweeted his 'never Sanders' diss after the former Burlington mayor introduced a
petition to prevent "military action against Iran without congressional approval,"
something that likely upset Kristol, who has been calling for regime change in Iran for over 13
years.
Kristol refused to apologize over his comments, instead calling on Sanders to engage in a
"real debate on US foreign policy."
Nope. I dislike quasi-Stalinist demands for apologies. I've defended and will defend my
views on Iraq, and Syria, and Milosevic, and the Soviet Union, and more, as you defend
yours. How about a real debate on U.S. foreign policy--I'll ask for no apologies!--on a
campus this fall? https://t.co/AdC0CelINz
A co-founder of the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century
(PNAC), Kristol called for regime change in Iraq in 1998 in a series of articles and a letter
to then-President Bill Clinton. Following 9/11, PNAC encouraged the George W. Bush
administration to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Kristol ardently supported the war in Iraq, which
he claimed would be a "two-month war" and repeatedly argued for sending more troops
there to rectify the failing invasion.
During the 2006 Lebanon war, Kristol suggested the US take the opportunity to strike Iran's
nuclear facilities, asking, "Why wait?"
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Good evening and welcome to Tucker Carlson Tonight. Let's begin
tonight with a thought experiment: What if the Republican leadership here in Washington had
bothered to learn the lessons of the 2016 election? What if they'd cared enough to do that.
What if they'd understood, and embraced, the economic nationalism that was at the heart of
Donald Trump's presidential campaign? What would the world look like now, two and a half years
later? For starters, Republicans in congress would regularly be saying things like this.
Quote:
"I'm deeply grateful for the opportunities America has given me. But the giant 'American'
corporations who control our economy don't seem to feel the same way. They certainly don't act
like it. Sure, these companies wave the flag -- but they have no loyalty or
allegiance to America. Levi's is an iconic American brand, but the company operates only 2% of
its factories here. Dixon Ticonderoga -- maker of the famous №2
pencil -- has 'moved almost all of its pencil production to Mexico and China.'
And General Electric recently shut down an industrial engine factory in Wisconsin and shipped
the jobs to Canada. The list goes on and on. These 'American' companies show only one real
loyalty: to the short-term interests of their shareholders, a third of whom are foreign
investors. If they can close up an American factory and ship jobs overseas to save a nickel,
that's exactly what they will do -- abandoning loyal American workers and
hollowing out American cities along the way. Politicians love to say they care about American
jobs. But for decades, those same politicians have cited 'free market principles' and refused
to intervene in markets on behalf of American workers. And of course, they ignore those same
supposed principles and intervene regularly to protect the interests of multinational
corporations and international capital. The result? Millions of good jobs lost overseas and a
generation of stagnant wages, growing inequality, and sluggish economic growth. If Washington
wants to put a stop to this, it can. If we want faster growth, stronger American industry, and
more good American jobs, then our government should do what other leading nations do and act
aggressively to achieve those goals instead of catering to the financial interests of companies
with no particular allegiance to America.... The truth is that Washington policies --
not unstoppable market forces -- are a key driver of the problems American
workers face. From our trade agreements to our tax code, we have encouraged companies to invest
abroad, ship jobs overseas, and keep wages low. All in the interest of serving multinational
companies and international capital with no particular loyalty to the United States....It's
becoming easier and easier to shift capital and jobs from one country to another. That's why
our government has to care more about defending and creating American jobs than ever
before -- not less. We can navigate the changes ahead if we embrace economic
patriotism and make American workers our highest priority, rather than continuing to cater to
the interests of companies and people with no allegiance to America."
End quote. Now let's say you regularly vote Republican. Ask yourself: what part of that
statement did you disagree with? Was there a single word that seemed wrong? Probably not.
Here's the depressing part: Nobody you voted for said that, or would ever say it. Republicans
in congress can't promise to protect American industries. They wouldn't dare. It might violate
some principle of Austrian economics. It might make the Koch brothers angry. It might alienate
the libertarian ideologues who, to this day, fund most Republican campaigns. So, no, a
Republican did not say that. Sadly.
Instead, the words you just heard are from, and brace yourself here, Senator Elizabeth
Warren of Massachusetts. Yesterday, Warren released what she's calling her "plan for economic
patriotism." Amazingly, that's pretty much exactly what it is: economic patriotism. There's not
a word about identity politics in the document. There are no hysterics about gun control or
climate change. There's no lecture about the plight of transgender illegal immigrants. It's
just pure old fashioned economics: how to preserve good-paying American jobs. Even more
remarkable: Many of Warren's policy prescriptions make obvious sense: she says the US
government should buy American products when it can. Of course it should. She says we need more
workplace apprenticeship programs, because four-year degrees aren't right for everyone. That's
true. She says taxpayers ought to benefit from the research and development they fund. And yet,
she writes, "we often see American companies take that researchand use it to manufacture
products overseas, like Apple did with the iPhone. The companies get rich, and American
taxpayers have subsidized the creation of low-wage foreign jobs." And so on. She sounds like
Donald Trump at his best. Who is this Elizabeth Warren, you ask? Not the race hustling, gun
grabbing, abortion extremist you thought you knew. Unfortunately Elizabeth Warren is still all
of those things too. And that is exactly the problem, not just with Warren, but with American
politics. In Washington, almost nobody speaks for the majority of voters. You're either a
libertarian zealot controlled by the banks, yammering on about entrepreneurship and how we need
to cut entitlements. That's one side of the aisle. Or, worse, you're some decadent trust fund
socialist who wants to ban passenger cars and give Medicaid to illegal aliens. That's the other
side. There isn't a caucus that represents where most Americans actually are: nationalist on
economics, fairly traditional on the social issues. Imagine a politician who wanted to make
your healthcare cheaper, but wasn't ghoulishly excited about partial birth abortion. Imagine
someone who genuinely respected the nuclear family, and sympathized with the culture of rural
America, but at the same time was willing to take your side against rapacious credit card
companies bleeding you dry at 35 percent interest. Would you vote for someone like that? My
gosh. Of course. Who wouldn't? That candidate would be elected in a landslide. Every single
time. Yet that candidate is the opposite of pretty much everyone currently serving in congress.
Our leadership class remains resolutely libertarian: committed to the rhetoric of markets when
it serves them; utterly libertine on questions of culture. Republicans will lecture you about
how payday loan scams are a critical part of a market economy. Then they'll work to make it
easier for your kids to smoke weed because, hey, freedom. Democrats will nod in total
agreement. They're on the same page.
Just last week, the Trump administration announced an innovative new way to protect American
workers from the ever-cascading tidal wave of cheap third-world labor flooding this country.
Until the Mexican government stops pushing illegal aliens north over our border, we will impose
tariffs on all Mexican goods we import. That's the kind of thing you'd do to protect your
country if you cared about your people. The Democrats, of course, opposed it. They don't even
pretend to care about America anymore. Here's what the Republicans said:
MITCH MCCONNELL: Look, I think it's safe to say – you've talked to all of our
members and we're not fans of tariffs. We're still hoping this can be avoided.
"We're not fans of tariffs." Imagine a more supercilious, out of touch, infuriating
response. You can't, because there isn't one. In other words, says Mitch McConnell, the idea
may work in practice. But we're against it, because it doesn't work in theory. That's the
Republican Party, 2019. No wonder they keep losing. They deserve it. Will they ever change?
Trump betrayed anti-war votes. So he will not get the same voting blocks that he got in 2016.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that war with Iran would be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines, total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier, what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?" ..."
"... Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N. She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran." ..."
"... In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast displayed a headline : "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood." ..."
"... Tulsi responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares oppose their warmongering." ..."
"... ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is loaded with a full complement of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation. ..."
"... for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform. It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States ..."
Voters looking ahead to 2020 are being bombarded with soundbites from the twenty plus Democratic would-be candidates. That Joe
Biden is apparently leading the pack according to opinion polls should come as no surprise as he stands for nothing apart from being
the Establishment favorite who will tirelessly work to support the status quo.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
In a recent interview with Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Gabbard doubled down on her anti-war credentials, telling the host that
war with Iran
would
be "devastating, " adding that "I know where this path leads us and I'm concerned because the American people don't seem to be
prepared for how devastating and costly such a war would be So, what we are facing is, essentially, a war that has no frontlines,
total chaos, engulfs the whole region, is not contained within Iran or Iraq but would extend to Syria and Lebanon and Israel across
the region, setting us up in a situation where, in Iraq, we lost over 4,000 of my brothers and sisters in uniform. A war with Iran
would take far more American lives, it would cost more civilian lives across the region Not to speak of the fact that this would
cost trillions of taxpayer dollars coming out of our pockets to go and pay for this endless war that begs the question as a soldier,
what are we fighting for? What does victory look like? What is the mission?"
Gabbard, and also Carlson, did not hesitate to name names among those pushing for war, one of which begins with B-O-L-T-O-N.
She then asked "How does a war with Iran serve the best interest of the American people of the United States? And the fact is it
does not," Gabbard said. "It better serves the interest of people like [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Bibi Netanyahu and Saudi
Arabia who are trying to push us into this war with Iran."
Clearly not afraid to challenge the full gamut establishment politics,
Tulsi Gabbard had previously called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the
war to overthrow Assad is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing
the Syrian government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate
the refugee crisis, and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a
personal trip to Damascus in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are
serious about pursuing peace." She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the
country as well as ending American interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and in 2016 she backed Bernie Sanders' antiwar
candidacy. More recently, she has criticized President Donald Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. Last May, she criticized
Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, a very bold step indeed given the power of the Israel Lobby.
Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years, and
that is why the war party is out to get her. Two weeks ago, the Daily Beast
displayed a headline
: "Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign Is Being Boosted by Putin Apologists." The article also had a sub-headline: "The Hawaii congresswoman
is quickly becoming the top candidate for Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood."
The obvious smear job was picked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, television's best known Hillary Clinton clone, who
brought it up in an interview with Gabbard shortly thereafter. He asked whether Gabbard was "softer" on Putin than were some
of the other candidates. Gabbard answered: "It's unfortunate that you're citing that article, George, because it's a whole lot of
fake news." Politico the reported the exchange and wrote: "'Fake news' is a favorite phrase of President Donald Trump ," putting
the ball back in Tulsi's court rather than criticizing Stephanopoulos's pointless question. Soon thereafter CNN produced
its own version of Tulsi
the Russophile , observing that Gabbard was using a Trump expression to "attack the credibility of negative coverage."
Tulsi
responded "Stephanopoulos shamelessly implied that because I oppose going to war with Russia, I'm not a loyal American, but a
Putin puppet. It just shows what absurd lengths warmongers in the media will go, to try to destroy the reputation of anyone who dares
oppose their warmongering."
Tulsi Gabbard had attracted other enemies prior to the Stephanopoulos attack. Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept
described how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund.
It is loaded with a full complement
of Zionists and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol.
It claims, innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts
by Russia to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
No doubt stories headlined "Tulsi Gabbard Communist Stooge" are in the works somewhere in the mainstream media. The Establishment
politicians and their media component have difficulty in understanding just how much they are despised for their mendacity and unwillingness
to support policies that would truly benefit the American people but they are well able to dominate press coverage.
Given the flood of contrived negativity towards her campaign, it is not clear if Tulsi Gabbard will ever be able to get her message
across.
But, for the moment, she seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of Americans who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States
Joe
Biden is one of about two dozen 2020 democratic candidates running for President of the United
States. This is not his first presidential campaign.
Biden served under President Barack Obama as Vice President for eight years. Obama became
well-known for many antisocial policies in many spheres, especially education, including the
aggressive promotion of privately-operated charter schools that siphon enormous sums of money
from over-tested, under-funded, and constantly-demonized public schools. Obama also supported
the widely-rejected Race to the Top law, the much-hated Common Core, and the heavily-loathed No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In 2015, Obama replaced NCLB with a worse law: the Every Student
Succeeds Act. The education record of Obama and Biden is terrible.
During a recent two-day swing through Texas, Biden said the following at an event with
teachers: "I do not support any federal money for for-profit charter schools -- period. The
bottom line is it siphons off money from public schools, which are already in enough trouble."
1
But with the exception of millionaires, billionaires, and their retinue, who isn't opposed
to for-profit K-12 schools? Such "schools" have always been poor quality, corrupt, and immoral;
they were established mainly to further enrich the wealthy few at the expense of young
people.
It should be noted that for-profit charter schools actually make up a larger portion of the
unstable and unaccountable charter school sector than many are reporting.
It is also important to appreciate that Biden, like Presidential democratic candidates
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, is not addressing the fact that nonprofit charter schools
are just as destructive, if not more harmful, than for-profit charter schools. The
"for-profit/nonprofit" dichotomy is largely a distinction without a difference. It does not
mean that much. In various ways nonprofit charter schools often get away with more than
for-profit schools. Nonprofit charter schools are engaged in many ways with for-profit entities
and organizations. Wealthy private interests have had no trouble using the nonprofit status to
enrich themselves.
Biden's conscious refusal to oppose charter schools is most evident in his simple statement
that, "There are some charter schools that work."
2
Clearly, Biden thinks there is a place in society for privately-operated charter
schools.
This is all charter school promoters need to hear. This is music to the ears of charter
school boosters. Charter school advocates can now rest easy knowing that Biden, like Obama and
the vast majority of 2020 democratic presidential hopefuls, is no threat to charter
schools.
Biden's assertion that "There are some charter schools that work" is nothing more than
another expression of the erroneous and confused idea that, somehow, charter schools really
are, or can be, valid, legitimate, responsible, productive, and much-needed arrangements in
society.
In reality, pay-the-rich schemes like privately-operated contract schools that parasitically
drain socially-produced wealth from schools and society are the opposite of what society
needs. Pay-the-rich schemes undermine the economy and the national interest as well.
Interestingly, Biden conveniently fails to mention charter schools on his official campaign
website; he sidesteps the issue, thereby revealing again his implicit support for such
deunionized and segregated schools rife with fraud and racketeering. At least Bernie Sanders'
official education platform mentions charter schools openly and frequently.
It is also worth pointing out that Joe Biden's brother, Frank Biden, has been heavily
involved in the charter school sector for years.
3
At the end of the day, it does not matter that much if charter schools are for-profit or
nonprofit: they are still privately-operated, deregulated, segregated, poorly-supervised,
deunionized, low-transparency, scandal-ridden contract schools that drain much-needed funds
from demonized public schools. Nonprofit and for-profit charter schools also engage in
extensive fraud, have high employee turnover rates, frequently perform poorly, and typically
over-pay administrators.
Biden's 1988 presidential run went off the rails when it was revealed that he plagiarized
speeches from a British labour party politician , which brought to light examples of Biden
lifting material from other politicians without attribution , and an acknowledgement that he
was also accused of plagiarism in law school.
By many accounts, the 1987 campaign's free fall began on Friday, Sept. 11. Former Des
Moines Register political reporter David Yepsen remembers having breakfast that morning at
the Savery Hotel in downtown Des Moines with Paul Tully, a campaign staffer for Michael
Dukakis. "I have something for you," Tully told him as they walked out of the hotel. He
opened the trunk of his car and handing Yepsen a videotape.
When Yepsen got back to the office, he watched a side-by-side comparison of Biden's
remarks at a recent debate with the statements of a fiery British politician, Neil Kinnock.
Their words -- including how they described themselves and their backgrounds -- were
remarkably similar . -
WaPo
Biden and his advisers have called the plagiarism allegations 'overblown,' and that he
dropped out of the 1988 race because he wanted to focus his efforts on other matters.
"Biden has had a bad week," said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon, reports The
Hill .
"His support of the Hyde amendment is a serious problem," Bannon added. "Women will make
up about 60 percent of the Democratic primary electorate and they are energized because of
the draconian new abortion laws in Alabama and Georgia." - The
Hill
Let's see if Biden's past follows him into the upcoming Democratic primary debates.
"... Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, ..."
"... No matter how much you think people should hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way around it, if we don't hold the base we lose. ..."
"... Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey ..."
"... His first campaign fundraiser after his announcement was hosted by the CEO of Comcast. That is wholly out of touch with the middle class. ..."
"... She has passed Sanders in his relatively much more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks. ..."
"... Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit. ..."
"... Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually have a left at all. ..."
"... That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House. ..."
"... Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama? ..."
"... Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and conservatives in that crowd ..."
"... Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers ..."
Here's the problem: it doesn't matter if you'd support Biden if he were to get the
nomination, the Democratic base will simply not back another corporatist shill, especially
after getting stabbed in the ankle in 2016.
No matter how much you think people should hold
their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, they're not going to get out of bed to go
vote for someone they don't trust. The base is driving this election cycle, there is no way
around it, if we don't hold the base we lose.
The writers and readers of the Guardian (aka the Fox of the Left) who believe that the
American electorate has somehow shifted leftward remind me a delightful roommate that I had
back in Pleistocene. He came home one day convinced that George McGovern would win. "How did
you come up with that?" I asked. "I don't know a single person who is voting for Nixon."
It's
that level of bubble-driven stridency that will keep many of you at home on election day and
had another 4 years to the worst piece of crap to occupy the White House. Sure, there are
many people preferable to Biden, but a piece of burnt toast is preferable to Trump.
The Dems
won the midterms not on ideological grounds but by the pragmatic turnaround of middle class
white suburban women. Clinton did not lose in '16 because she was a "zombie centrist" but
because of her campaign's severe hubris, a lesson not learned from '08. Unless you prefer
ranting [and lefties often seem to prefer being in opposition to actually doing the heavy
lifting of compromise and governing], you will have to get rid of Trump by going with your
n-th choice, not your first one.
Sorry, that's the way it works outside of Berkeley, Austin,
Madison, Eugene, Brooklyn, Cambridge, and Asheville.
You're missing something. Plenty of people who support the actual left WILL be happy if we
get Biden, if it means we no longer have Trump.
The US system is built on compromise. Biden is a compromise, for sure. But would YOU
rather have Trump again? Really?
I don't want Biden. But last time I figured the left couldn't lose to a fucking moron I
was proven wrong.
Literally all the polling conducted in the 2016 election showed Bernie annihilating Trump by
a far higher margin than Clinton, who was losing in many polls. Biden is virtually a carbon
copy of Clinton. He is an establishment shill with the same voting record and the same
vulnerabilities that sank Clinton.
Like Hillary he shits on the most popular policies in the
country, and he shits on the base pushing those policies, and has shown zero signs of
learning from the 2016 catastrophe. He launched his campaign on a message of returning to the
same empty neoliberal politics that delivered us Donald Trump. Meanwhile Bernie is in fact
running on the most popular policies in the country. 70% of the American people, even a
majority 52% of Republicans, support Medicare For All. 82% of Americans support raising the
minimum wage. 76% of Americans support raising taxes on the rich. 60% of Americans support
free college tuition. 70% of Americans want stricter laws on assault weapons. 94% of
Americans support universal background checks. 58% of Americans support abortion rights in
all or most cases. 62% of Americans support legalizing marijuana. 78% of Americans support
stricter Wall Street regulation. 61% of Americans support ending the Afghanistan war. 72% of
Americans support expanding Social Security. 80% of Americans support the Green New Deal.
Literally all the data shows Bernie would be a far stronger candidate than a center right
corporate Democrat like Biden.
Biden is a standard Joke in both parties known as an Obama lackey and dim witted apologist
who will be blown out of the hunt by a female Dark Horse candidate yet to rise up out of the
dung pile of Democrat wannabes. The only real hope for the Democrats, guess who?
The somewhat grating and professorial Warren, as if lecturing to kindergartners, is becoming
the third choice in the polls behind Biden and Sanders due to her galaxy of hard-nosed, fully
fleshed-out policies the public is embracing.
She has passed Sanders in his relatively much
more limited agenda, trumping him on policies castrating Wall St---Sanders has not much
evolved beyond positions he's held since the 1970s, including understanding how to address
the two largest parts of the Democratic base, women and blacks.
I have no doubt Warren will
be an important member of the cabinet where she can implement her policies, which is why she
will be in Biden's cabinet. Biden has touched on gutting Wall St greed, signalling the rise
of her influence. For all his centrist corruption he grasps the desires of the base,
understanding his popularity would suffer if he didn't.
"The Democrats are the ones who were supposed to save us. It was their failure in this duty
that allowed the catastrophes to pile up."
It's not just the failure. It is cynical collaboration to placate the financially
powerful. The Republican project for at least the last 40 years has been to resurrect "Robber
Baron" era neo-feudalism with Republican leadership lining up for their share of the take.
Witness the breathless fawning of the likes of Scott Walker when he thought the prankster he
was talking to was a Koch. Mainstream media long accepted that political outcomes can be
bought, that lavishly funded lobbies can block popular initiatives and railroad publicly
distasteful ones, and feature fundraising scorecards as a measure of electability. As a
matter of fact, what does that say about our democratic process and equality under law? Back
in the 1980s Business Week featured a discussion of how manufactures and retailers were
backing away from a "middle class" centered focus to a "Tffany-Wallmart" strategy? Does such
a move support E Pluribus Unum or feudalistic social bifurcation?
Sadly, the Clinton, Obama, Biden school is way to focused on go along to get along, while
equity of opportunity and wealth, and equal protection under law has steadily diminished.
Obama, who campaigned on "change you can believe in" and "the audacity to hope" was less than
audacious when it came to the strangle-hold of too big to fail on the economy, and made them
even bigger. Yes, he was far more socially responsible than his predecessor but hob nobbed
with the "Great Recession's" architects and turned over redress for Mainstreet to the banks,
with predictable results. Many who voted for Trump were seeking any kind of change over more
of the same.
Better yet: progressive Democrats have realized a few key points:
* Medicare for all polls really damned well. Amazing well.
* Raising minimum wage polls really well. Hugely well.
* American progressive liberal policies, when not framed as such, poll really well. Americans
want these things. These issues are winners.
* Turnout. Turnout. Turnout. It is not about getting people who always vote Democratic at
every election to consider you. It is about getting people who do not regularly vote to
turnout at the polls. (Look at Spain where the threat of Vox encouraged huge numbers of women
to vote and the socialists and the left came out as winners.)
Biden is not on solid ground with issues supported by the electorate and catering to the
center is going g to repress turnout. (Which could have ugly down ticket implications.)
Biden is not centre. If you think mainstream Democrats are centre, you're already to the
right of people like the National Front (both UK and French). You're already a rabid
extremist. Even someone like Sanders would be considered fairly firmly centrist in the rest
of the free world. State funded health and education is accepted practice here, not a novel
socialist/communist fantasy that will turn you into a Soviet drone. It's what we pay taxes
for, not for a war machine to enforce business profit.
GOP is fascistic, Democrats are extreme right, Sanders is centrist...you don't actually
have a left at all.
"Elections are about preventing bad things from happening...:"
-- -- -- -- - That argument [ Elections are about preventing bad things from happening] is a double-edged sword. Many voters acted on that precept in 2016 which
accounts for the creature that now squats in the White House.
Saunders would have beaten Trump and brought real change
Are people who say this generally clueless or just unaware of the make up of Congress since
January 2017? What change could Sanders have brought? What bills were the Republicans going to pass that
Sanders would have signed? Do they not remember what Mitch McConnell said when Obama took
office? Do they imagine that McConnell would shift his focus from stymieing any chance of
enacting policies the president promoted with Sanders instead of Obama?
It's just about the most ridiculous claim a person could make about American politics.
Did you watching Bernie's townhall at Fox News? He seemed like he was in his 60s and handled
many tough questions well. He seemed to be winning over some of the independents and
conservatives in that crowd
Finally the Guardian gets something right. We don't need these Clinton Era holdovers and we don't need anymore Geriatrics in the White House.
There are some great new younger candidates who understand the modern economy, the corrupt
foreign policy and have good things to say. Try Yang and Gabbard. Get with the times
people.
"... The latest threat to impose new tariffs on imports from Mexico shows that Trump is interested in using economic threats and punishment mainly to pick fights, and then once he has picked the fight he cites the conflict he started as proof of how "tough" he is. He sets conditions that other governments cannot or will not meet, and then seeks to penalize them for "failing" to agree to unrealistic terms. The problem isn't just that Trump is liable to reverse course and sabotage his own agreements once they are made, but that other governments have absolutely no incentive to make an agreement with him in the first place. Trump never offers positive incentives for cooperation, but relies instead on inflicting economic pain in an attempt to bully the other government into submission. Of course, bullying tactics tend to backfire, especially when the bully's demands seem impossible or unreasonable. ..."
Kimberly Ann Elliott
warns about the consequences of the president's latest tantrum-cum-threat, this time
against Mexico:
Even if there is a deal, and the tariffs are averted, American negotiators will have to
deal with the consequences of Trump's bullying around the world. China, the European Union
and Japan are all in the midst of trade negotiations with the Trump administration, and their
leaders are warily watching what is going on. Under these circumstances, why would any of
them sign an agreement with the United States that Trump could undo with a tweet? [bold
mine-DL] The chances of successfully concluding trade negotiations with China, in particular,
just got a lot harder. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer reportedly wants to keep
some of the tariffs on Chinese exports and reserve the option to reimpose others as part of
an enforcement mechanism in any deal. Beijing was already resisting that demand and is now
likely to harden its opposition.
In the meantime, there is the other constant question of the Trump era: Where is Congress?
The Constitution delegates authority to regulate trade to Congress. For good reasons,
Congress began delegating some of that authority to the executive branch after its passage of
the Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation helped deepen and lengthen the Great Depression. Congress
also recognized that the executive branch needed flexibility to respond to international
emergencies and national security threats, and it has provided broad authority over the years
allowing the president to impose economic sanctions. But Trump has stretched that authority
beyond all recognition, while Congress has done nearly nothing in response.
The latest threat to impose new tariffs on imports from Mexico shows that Trump is
interested in using economic threats and punishment mainly to pick fights, and then once he has
picked the fight he cites the conflict he started as proof of how "tough" he is. He sets
conditions that other governments cannot or will not meet, and then seeks to penalize them for
"failing" to agree to unrealistic terms. The problem isn't just that Trump is liable to reverse
course and sabotage his own agreements once they are made, but that other governments have
absolutely no incentive to make an agreement with him in the first place. Trump never offers
positive incentives for cooperation, but relies instead on inflicting economic pain in an
attempt to bully the other government into submission. Of course, bullying tactics tend to
backfire, especially when the bully's demands seem impossible or unreasonable.
Congress' abdication of its responsibilities is an ongoing problem, but Trump's abuses of
power may be starting to wake them from their torpor. Trump keeps exploiting loopholes and
exceptions in existing laws that he can use to push through pointless, destructive tariffs or
outrageous arms sales to despotic governments. So far Congress has failed to push back and has
taken no action to close the loopholes that he has repeatedly abused, but between the bogus
arms sale "emergency" and this latest tariff threat that could be about to change. It certainly
needs to change before Trump's preference for waging economic war against everyone else throws
the economy into a recession.
There are at least some signs that members of the Senate are serious about fighting Trump's
bogus arms sale "emergency." Al-Monitor
reports :
During the interview in his office, Van Hollen said he "will be working through the
appropriations process" on the Senate foreign aid panel to place new restrictions on US
support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
He also vowed to close a loophole that the Trump administration recently used to bypass a
congressional hold on arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates by citing an
emergency threat posed by Iran. The Maryland Democrat argued that Trump has not provided
"good evidence" to justify the claim.
Opposing Trump on this bogus "emergency" will be a good start, and more members of Congress
need to do the same in response to these arbitrary and unnecessary tariffs. The president is
not just pushing through bad policies, but he is doing so by committing repeated abuses of
power. It is Congress' responsibility to check those abuses and rein in an executive that has
been out of control for far too long.
Another problem with his negotiating tactics is that they require the counterparty to accept
public humiliation. Imagine you had to represent a democratically elected government, or some
supreme council, and explain to your constituents why America's president bullied you and you
responded with concessions. How would that be tenable, even if the agreement had otherwise
good aspects for you? Countries will even spite themselves to avoid humiliation. This is
central to why Trump is really bad at making actual deals.
Add to that the whole point of trade agreements is to help commerce–but no one in
business can make long term plans when the tariff and regulatory regime is so erratic. You
can't make a deal based on expecting a 10% tariff on your goods when you have good reason the
tariff can be much higher or lower a month from now.
The problem is not limited to Trump. The problem is that the U.S. governance model is busted
in several dimensions. One being that Congressional transfer of power and authority to the
President is a one-way ratchet because of the requirement to overturn a certain veto for any
powers the Congress wants to rescind.
And the requirements to amend the Constitution amount to poison pills that can't be
effectively neutralized.
There are a lot of interdependent, even synergistic political pathologies happening right
now and I'm not sure that they can be fixed.
If Trump makes some of our vassals stand up for themselves and makes our Congress actually do
its job, then that will be some of the few good things to come from this Administration.
Trump's MO, as described above, has been in plain sight since his days as a developer in NYC
and NJ in the 80s. He's poison. Nobody in their right minds would deal with him.
The Democratic Congress is trying to do all kinds of things to stop or hinder trump. The
Republican Senate, on the other hand, is the body that has abdicated its responsibilities.
It's important to point out this difference and realize that there is no conservative party
in the US any more.
Yes, any clear minded American patriots should be talking about abuse of power by Trump, not
just obstruction of justice.
His primary method and strategy is to be thuggish and bullish, then lie his way out of the
consequences. The fact that he can continue to behave as he did is because he has yet to
experience the consequences of his actions.
His 90s or 80s percentile of favorable rating among the Republican base is his shield and
the leash that allows him to keep the Republican Congress docile.
As much as this scenario is scary it may be too kind. The thought that really scares me is
that he has the support of Republican base and Congress because Trump is embodiment of their
true nature. Trump is the true color of Republicans. Such is half our country, among our
families, neighbors, work places .
"... Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing , just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk. ..."
Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And
their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath
he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing
, just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our
opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk.
Here's Trump's hero ..
"One day, from his sniper nest, Chief Gallagher shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who
was walking w/ other girls on the riverbank. She dropped, clutching her stomach, & the
other girls dragged her away."
A mass murderer according to Senior Seals: "Would order needless risks, to fire rockets at
houses for no apparent reason. He routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge
& emptied the truck's heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on twith no discernible
targets."
"Platoon members said he spent much of his time in a hidden perch with a sniper rifle,
firing three or four times as often as other platoon snipers. They said he boasted about the
number of people he had killed, including women."
Two other snipers said, the chief shot an unarmed man in a white robe with a wispy white
beard. They said the man fell, a red blotch spreading on his back."
Gallagher ordered a hatchet & a hunting knife" before 2017 deployment. He texted the
man who made them (a Navy Seal veteran) shortly after arriving in Iraq: "I'll try and dig
that knife or hatchet on someone's skull!"
May 2017, a SEAL medic was treating a wounded 15 y/o Islamic State fighter. "He's mine,"
Gallagher said. "Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several
times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him."
He didn't even try to hide the murder of the 15 y/o. He brought other seals around minutes
later & took a photo over the body. Later, he texted the photo to a fellow SEAL in
California: "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Now Trumpies bear in mind that Gallagher's own fellow Seals testified against him
that's how depraved this guy Trump is pardoning is.
Here's Gallagher if you live in a stand your ground state and run into him shoot the
bastard, he'll have his hunting knife on him so you can claim self defense.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
Bernie Sanders showed up uninvited to a Walmart shareholders meeting Wednesday, blasting
what he called the retail giant's "starvation wages" and imploring it to pay people at
least $15 an hour.
But if you read further down
Sanders was invited to speak as a proxy for Walmart worker Cat Davis, a leader of the
pro-worker group United for Respect. It was Davis' proposal that Sanders pitched.
So was he invited or uninvited? Why is the lede contradicted by the 5th paragraph in?
Surely intentional, designed to make him look like a butt-in-ski rather than a proxy for a
WMT employee.
One of the most obvious and pervasive symptoms of our Empire's rapid decline and the
crapification of literally everything is the absolute dearth of copy editors worth a
damn.
Everyday when I do my Google News view I see at least one or sometimes two pure propaganda
hit pieces from the MSM trashing Sanders.
The one at below link is especially egregious in sandwiching a photo of Sanders with the
Russian flag on one side and Venezuela on the other. This is just a day or two after a story
showing a photo of him with a picture of two houses and a bag of money.
The Politico article about unions and the Green New Deal discusses the disconnect between unions and elected Democrats
while glossing over earlier policies that contributed to it. Unstated in the article is the years and decades that Democrats,
once elected, enact policies (NAFTA, allowing China in the WTO, etc.) that hurt unions. Democrats occasionally pass
legislation that tempers the decline of unions, but are always weak and less central than the party’s attempts to align with
business and Wall Street. The unions have justifiable fear that Democrats won’t help them when the time comes. And I don’t
think environmentalists are doing themselves any favors when using phrases like “just transition,” or emphasizing investments
in new technologies. These sound similar to what unions heard about the impact of the trade deals, which haven’t worked out
for union members.
Proponents of the Green New Deal should differentiate themselves from the Democratic proponents of free trade and similar
policies if they are to gain the support of unions. One aspect that I keep getting to is mandating that the construction and
operation of facilities must be done by unionized workers if it is to get government funding (including tax credits) or be
used to meet any mandates. I’m not sold on this idea, but at the very least it is something tangible for unions.
It is weird that Mayor Pete gets his facts wrong. George W Bush (43rd President) was very
much a Veteran; it is just that he flew F-102s for the Texas National Guard. He was the one
who was born on third base and thought that he hit a homerun. It was fairly well documented
that he slacked off his last year or so but Dan Rather screwed up his reporting and got
himself fired from CBS News. Karl Rove earned his money getting this all muddied up.
It is swift-boating to disparage anyone who has served in a combat zone. But, unlike Tulsi
Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg seems to be fine with the endless wars. Anyone who has served, at
least, knows that killing the enemy before they kill you is job #1. The problem is that a
cohort of 70 year old fogies are the last of the draftees that once included all able bodied
males. The endless wars have been going on so long now that the volunteers are showing up as
Mayors and Congress Persons. Except, 7 in 10 youths today would fail to qualify for military
service according to the Pentagon.
The Obama-Biden administration's theory of change: Waiting for the fever to break .
Valerie Jarrett admitting the Affordable Care Act was a Republican policy plan from Mitt
Romney in this way is important. It shows that many Democratic Party elites now know they
don't have to pursue centrism for imaginary Republican votes. pic.twitter.com/Qbu0g5R58j
— Waleed Shahid (@_waleedshahid) June 4,
2019
(I disagree with the Tweeter's comment, but this is the only copy of the video I can find.)
Biden's theory today, too ("
epiphany "). Ten years after the ObamaCare debacle.
"Voters are tuning out the health care debates" [
Axios ].
"In our focus groups with independent, Republican and Democratic voters in several
swing states and districts, the voters were only dimly aware of candidates' and elected
officials' health proposals. They did not see them as relevant to their own struggles paying
their medical bills or navigating the health system. Details: We conducted six focus groups in
three states (Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania), facilitated by Liz Hamel, the Kaiser Family
Foundation's director of Polling and Survey Research. Each one had 8–10 people who vote
regularly and said health care will be important in their presidential vote in 2020."
•
Hmm. Certainly does not jibe with rallies, Sanders' appearance on FOX, etc.
Warren (D)(1): "Elizabeth Warren's latest big idea is 'economic patriotism'" [
Vox ].
"The specific Warren proposal on this score has three parts, a Green Apollo
Program, a Green Marshall Plan, and a Green Industrial Mobilization. The Apollo Program is a
ten-fold increase in clean energy R&D funding, the Marshall Plan is a $100 billion
program to help foreign countries buy American-made clean technology, and the Industrial
Mobilization (which it would perhaps be more natural to call a 'Green New Deal,' were that
name not already taken) proposes a massive $1.5 trillion federal procurement initiative over
10 years to buy 'American-made clean, renewable, and emission free products for federal,
state, and local use and for export.'
That's roughly the scale of federal spending on defense
acquisition and would of course turn the federal government into a huge player in this
market."
• I bet Warren's policy shop didn't copy and paste from other proposals
either
Readers here are brainwashed. Industrial policy is based on a partnership between
manufacturing, banks and finance, government, and workers. All of these relationships are
built on trust and all the members stand to profit. This is the secret of Germany's and
Scandinavia's over 200 years of success. It is called stakeholder capitalism. It includes all
members of society. Germany is the world's largest exporter for a reason. It has
approximately 1,500 banks, 70% of them are non-profit and restricted to lending for loans
that are productive - create jobs and add value.
The English/American model of capitalism is called shareholder capitalism. Shareholder
because the owners are absentee landlords. The financial markets rule, all other members
serve. The communities are shells - people are distrustful of each other and of the social
institutions. Shareholders don't live in the communities that add the value. They are the
elites, and are spread throughout the world.
Readers here might not like Elizabeth Warren, and that's ok. I don't really like her. But
her ideas are good. No Republican or corporate Democrat would ever embrace her ideas.
The irony is that Trump campaigned on similar ideas as Warren's. Why do you people think
Trump is engaging in all the trade war rhetoric? It's for the same ends as Warren's ideas,
except her ideas are more complete. Trump doesn't bring enough to the table. He needs to
include labor, banks, manufacturers, and government. He hasn't because his ideas are not
developed.
All the blabber mouths on Zero Hedge complaining about how full of **** academia is and
now is your chance to actually stand for something. Do you think industrial policy is built
on "snowflake" studies in Harvard?
No, it's in vocational schools and mentoring. Apprenticeships, and so forth.
Un-*******-believable. Zero Hedge is no different from Rush Limbaugh, a big fat closeted
queen.
What ever happened to states rights? Ever increasing central governmental control is not
the answer, and was never intended to be. The Democrats spout about "Democracy!!!". This is
nothing of the sort. They are perfectly happy to tell someone in Nebraska what to do, even if
they have no idea corn grows in dirt. Narcissistic sociopaths is what they are. It's time to
neuter them.
Unfortunately, a fair number of people are listening to her. The article below warns that
her push towards socialism as many progressives, liberals, or those simply left of center are
proposing, would be a grave mistake. Socialism is not the answer to combating inequality.
Well, down here in Australia we had a Federal election a couple of weeks ago, and the
opposition party, the Labor Party(ie the equivalent of your Democrats) was soundly defeated
partially because of their radical "climate change" policies.
Quite obviously the left cannot grasp the fact that not everybody buys into the climate
change hoax/industry. After the election many "journalists" who work for our national
broadcaster, the ABC, which is funded by the Feds, came out on social media describing the
result as a catastrophe for the climate and branded Australians as stupid. Sound familiar,
just like a certain someone who labeled half of America as deplorables.
Australians are not stupid, and realised that the changes Labor were proposing were too
radical. Their plan called for a 45 percent reduction in emissions by 2030. It should be
noted that despite rhetoric to the contrary by Labor, it is a well established fact that
Australia is far exceeding it's Kyoto & Paris targets.
Yet, the Labor party wanted to take these steps.
Labor, a party which is supposed to be in support of the workers, had they have won
governmengt, would have no doubt done everything in their power to prevent the Adani coal
mine in Queensland going ahead!
FFS, what sort of a world are we living in where coal mining is viewed by the left as a
criminal activity?
The result of Labor's insanity, they did not win back a single seat in Qld, and in the
Hunter Valley in NSW, a massive coal mining town, one particular seat there has been held by
Labor for 25 years with a healthy margin. The local Labor candidate, Joel Fitzgibbon, managed
to still hold onto the seat despite a 20 percent swing against him!
The fact is, as I am sure you are all aware being intelligent people on ZH, is you cannot
take radical steps like what was proposed by Labor & in the process destroy the economy.
These changes, if they are to be implemented, need to happen over the course of decades,
four, five, maybe six, I don't know.
But more importantly, there needs to be serious discussion as to whether man made "climate
change" is real because it does not seem to be, and obviously the vast majority of people are
not buying into it. much to the chagrin of the left.
In Australia, and I am sure the same happens in America, the only people buying the
climate change ******** are the cafe latte/upper class inner city snobs.
The other thing that escapes the minds of the left in Australia is simple mathematics. We
are a population of 24 million in a world of 7.5 billion, that makes us 0.33 of 1 percent of
the world population. Even if Australia cut it's emissions to zero tomorrow, it will make no
difference to the world when we have China & India building coal fired power
stations.
Ironically, the high priest of climate change, Al Gore, is down here at the moment, in
Queensland of all places where voters told the left where to get off, on a $300,000 taxpayer
funded love-in. From memory, didn't Al Gore state in his doco in 2006 that within 10 years
the Earth would be facing a climate catastrophe? lol
You go girl.... Lynn Rothschild will back you once she counts con-tracts and loans
filtered back into her " All Inclusive Capitalism" banking system... She's got your back. She
was was only kiddig about rewrting an ecconomic plan for Hillary and ditching yours....xoxo
Lynn
"on Tuesday Elizabeth Warren proposed
spending $2 trillion on a new "green manufacturing" program that would invest in research
and exporting American clean energy technology."
"In my administration, we will stop making excuses. We will pursue aggressive new
government policies to support American workers."
"In my administration, we will NOT stop making excuses. We will pursue aggressive new
government TOTALITARIAN policies to support American Stalinist ideals ."
Neocon hawks are destroying US economics very effectively by supersizing military expenses and the costs of foreign wars.
Essentially Trump administration is acting in Israeli and Saudi interests in this case
Notable quotes:
"... Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different. The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. ..."
"... Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect. This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives to nod in agreement. ..."
"... Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of the administration's goals and means. ..."
"... Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless. ..."
"... Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian people. ..."
"... Of course this statement is not for Iran, it is for the U.S. public to make the case for 'we tried' when in actuality, 'we lied'. ..."
Pompeo
made a statement about talks with Iran that is much less meaningful than it seems:
The United States is prepared to engage with Iran without pre-conditions about its nuclear program but needs to see the country
behaving like "a normal nation", U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday.
Iran dismissed the offer as "word-play".
Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different.
The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what
Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing
to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. The report continues:
"We are certainly prepared to have that conversation when the Iranians can prove that they want to behave like a normal nation,"
he told a joint news conference with his Swiss counterpart Ignazio Cassis.
Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect.
This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives
to nod in agreement.
The Iranian government's dismissive response is to be expected. For one thing, the distrust between Washington and Tehran is
immense, so Iran's government is bound to view any offer with suspicion. The Iranian government has already explained what the U.S.
has to do if they want to talk about anything, and the administration has no intention of doing any of those things. As far as Iran
is concerned, their nuclear program isn't up for discussion, so what would be the point of meeting with U.S. officials when the
administration remains committed to its outrageous policy of economic warfare and collective punishment?
Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that
the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of
the administration's goals and means.
Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine
and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as
the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless
because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless.
There is an understandable temptation to seize on comments from administration officials as proof that they are giving up on
a destructive and fruitless policy, but until the administration translates its rhetorical gestures into actions we should assume
that the policy remains unchanged.
Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran
have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against
the Iranian people.
The exodus of qualified State Department careerists can't be plugged by promoting the likes of
Brian Hook.
Trump is trying to create a coalition of China Russia, India Iran and Turkey. That's an
interesting foreign policy strategy,
Are we really trading Britain, Canada, Germany, and Japan for … Israel and Saudi
Arabia ?
Notable quotes:
"... Ever since he embraced the Saudis and Emiratis early in his first year in office, he has been increasingly bound to them and has been eager to cater to their preferences as much as he can. His determination to be even more pro-Saudi than the average president has guaranteed that U.S. foreign policy has had less and less to do with American interests and has instead become a vehicle for promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense. ..."
"... He replaced them because they weren't as inclined to do the bidding of Israel and Saudi Arabia as they should have been. If you don't jump when Israel and Saudi Arabia say jump, you don't get the big campaign bucks. Transactional Trump understands that very well. Tillerson and McMaster didn't. Bolton and Pompeo not only understand it, they rely on it. ..."
"... I did not notice the name Sheldon Adelson mentioned and if we are looking for reasons for Trump's antipathy toward Iran, we need to recognize the fact of the large donations made by this ultra-Zionist to Trump's campaign. ..."
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal
back in September 2015. Credit: Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom
Andrew Bacevich comments
on the recent escalation of tensions with Iran and what it tells us about Trump's
presidency:
Again, the precise numbers are almost beside the point. In effect, Trump has drawn his own
line in the sand, one that says: "We ain't leaving, no sir." His decision -- was it really
his? -- is in effect a capitulation. Trump has deferred to the institutions, interests, and
individuals intent on perpetuating the forever wars. Devious and diabolical and brilliant,
the war party, abetted by its foreign auxiliaries, has prevailed. Trump will now surely
bequeath those wars to his successor -- that's the significance of the Iran war scare.
I agree with all of this. I would just add that this was a predictable outcome for a
president who chose to make antipathy to Iran the centerpiece of his foreign policy. Trump
could not extricate the U.S. from the region while simultaneously pursuing a more aggressive
anti-Iranian policy than his predecessor. The pursuit of that anti-Iranian policy has had a
great deal to do with the failure to bring U.S. involvement in multiple unnecessary wars to an
end. This was not something foisted on him by others, but has been his own doing from the
beginning. When his subordinates disagreed with him about the nuclear deal as Tillerson and
McMaster did, he replaced them sooner or later, and he chose even more bellicose and aggressive
people to take their place. He has signed off on every aggressive anti-Iranian and pro-Saudi
move he could. When faced with unprecedented Congressional opposition over the war on Yemen, he
chose to use his veto for only the second time in his presidency to reject Congress' demand
that he withdraw the U.S. from that war.
Ever since he embraced the Saudis and Emiratis early in his first year in office, he has
been increasingly bound to them and has been eager to cater to their preferences as much as he
can. His determination to be even more pro-Saudi than the average president has guaranteed that
U.S. foreign policy has had less and less to do with American interests and has instead become
a vehicle for promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense. It isn't
possible to disentangle the U.S. from ceaseless war in the Middle East when the president
abases himself to such an extent before despotic clients and takes their enemies as ours. The
Iran obsession has defined and wrecked Trump's foreign policy, and it has led him to make most
of the worst foreign policy decisions of his presidency.
Trump knows very little and had no foreign policy experience to speak of, and that made it
extremely easy for hawkish advisers to fill his head with their own terrible ideas. Those
advisers are undoubtedly responsible for egging Trump on to take destructive and aggressive
actions, but ultimately it is Trump's responsibility for surrounding himself with people that
everyone knew would give him such awful advice. No one made Trump choose Pompeo and Bolton. It
was his own vanity and his preference for flattering yes-men that led him to choose such
unworthy and dangerous people for important positions at the highest levels of the government.
Trump doesn't have the wit, knowledge, or conviction to take U.S. foreign policy in a
different, better direction, and to the extent that he occasionally has impulses that point in
that direction they are just as easily canceled out and overwhelmed by even stronger,
contradictory impulses that drive him toward confrontation and escalation. The war party
prevailed because the president sided with them from the beginning, filled his administration
with hard-liners, and fought against every effort in Congress to rein in and end our
government's illegal and unauthorized involvement in the war on Yemen.
Trump is not a Conservative, a Republican, a neo-con, nor even a RINO; he is a grifter,
and belligerence toward Iran is where his greatest profit can be made.
"When his subordinates disagreed with him about the nuclear deal as Tillerson and
McMaster did, he replaced them sooner or later, and he chose even more bellicose and
aggressive people to take their place."
He replaced them because they weren't as inclined to do the bidding of Israel and Saudi
Arabia as they should have been. If you don't jump when Israel and Saudi Arabia say jump, you
don't get the big campaign bucks. Transactional Trump understands that very well. Tillerson
and McMaster didn't. Bolton and Pompeo not only understand it, they rely on it.
@midway: I suspect without any hard evidence that Bolton and Pompeo got and keep their
jobs not because of dollars and sense, but something even more pathetic.
Namely, they flatter Trump and tell him he is "tough" in private, and do nothing to
upstage Trump in public.
midway: The really big campaign bucks were made possible by the Citizens United Supreme
Court decision back in 2010. The conservatives on the court then probably never realized they
were giving a handful of billionaires the power to have more influence on federal politics
than they had ever had before. If the US stumbles into a war with Iran in the next couple of
years, the little people wearing the MAGA caps will be worse off than ever.
"His determination to be even more pro-Saudi than the average president has guaranteed
that U.S. foreign policy has had less and less to do with American interests and has instead
become a vehicle for promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense."
Promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense it couldn't be put more clearly
than that. An even greater shame: this isn't part of some "great game"; we're led by a man
who wants to be seen as tough by men he sees as tough.
I did not notice the name Sheldon Adelson mentioned and if we are looking for reasons for
Trump's antipathy toward Iran, we need to recognize the fact of the large donations made by
this ultra-Zionist to Trump's campaign.
In a recent "off the record" conversation with Page Six's Cindy Adams, Clinton sounded off on
the sprawling field of Democrat presidential candidates. According to Adams, Clinton has "no
good words for Sanders, writing that the Obama-era secretary of state believes "Anyone
overtaking him in a district considered his, he'll burn the place down."
Clinton has blamed her own election loss to President Trump on former President Barack
Obama, fired FBI Director James Comey, the Democrat National Committee (DNC), and the nation
of Russia. She has also blamed Sanders, who begrudgingly endorsed her, declaring at the time
that she "will make an outstanding president."
span ed by The Voice In th... on Mon, 06/03/2019 - 6:04pm
@The Voice In the
Wilderness
As in "the Democratic elite are entitled to your vote."
"the Democratic elite are entitled to the party nomination."
"the Democratic elite are entitled to praise and worship from the progressives that they
betray."
OK. Maybe this
rules change isn't aimed directly at Tulsi Gabbard, but it certainly looks like she's in
danger of being it's biggest victim.
Presidential candidates looking to participate in the Democratic National Committee's
sanctioned primary debates initially had to meet one of two thresholds to be eligible:
achieving at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at least 65,000
donations with minimum of 200 donors from at least 20 states. ... To appear at the recently-announced third set of debates in September, candidates must
achieve 2% in at least four DNC-approved polls and double the minimum of number of donors to
130,000. That quickly became a death sentence for candidates who for months have not even
cracked the first donor threshold.
To make this clear, the requirements for the
THIRD
debate went from "at least 1% in three separate DNC approved polls or obtaining at
least 65,000 donations" to " 2% support in four national or early voting state polls AND
130,000 unique donors to their campaign, including 400 unique donors from at least 20
states". For most of the candidates, unless they really score in the first two debates, they won't be in
any more debates.
To help put this into context, consider what the DNC has been up to recently. They chose
Chris Korge as the new finance chair of the Democratic National Committee. Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez went on a hair-on-fire
rant about Russiagate.
"We are at war right now with the Russians -- it is a cyber war -- [and] our
commander-in-chief is compromised," Perez said. "We should be able to rely on the federal
government for help from this. ... It is unconscionable that this administration has paid
such little attention to what Mueller acknowledged today, [which is] Russian interference. "
Yes, the DNC is busy looking out for what is important to you.
Can anyone get that through their heads? Sanders is toast to them.
As an independent, I'm just sitting back and watching the show - Game of Demorats. Which rat
will rise to the top? Which rat will be placed on top? Now, that's the real question!
Do I believe the process will be fair? No, which is why, this time around, I will not change
my registration to DIM in order to vote in the primary. Let the rats fall where they may. I
will probably vote third party anyway or not at all. It will all depend on who is ALLOWED to
run and it probably ain't gonna be Bernie or Tulsi.
"... Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists, we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty " ..."
"... "Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border," ..."
"... "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools." ..."
"... had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group, Bellingcat. ..."
"... "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia". ..."
"... "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however, provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian Armed Forces." ..."
"... "comprehensive" ..."
"... "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" ..."
Who Shot Down Flight MH17 over Eastern Ukraine in 2014?
span ted by wendy davis on Sun, 06/02/2019 - 11:19am
Well of course it was the Evil Russians! Didn't Russians also shoot Roger Rabbit? We'd been discussing this 2014 interview with
Tulsi Gabbard on my post ' analyses of the leaked 'Deal of the Century'
I/P peace plan '
that I'd found that day and posted in comments, mainly wanting to feature her anti-Palestinian Hasbara. As I remember it, this 'blame'
started the horrific sanctions on Russia.
Tulsi: "While I agree that Russia is both directly and indirectly responsible for this downed plane shot down by the separatists,
we've got to look at this in the bigger picture. We've got to look at Russia's incursion into Ukraine, Ukraine's sovereignty "
TravelerXXX had bookmarked this Eric Zuesse exposé that I'd vaguely recalled and brought it in:
'MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine's Guilt Now Proven', December 31,
2018,
strategic-culture.org
It's about nine yards long with zillions of hyperlinks, so long I don't even guess I'd ever finished it, which makes it hard
to figure out what, if any, nuggets to feature, but he did link to this:
'MH-17: the untold story', 22
Oct,
2014, RT.com, including a 27-minute video documentary.
"Three months after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was brought down over Ukraine, there are still no definitive answers about
what caused the tragedy. Civil conflict in the area prevented international experts from conducting a full and thorough investigation.
The wreckage should have been collected and scrupulously re-assembled to identify all the damage, but this standard investigative
procedure was never carried out. Until that's done, evidence can only be gleaned from pictures of the debris, the flight recorders
(black boxes) and eye-witnesses testimonies. This may be enough to help build a picture of what really happened to the aircraft,
whether a rocket fired from the ground or a military jet fired on the doomed plane."
I'd later added to that thread, including some photos of a beaming Netanyahu holding a map of the Golan Heights that Herr Trump
had signed with his approval (indicating the leaked plan just may be The Real Deal) when Up Jumped the Devil:
'Where
is the evidence?' Malaysian PM says attempts to pin MH17 downing on Russia lack proof', 30 May,
2019, RT.com
"Malaysia has accepted the Dutch report that a 'Russian-made' missile shot down its civilian airliner MH17 over eastern Ukraine
in 2014, but has yet to see evidence it was fired by Russia, said Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.
"They are accusing Russia but where is the evidence?" Mahathir told reporters at the Japanese Foreign Correspondents Club (FCCJ)
in Tokyo on Thursday.
"You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians," the prime minister went on, according to the Malaysian state
news agency Bernama. "It could be by the rebels in Ukraine; it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile."
"Mahathir was skeptical that anyone involved with the Russian military could have launched the missile that struck the plane,
however, arguing that it would have been clear to professionals that the target was a civilian airliner.
"I don't think a very highly disciplined party is responsible for launching the missile," he said.
The Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT), whose report last year blamed Moscow for shooting down MH17, barred Russia from
participating in the investigation, but involved the government of Ukraine. Although Malaysia is also a member of JIT,Mahathir
revealed that his country's officials have been blocked from examining the plane's flight recorders.
"For some reason, Malaysia was not allowed to check the black box to see what happened," he said. "We
don't know why we are excluded from the examination but from the very beginning, we see too much politics in it."
"This is not a neutral kind of examination," Mahathir added.
Rejecting the JIT accusations, Russia made public the evidence the Dutch-led researchers refused to look into, including the
serial number of the missile that allegedly struck MH17, showing that it was manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1986 and was in
the arsenal of the Ukrainian army at the time of the tragedy."
b of Moon of Alabama offered this whopping 55 minute press conference video with Malaysian PM Mahathir on Twitter
on May 31.
But aha! RT had later provided on the left sidebar:
May 24,
2018: 'No
Russian missile system ever crossed into Ukraine: MoD rejects Dutch MH17 claims', RT.com
"The Russian Defense Ministry has rejected new claims that flight MH17 over Ukraine was downed by a missile from a Russian unit,
urging the Dutch-led probe to focus on studying hard facts instead of social media images.
"Not a single anti-aircraft missile system of the Russian Armed Forces has ever crossed the Russian-Ukrainian border,"
the defense ministry said in statement.
The Russian military raised eyebrows over "the determination of the Dutch-led investigation to justifying its conclusions
by solely using images from social networks that have been expertly altered with computer graphic editing tools."
The ministry pointed out that
the images used in the Joint Investigation Team (JIT) press conference on Thursday were provided by the Ukrainian special
services and had been previously displayed by the infamous British online investigative activist group,
Bellingcat.
The Dutch-led probe announced that the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July 2014 came from a Russian military
Buk system that crossed into Ukraine and then returned to its base in western Russia.
Investigators claim the missile system involved came from "the 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia".
The JIT essentially just repeated the conclusion made by Bellingcat a year ago.
The alarming part in the JIT probe is that "the Dutch investigators completely ignore and reject the
testimony of eyewitnesses from the nearby Ukrainian communities", according to the Defense Ministry. The testimonies, however,
provided essential information "indicating the launch of a missile was carried out from a territory controlled by the Ukrainian
Armed Forces."
The Russian side said that it provided the international probe with "comprehensive"evidence, including field tests,
which "clearly indicate the involvement of the Ukrainian Buk anti-aircraft system units" in the destruction of the plane
with 283 passengers and 15 crew members onboard."
This video that Eric Zuesse had up may be part of the referenced eye witness testimony.
"... From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran. ..."
"... This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA. ..."
"... Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us, and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies. ..."
"... It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy. ..."
John Bolton
repeats one of the Trump administration's biggest and most important lies:
Donald Trump's national security adviser said Wednesday there was "no reason" for Iran to back out of its nuclear deal with
world powers other than to seek atomic weapons, a year after the U.S. president unilaterally withdrew America from the accord.
Bolton and other administration officials have promoted the lie that Iran seeks nuclear weapons for months. Unfortunately, members
of Congress and the press have largely failed to call out these lies for what they are. There is no evidence to support the administration's
claims, and there is overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, but if they can get away with saying these things without being
challenged they may not need evidence to get the crisis that Bolton and others like him want.
In this case, the AP story just relays Bolton's false and misleading statements as if they should be taken seriously, and their
headline trumpets Bolton's dishonest insinuations as if they were credible. This is an unfortunate case of choosing the sensationalist,
eye-catching headline that misinforms the public on a very important issue. Bolton's latest remarks are especially pernicious because
they use Iran's modest reactions to Trump administration sanctions as evidence of Iran's imaginary intent to acquire weapons. The
U.S. has been trying to push Iran to abandon the deal for more than a year, and at the first sign that Iran begins to reduce its
compliance in order to push back against the administration's outrageous economic warfare Bolton tries to misrepresent it as proof
that they seek nuclear weapons. Don't fall for it, and don't trust anything Bolton says. Not only does he have a record of distorting
and manipulating intelligence to suit his purposes, but his longstanding desire for regime change and his ties to the Mujahideen-e
Khalq (MEK) make him an exceptionally unreliable person when it comes to any and all claims about the Iranian government.
The story provides some context, but still fails to challenge Bolton's assertions:
Bolton said that without more nuclear power plants, it made no sense for Iran to stockpile more low-enriched uranium as it
now plans to do. But the U.S. also earlier cut off Iran's ability to sell its uranium to Russia in exchange for unprocessed
yellow-cake uranium [bold mine-DK].
Iran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to offer better terms to the unraveling nuclear deal, otherwise it will resume
enrichment closer to weapons level. Bolton declined to say what the U.S. would do in response to that.
"There's no reason for them to do (higher enrichment) unless it is to reduce the breakout time to nuclear weapons," Bolton
said.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration ended the sanctions waivers that enabled Iran to ship its excess low-enriched uranium
out of the country. They made it practically impossible for Iran to do what they have been reliably doing for years, and now Bolton
blames Iran for the consequences of administration actions. The administration has deliberately put Iran in a bind so that they
either give up the enrichment that they are entitled to do under the JCPOA or exceed the restrictions on their stockpile so that
the U.S. can then accuse them of a violation. Left out in all of this is that the U.S. is no longer a party to the deal and violated
all of its commitments more than a year ago. Iran has patiently remained in compliance while the only party to breach the agreement
desperately hunts for a pretext to accuse them of some minor infraction.
Iran's record of full compliance with the JCPOA for more than three years hasn't mattered to Bolton and his allies in the slightest,
and they have had no problem reneging on U.S. commitments, but now the same ideologues that have wanted to destroy the deal from
the start insist on treating the deal's restrictions as sacrosanct. These same people have worked to engineer a situation in which
Iran may end up stockpiling more low-enriched uranium than they are supposed to have, and then seize on the situation they created
to spread lies about Iran's desire for nukes. It's all so obviously being done in bad faith, but then that is what we have come
to expect from Iran hawks and opponents of the nuclear deal. Don't let them get away with it.
The reason that Iran is threatening to enrich its uranium to a higher level is that the U.S. has been relentlessly sanctioning
them despite their total compliance with the terms of the JCPOA. The Trump administration has done all it could to deny Iran the
benefits of the deal, and then Bolton has the gall to say that they have no other reason to reduce their compliance. Of course Iran
does have another reason, and that is to put pressure on the other remaining parties to the deal to find a way to get Iran the benefits
it was promised. It is a small step taken in response to the administration's own destructive policy, and it is not evidence of
anything else. Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, and it is grossly irresponsible to treat unfounded administration claims about
this as anything other than propaganda and lies.
From what I have read, including excerpts of JCPOA, it seems that Iran's move to restart some low level enrichment is captured
in the agreement as something that Iran could do if the other party(ies) are in breach of the agreement. And at this time, the
US is not a party any longer and the EU is in breach by stopping any economic intercourse with Iran.
This should be reiterated again and again, because just mentioning that Iran unilaterally is starting enrichment puts a target
on their back especially in the United States of Amnesia, while they are still just doing only what is prescribed by the JCPOA.
Bolton's lying goes with his broad contempt for the American people. He treats us like contemptible sheep, he lies to us,
and then he tries to manipulate Trump into sending our sons and daughters to fight wars for his foreign buddies.
It is indeed remarkable in a very bad way that Bolton has any credibility to speak on issues. He has a very long track record of lie after lie after lie, going back to the build up for Iraq war. Indeed, he has never
acknowledged that Iraq war a monumental tragedy.
I think NK has it right to assert that Bolton is a defective human product.
"... Pompeo has shown some unexpected political savvy by distancing himself from the doomed "peace plan," which appears to be little more than a scheme to buy Palestinian capitulation through a combination of promises of Arab money and political strong-arming from the Gulf States and Israel. ..."
On May 28, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in New York City for a closed-door meeting with
the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. In remarks that were
covertly recorded and passed along to the Washington Post, Pompeo effectively declared that the
Middle East peace plan conjured by First Son-in-Law Jared Kushner was a non-starter and would
be rejected by most parties.
Instead of the "deal of the century" touted by President Donald
Trump, Pompeo conceded that the peace scheme was a losing proposition. "I get why people think
this is a deal that only Israel could love. I understand the perception of that. I just hope
everyone will give the space to listen and settle in a bit." Pompeo continued his blunt
remarks: "I don't want to call it failing. Call it whatever. I fail a lot, so it's not about
using a word like that."
Pompeo admitted that the State Department is giving a good deal of
attention to what to do next if the Kushner Plan flops.
Until Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu failed to put together a majority cabinet this
week and had to call snap elections for September, it had been expected that the long-awaited
Kushner Plan would be rolled out this month. Now the launch date is delayed until late
September or early October after a new Israeli government is formed and sworn in.
Pompeo has shown some unexpected political savvy by distancing himself from the doomed
"peace plan," which appears to be little more than a scheme to buy Palestinian capitulation
through a combination of promises of Arab money and political strong-arming from the Gulf
States and Israel.
"... Trump is Gambino family, Hillary (and Comey, et al) are Genoveses. All of them are sleaze, criminal, deep state. Samo-samo. Just one pile of dirt fighting another pile of dirt. ..."
Trump has always had divided loyalties and has always talked out of two sides of his
mouth. From day one the actual decision has been to be top *** rather than American. Israel
and Goldman Sachs. Israel counts for far more with him than America. If he has to choose
which Jews he has a problem. Then he goes for Zionists over banksters. It's when he can serve
both with the same stroke that he's in his element. Like recognizing Golan as Israel, for
both Bibi and Rothschilds, as land as as oil.
Trump is a *** in everything except the accident of his Scot Presbyterian mother. His
father a Zionist ***. His first two wives and possibly his third, Jews. Possibly all his
children, definitely all but one, Jews. His daughter Ivanka born a *** and then a fake
convert to Judaism. To fake the Deplorables.
Trump is revelling in playing top ***, fighting wars for the Jews, while suckers write
articles like this about his antiwar heart.
Oh please stfu. Poor anti-war Trump being helplessly entangled in wars by the neocons he
doesn't want to. He's the one that picked them lol. He's the one that openly admits he's
beholden to Israel and the Saudis. He's the one that openly vowed during election he'd
increase war machine spending. No one's making him do anything. He acts like he's antiwar
with his words only to make chumps think he's anti-war.
"Has anyone noticed the neat escape-responsibility manoeuvre Trump uses? Past presidents
have always consulted with their advisors and cabinet and presented a united front. Trump now
deflects responsibility by investing his appointees with, evidently, independent powers which
only he curtails. His cabinet apparently works independently from him. In some case, when
necessary, they are directly responsible to him. In other cases, where unnecessary, they go
"off the plantation" and make their own decisions...which, for some reason, he can't
overrule. Pretty nifty."
Classic case of playing good cop/bad cop. Trump is the "good cop" so he can keep pacifying
his idiot cult following, like the author of this article, and get reelected.
So there are two things I agree trump on and this is one of them. But even here his
thought process doesn't make sense. If you're going to fight a war mongering bureaucracy why
in the hell do you appoint war mongers as Sec of state and national security advisor? He's
better off appointing a couple of ***** dems than these assholes. He ensures those agencies
will fight him to the bitter end. He has yet to appoint one person who shares his philosophy
and I'm sure they're out there.
"Who knows?" -- when asked if, as president, he would start a war with China ,
New York Times interview, March 25, 2016
"When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they
make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of
the water." -- threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola,
Florida, Sept. 9, 2016
"This is the Trump theory on war. But I'm good at war. I've had a lot of wars of my own.
I'm really good at war. I love war in a certain way. But only when we win." Fort Dodge, Iowa,
Nov. 12, 2015
He appointed these three amigos under orders from the only person who supports him. And
now he lets them have enough rope to hang themselves, really make it obvious that they are
incompetent, and then he can fire them and start fresh in 2020. Without alienating his
support/money source.
All the so-called competent people turned up their noses at Trump, declining appointment
to his administration. **** them! They obviously aren't as competent nor as patriotic as they
thought they were. They have disqualified themselves, and good riddance!
The first truly competent, if reluctant appointee is Bill Barr. He does a good job, and
some other, equally competent and country-loving personalities will come out of the
crowd.
The only reason Betsy DeVos, the most incompetent Cabinet official in decades, hasn't been
pink-slipped is her mercenary brother and her husband's Amway fortune. She needs to be
encouraged out of office in 2020, if not before.
Never forget that the Biggest Patriot is the Biggest Idiot . A bit of a malleable fool and
thus a Useful Tool.
It takes more than physical bravery and allegiance to be a "Patriot".
It also takes a certain amount of (1)willful blindness , (2) moral hypocrisy
and (3) need to submit to a well-organised hierarchy . Do you think that this country
is lacking in such people?
Why people keep making excuses for Trump is beyond me.
Evaluate Trump not on hot air, but on action. Based on hot air Trump is completely
inconsistent. Based on actual behavior Trump is a very consistent Israel-First neocon
warmonger, and an extremely crude and corrupt one at that.
You nailed it. BTW, his cult makes excuses for him because it validates their original
vote and all the justifications they've had over time.
As I've always said, had you asked any American 10 years ago if they thought Trump would
be a good president, the answer would have been a unanimous "Are you ******* kidding? He'll
no!"
As a mostly full-fledged member of his "cult", let me explain. Trump has the entirety of
the Democrat party, half the Republican, and 2/3 of the judiciary against him. I'm amazed
he's done as well as he has. He's canned a large number of sleazebags in the FBI, and many
other functionaries in government suddenly decided they want to retire.
Just like an allstar
offensive player lined up against an allstar defensive player will win some and lose some, so
it is with Trump. You're full of ****.
The executive is only to act as Commander in Chief, raising armies and fighting wars, if
the Legislature declares war. As it stands, the executive is a military despot, maintaining a
standing armed force spread across the world and waging war without declaration or
justification.
It's a self insulated circle, where those volunteering swear an oath to uphold
the Constitution and defend it, but in reality they "just follow orders" regardless of how
blatantly unconstitutional the whole process and D.C. regime is.
Most immature comment of the week. Thats the theory in a beautiful ideal world. But the
reality is that very powerful entrenched interests are at play.
He's canned a large number of sleazebags in the FBI
The only deep state sleazebags fired that I can see were FBI execs involved in the coup
against Trump. Trump's motive was not justice, it was vengeance and self-defense. You call
that a house-cleaning?
Trump is Gambino family, Hillary (and Comey, et al) are Genoveses. All of them are sleaze,
criminal, deep state. Samo-samo. Just one pile of dirt fighting another pile of dirt.
Evaluate Trump not on hot air, but on action. Based on hot air Trump is completely
inconsistent. Based on actual behavior Trump is a very consistent Israel-First neocon
warmonger, and an extremely crude and corrupt one at that.
One of the early tells was that he's a philanderer, an adulterer, a cheapskate who doesn't
pay his contractors, but fosters this image of philanthropy, and who found out that you can't
*** Jewish bankers and get away with it. Unless you up the ante and tell them that you'll
further their political agenda if they put him in the WH.
It's not difficult to analyze Trump, if you keep your own emotional needs out of it, and
just look at the facts and behaviors. If you can't, then it says more about you than about
Trump. Maybe people with a specific type of defect in their moral compass identify
with the same defect in Trump's? It would explain a lot.
He pretends that he has a military background, but doesn't . Being shipped off to a Mil
academy doesn't count, even if it's beneficial to a wild child.
He pretended to pay his bills, but doesn't . The list of Gypped/Jewed/Screwed contractors
is a mile long, as is the list of bankers whom he forced into wild refinance, by using
Bankruptcy laws as a weapon.
He pretended to be a faithful husband, but wasn't . Two of his 3 marriages ended because
of adultery. He loves hot sluts who stroke his ego even better than his ****.
He pretended to look after the interests of Main St, but hasn't . Looking after Bibi
& The Likudniks doesn't count, nor should Wall St sharks.
He pretended to seek true Justice, but hasn't . Why is Hillary & The Gang still
free? Why did he disavow Assange?
He pretended to ramp down imperialism , but hasn't. He's ramped it UP.
He pretended to "Build the Wall", but hasn't . The Wall is the Fake Rabbit at the
Greyhound races: Useful to get the stupid dogs to perform on command.
He pretended to mend fences with Russia, but hasn't . "Russiagate" has become a very
useful ploy and cover to satisfy the MIC and Big Oil.
With all this overwhelming evidence, of people can't see him as he truly is, then the ONLY
explanation left is that they are mentally deficient, psychologically defective, and/or in on
(benefit from) his network of scams.
Why we did NOT have ww3 is beyond me in Syria.. Only once the GLOVES came off It happen
the last time I wrote this it was taken OFF immediately.. A peace deal was sign Derazor The
US Air Force came and Slaughter about 100 Syrian Army soldiers Apparentley There were 11
Russians soldiers Kill too.
This is a TRUE story The communication lines WERE OPEN The
Russians were SCREAMING on the HOT phone to STOP. They never responded just kept bombing.
This gets INTERESTING now.. Where are the ORDERS coming from to the US air force to BOMB It
was coming from Allepo. PUTIN order BOMB the HEAD QUARTERS of the COMMAND CENTRE giving these
orders. 3 BUNKER BUSTER BOMBS came a FLYING in.
Under ground head quarters was DESTROY. There
were roughly 30 military officers in that BUNKER EVAPORATED 5 mossad agents 5 US CIA agents
10 Saudi a few from Britan what ever. It was in ALL the NEWS PAPERS in Russia right across
the Middle east Al Jezerra on the NEWS.
Not a word mention in ISRAHELL and JUSA. So if there
was going to be WW3 that would of been the time. Thank God better heads prevail. Look like
PUTIN threw down the gauntlet.
I forgot after the US stop bombing Derazor ******* IMMEDIATELY ISIS attack *******
IMMEDIATELY No that wasn't plan. Just a coinincidence yeah that's it
Trump did not come across as a warmonger during the presidential campaign. When America
put Trump in office many of us were seeking a world where the leadership in Washington would
focus on bringing both jobs and money home rather than squandering it on foreign wars.
What has been happening in Washington is proof that the power of the swamp is very
resilient and may not be able to be drained. A strong case can be made that President Trump
has become a hostage of those occupying the very swamp he promised to drain. More on this in
the article below.
"Who knows?" -- when asked if, as president, he would start a war with China ,
New York Times interview, March 25, 2016
"When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they
make gestures at our people that they shouldn't be allowed to make, they will be shot out of
the water." -- threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola,
Florida, Sept. 9, 2016
"This is the Trump theory on war. But I'm good at war. I've had a lot of wars of my own.
I'm really good at war. I love war in a certain way. But only when we win." Fort Dodge, Iowa,
Nov. 12, 2015
The bureaucrats run the government , not the elected politicians who come and go and spend
more time collecting money to be reelected than ruling. All the democrat bureaucrats are
against him what is he left with? The warmongers republicans of the Bush Reagan era.
Bernie Sanders supporters are getting that familiar feeling that the DNC is conspiring to screw their favorite
candidate out of the Democratic nomination in 2020 - this time in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden,
according to the
Washington
Examiner
.
Biden's early domination over the rest of the Democrats - when Sanders had consistently been polling as the lead
contender - smacks of 2016, when the DNC and Clinton campaign worked together to ensure that Sanders was left in the
dust. Sanders, as some may recall, came to heel and rallied behind the former Secretary of State in her losing bid
to Donald Trump.
"The mainstream media and the
DNC
are
colluding against the American people. That's what it feels like. It's the same thing all over again," said
Massachusetts neuroscientist and Bernie Sanders supporter Laurie Cestnick, who founded Occupy DNC in order to
protest Clinton's nomination during the party's 2016 Philadelphia convention.
If they feel jilted again, Ms. Cestnick and fellow activists say
they
are not afraid to stage another revolt at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee
, even if
doing so damages the party's nominee ahead of the general election contest against President Trump.
Sanders
backers already mistrust polls
that show Mr. Biden with a commanding lead and the news
organizations that have put a spotlight on the former VP since he joined the race April 25. -
Washington
Examiner
"People are becoming more upset and becoming more firm behind Bernie due to mainstream media not covering a lot of
his events and the strong push for Biden," said Cestnick, adding "Is 2016 going to happen all over again? It is sure
feeling like it. But I tell you, they are going to see a fight like they have never seen before."
The DNC is trying to avoid a spectacle similar to 2016, in which Sanders delegates stormed off the convention floor
and staged
massive
protests
in the streets and parks surrounding the convention center (after which a Sanders adviser was
accused of
forcibly
kissing a subordinate
and suggesting she ride his 'pole').
According to Clinton campaign aides,
the
discord within the DNC after Philadelphia contributed to her narrow losses in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
DNC
Chairman Tom Perez attempted to heal the party by adopting new rules for debates and nomination ballots.
But
Mr.
Sanders
' supporters are unconvinced that the primary race is on the up and up.
The role of superdelegates -- elected officials,
DNC
members
and other party dignitaries who get to cast nominating votes at the convention for whomever they wish -- remains
a sore subject
. In 2016, the superdelegates' overwhelming support for Mrs. Clinton
gave
her an insurmountable lead heading into the convention
. -
Washington
Examiner
According to the report,
new
rules deny super delegates a vote in the first ballot at the convention
, which means that delegates selected in
primaries and caucuses will pick the nominee. If none is chosen the first time, the superdelegates can then vote and
potentially decide the outcome.
"If [superdelegates] pick the No. 2 or the No. 3 candidate, it is a recipe for disaster," according to Larry Snider,
president of Our Revolution Jacksonville, one of the more than 600 pro-
Sanders
grassroots
organizations that have persisted since 2016," adding "
I
expect the DNC to do the same thing they did in 2016.
"
And according to South Carolina state Rep. Terry Alexander - a 2016 Sanders delegate who is behind him again in
2020, "I really hope the DNC is better than that. I hope the DNC will let this thing play out for the people. What
happened in 2016, they wanted to dominate, they wanted to be in charge, they wanted to dictate and we got slammed,
the Democratic Party got slammed."
Faeriedust
,
11 hours ago
If the Democrats are stupid enough to run Biden against Trump in 2020 they'll lose as badly as
they did in 2016. And that will pave the way for AOC, who will turn 35 in October 2024, to
become the next President. So, it's their funeral.
stoxnbonz
,
13 hours ago
So plead your case in court now before it's too late. Again.
Ink Pusher
,
14 hours ago
BERNIE YOU ******* IDIOT!
What the **** did you think was going to happen?
The only reason they let you into their scenario was to SPLIT VOTES, you stubborn old ****.
Of course they are going to torpedo you at every opportunity to make Creepy Joe look good,
That's their M.O. .....
My advice to you is simple:
Drop out of the race now and Quit while you are still ahead and they might let you keep your
head instead of offering you up as a sacrifice on the altar of alleged democracy.
gdpetti
,
14 hours ago
And Uncle bernie plays along with it... only his 'supporters' don't 'get it'.... suckers.....
sheeple are always so easy to manipulate, aren't they? Why don't they ask about that court case
involving his wife's financial dealings? Bernie has to protect her, his own money and he's not
getting older... it's not like he believes all that crap, right? He's not as stupid as that AOC
puppet, right? Scamming their 'supporters' is what these puppets are for.... to corral the
herd...
Holden Hathaway
,
16 hours ago
They want your voters not YOUR POLICIES! They have perfected the art of robbing treasury for
themsleves. Fool me once shame on them for me twice shame on you. Free college how free will it
be when tutions go up another 300 percent and campaign donations from grifter endowments go up
in tandem. 30 years in congress and YOU are still the problem. YOU have solved nothing and
allowed the corruption to go on. YOU worshipped at the toe jam of Hillary for a house and new
car while she utilized a strap on to screw you. Leadership this is not.
Dormouse
,
19 hours ago
Again? What's this again ****? The old commie **** closed his mouth and capitulated last time.
Totally embarrassing. I'm imagine a president Bernout would fight just as hard for this country
too! He's a ******* loser.
ken
,
19 hours ago
Well, that's true.
AnngeloJamaica
,
20 hours ago
Bernie Supporters Say DNC Sabotaging Him Again By Promoting Biden.
If that is the case then Bernie does not have what it takes to lead any nation, he will always
be sabotaged and which appears to be his track record. Which does not a leader make. Which
makes him a pawn. Quite simple actually. A puppet is what a puppet is.
TheABaum
,
22 hours ago
Dumbass. They don't want you or your fantasies.
911bodysnatchers322
,
22 hours ago
Hey Crazy Bernie, how about you give up playing the acting role of perennial jewish loser
limited hangout and actually do your job, come up with a good plan and try to approach your
lawful president with respect and push that plan? You cannot win...the deepstate made it clear
when they not only stole from you, they hacked your campaign and tried to frame you for putting
a clinton person in your camp who hacked clintons campaign and almost sent YOU to jail. Then
stole the primary from you. Then blackmailed you and your wife into throwing your support to
Clinton, the woman who stole campaign donations from you, stole the primary from you,
blackmailed you, forced you on your knees to suck her c**k. How about you take a good long look
in the mirror and realize, finally, that these people in the CIA, the deepstate, the shadow
government, nato/uk crown agents like CIA operative CLinton, CIA operative comey, mccabe,
strzok, weiner, abedin...these people are NOT your friend Bernie. Why don't you try something
F*cking different, like craft a GOOD piece of legislation, and try your level best to reach out
to TRUMP who is actually a smart f*cking person who is reasonable, and try to salvage the waste
of time and effort your last 40 yrs have turned out to be? Just a thought. You dips*t ***
loser, hypocrite, liar coward I regret ever giving any money or kind words for.
Accorh1951
,
22 hours ago
Don't worry Bernie... The Dimwits have your back just like last time.......there is always room
for another warm body..just ask Joe!
911bodysnatchers322
,
22 hours ago
He'll lose again, of course..he's the designated loser ('worlds biggest loser'). The
question is, will he get on his knees and suck Biden's c*ck just like in 2016 when he was
forced to his knees to suck Hillarys' c*ck?
Uncle_Cuddles
,
1 day ago
Wonder if Creepy Joe will do better than Hitlery's 6-0 record in super delegate coin clips.
Effin cheater *****.
greek mafia
,
1 day ago
Newsflash: libtards still believe the MSM and their polls. Too stupid to learn.
skippy dinner
,
1 day ago
Re: "DNC Sabotaging [Sanders] Again By Promoting Biden" these sorts of things have a way of
backfiring.
The DNC is The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.
yogibear
,
1 day ago
Creepy. Joe.
Wonder how much hush money he paid out?
Anunnaki
,
1 day ago
Bernie bends the knee
911bodysnatchers322
,
22 hours ago
Great name for a band
Anunnaki
,
1 day ago
Milwaukee for your convention, eh Dims? Always a day late and a dollar short
I am Groot
,
1 day ago
Stupid old communist must have Alzheimer's. He can't remember 2016 ? Of course it's all fixed !
My only real question is if Bernie actually won the Presidency somehow, how the Hell would he
get his Moby **** of a wife through the front door of the White House ? They would have to pull
the roof off and lower her in with a crane.
BabaLooey
,
1 day ago
Bolshie Bernie is getting flim-flammed again.
Could not happen to a nicer commie.
Go admire the Metro
in Moscow Sanders.
It's Pedo Joe's "turn"....
LOL
Even 007 gave to this shitbag. Here I thought Craig was smart..................
Biden gonna have to buy him off with a speedboat to go with the lake front mansion Hellary
bought him
I am Groot
,
1 day ago
And maybe a nice horse blanket for his wife.
naps8906
,
1 day ago
Of course, because Bernie supporters are too stupid... Democrats are not for democracy.. they
dont give **** what voters vote
4tunate1
,
1 day ago
Hey Bernie go large and start the first Communist political party in the USA! Don't hide in the
closet let your colors fly!
unsafe-space-time
,
1 day ago
Biden is just a fake nominee to be beaten. Like hillary was for obama. Even sanders can beat
him. The commiekratz will get a viable candidate or they will throw the election because trump
is the last neocon president anyway and they need someone to blame for the next war and economic
collapse. The next potus after trump will be a real Bolshevik.
ZebraAlpha
,
1 day ago
Grow some spine, Bernie, run as an independent.
unsafe-space-time
,
1 day ago
Isn't the communist party alive and well in the us?
greek mafia
,
1 day ago
Does he forfeit his lakehouse if he dies that?
911bodysnatchers322
,
22 hours ago
He won't. He's a designated loser. He is actually an actor. A live action role player.
They all are. He's playing the role of the perennial jewish loser. He bragged about
federally legalizing cannabis, and when I saw his bill, it was a paragraph maybe written by
someone with a 10th grade education and referred to cannabis as MARIHUANA. Wtf. that's the
moment I knew Sanders was a total fake.
Insurrexion
,
1 day ago
We need a picture of
Biden and Bernie ******* each other for Fox news.
Anunnaki
,
1 day ago
Steverino666 probably has one
RufusMacDuff
,
23 hours ago
Wasn't he in the pics as pivot man?
Big Fat Bastard
,
1 day ago
Westminster, CO
Housing Prices Crater 18% YOY As Denver Area Housing Bust Accelerates
Bernie supporters better shut the **** up or they will be getting the Seth Rich treatment from
the DNC.
Demeter55
,
1 day ago
You only now noticed, Bernie? Slow learner.
Jacksons Ghost
,
1 day ago
Ya, no **** Bernie, wake the **** up. Here is some more news; Creepy Joe is just a holder for
Hillary. Joe will mysteriously implode/get ill/gaff, then Hillary will swoop in as most viable
candidate and be the nominee. Get ready Bernie, you are getting fucked again.
Anunnaki
,
1 day ago
Close. Qtip is a seat filler for Mike Obama
Flybyknight
,
1 day ago
I think Bernie knows his role is to come second while keeping a big chunk of the sheeple voting
Democrat
Promethus
,
1 day ago
I think Bernie runs to build the Bernie brand and not to get elected. He's like the
Washington Generals that lame all white basketball team that the Harlem Globetrotters beat
every time.
SHsparx
,
1 day ago
And he won't do or say **** but bow down and kiss the ring.
"... Inertia often reigns because no one in this administration ever seems to know what the boss wants; his mind changes from moment to moment and he has the attention span of a toddler in the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese. ..."
"... A few days ago, Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair reported, "The White House's chaotic policymaking process can best be viewed as a series of collisions between Donald Trump's I-alone-can-fix-it campaign boasts and reality. ..."
"... One thing that has been a throughline in the nation's history is that you cannot have democracy or sustain freedom at home if the global context is shaped by militarism, racism and corporate power. ..."
"... the way we've fought the kind of forever wars for the last 15 years, the Iraq war at the center, where you have failed intelligence as the basis for a truly regional catastrophe. It delegitimized the national security establishment as the grownups in the room ..."
"... We're at this extraordinary moment in which the bipartisan foreign policy establishment is discredited. ..."
That's why the president's shambolic foreign policy can be both a curse and a sort of
blessing. On the one hand, his inchoate fumbling and lack of coherent doctrine has us upending
the planet and could at any moment walk us right off a cliff and down into major fresh hell. On
the other, this same haplessness and uncertainty has kept some truly gruesome ideas from being
implemented. Inertia often reigns because no one in this administration ever seems to know
what the boss wants; his mind changes from moment to moment and he has the attention span of a
toddler in the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese.
A few days ago, Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair reported, "The White House's chaotic
policymaking process can best be viewed as a series of collisions between Donald Trump's
I-alone-can-fix-it campaign boasts and reality.
So far, damage from these crashes with the real world has been contained to domestic
issues.
... ... ...
More important, according to polling, foreign policy issues just don't register among voters
right now. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found only 11 percent listing national
security and terrorism as a top government priority -- down from 21 percent four years ago.
Of course, it would only take a major attack on US soil, an event like the Iranian hostage
crisis in 1979 that stretched through the 1980 election campaign, or a sudden American
intervention overseas to snap the public's attention back to reality. But this current
indifference may also reflect a general distrust of various iterations of the national
security/foreign policy establishment that since the end of World War II has made most of the
decisions on these issues -- with some success but often with disastrous outcomes.
Which is why I attended a morning panel a week and a half ago at the City University of New
York titled "The Making of a Progressive Foreign Policy." Moderated by historian Steve Fraser,
it was essentially a conversation between Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The
Nation, and constitutional law professor Aziz Rana, author of The Two Faces of American
Freedom.
"I think the key in this presidential campaign should be a focus on how we prevent war, not
how we wage war," vanden Heuvel said. "There should be new institutions that appear in this
period of ferment that speak to a social democratic, demilitarized, deescalating kind of
foreign policy .... One thing that has been a throughline in the nation's history is that
you cannot have democracy or sustain freedom at home if the global context is shaped by
militarism, racism and corporate power. "
Aziz Rana agreed, and added, "This is a really remarkable moment in the life of the country
but also in terms of thinking about alternatives to the national security establishment when it
comes to foreign policy for a number of reasons that kind of join together. One is the way in
which the way we've fought the kind of forever wars for the last 15 years, the Iraq war at the
center, where you have failed intelligence as the basis for a truly regional catastrophe. It
delegitimized the national security establishment as the grownups in the room."
Yes, vanden Heuvel noted, " We're at this extraordinary moment in which the bipartisan
foreign policy establishment is discredited. But that demands activist movements to drive
forward, to show how discredited they are, because Washington is a glacial institution... But
you know, zombies can keep on moving for long periods of time and I think it's our job to
continue to expose as well as struggle against."
"... Devious and diabolical and brilliant, the war party, abetted by its foreign auxiliaries, has prevailed. Trump will now surely bequeath those wars to his successor -- that's the significance of the Iran war scare. ..."
"... "When his subordinates disagreed with him about the nuclear deal as Tillerson and McMaster did, he replaced them sooner or later, and he chose even more bellicose and aggressive people to take their place." ..."
"... He replaced them because they weren't as inclined to do the bidding of Israel and Saudi Arabia as they should have been. If you don't jump when Israel and Saudi Arabia say jump, you don't get the big campaign bucks. Transactional Trump understands that very well. Tillerson and McMaster didn't. Bolton and Pompeo not only understand it, they rely on it. ..."
"... "His determination to be even more pro-Saudi than the average president has guaranteed that U.S. foreign policy has had less and less to do with American interests and has instead become a vehicle for promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense." ..."
"... I did not notice the name Sheldon Adelson mentioned and if we are looking for reasons for Trump's antipathy toward Iran, we need to recognize the fact of the large donations made by this ultra-Zionist to Trump's campaign. ..."
Andrew Bacevich
comments
on
the recent escalation of tensions with Iran and what it tells us about Trump's presidency:
Again, the precise numbers are almost beside the point. In effect, Trump has drawn his own line in the sand, one that says:
"We ain't leaving, no sir." His decision -- was it really his? -- is in effect a capitulation. Trump has deferred to the
institutions, interests, and individuals intent on perpetuating the forever wars. Devious and diabolical and brilliant, the
war party, abetted by its foreign auxiliaries, has prevailed. Trump will now surely bequeath those wars to his
successor -- that's the significance of the Iran war scare.
I agree with all of this. I would just add that this was a predictable outcome for a president who chose to make antipathy to
Iran the centerpiece of his foreign policy. Trump could not extricate the U.S. from the region while simultaneously pursuing a
more aggressive anti-Iranian policy than his predecessor. The pursuit of that anti-Iranian policy has had a great deal to do
with the failure to bring U.S. involvement in multiple unnecessary wars to an end. This was not something foisted on him by
others, but has been his own doing from the beginning. When his subordinates disagreed with him about the nuclear deal as
Tillerson and McMaster did, he replaced them sooner or later, and he chose even more bellicose and aggressive people to take
their place. He has signed off on every aggressive anti-Iranian and pro-Saudi move he could. When faced with unprecedented
Congressional opposition over the war on Yemen, he chose to use his veto for only the second time in his presidency to reject
Congress' demand that he withdraw the U.S. from that war.
Ever since he embraced the Saudis and Emiratis early in his first year in office, he has been increasingly bound to them and has
been eager to cater to their preferences as much as he can. His determination to be even more pro-Saudi than the average
president has guaranteed that U.S. foreign policy has had less and less to do with American interests and has instead become a
vehicle for promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense. It isn't possible to disentangle the U.S. from ceaseless
war in the Middle East when the president abases himself to such an extent before despotic clients and takes their enemies as
ours. The Iran obsession has defined and wrecked Trump's foreign policy, and it has led him to make most of the worst foreign
policy decisions of his presidency.
Trump knows very little and had no foreign policy experience to speak of, and that made it extremely easy for hawkish advisers
to fill his head with their own terrible ideas. Those advisers are undoubtedly responsible for egging Trump on to take
destructive and aggressive actions, but ultimately it is Trump's responsibility for surrounding himself with people that
everyone knew would give him such awful advice. No one made Trump choose Pompeo and Bolton. It was his own vanity and his
preference for flattering yes-men that led him to choose such unworthy and dangerous people for important positions at the
highest levels of the government. Trump doesn't have the wit, knowledge, or conviction to take U.S. foreign policy in a
different, better direction, and to the extent that he occasionally has impulses that point in that direction they are just as
easily canceled out and overwhelmed by even stronger, contradictory impulses that drive him toward confrontation and escalation.
The war party prevailed because the president sided with them from the beginning, filled his administration with hard-liners,
and fought against every effort in Congress to rein in and end our government's illegal and unauthorized involvement in the war
on Yemen.
Trump is not a Conservative, a Republican, a neo-con, nor even a RINO; he is a grifter, and belligerence toward Iran
is where his greatest profit can be made.
"When his subordinates disagreed with him about the nuclear deal as Tillerson and McMaster did, he replaced them
sooner or later, and he chose even more bellicose and aggressive people to take their place."
He replaced them because they weren't as inclined to do the bidding of Israel and Saudi Arabia as they should have
been. If you don't jump when Israel and Saudi Arabia say jump, you don't get the big campaign bucks. Transactional
Trump understands that very well. Tillerson and McMaster didn't. Bolton and Pompeo not only understand it, they rely
on it.
@midway: I suspect without any hard evidence that Bolton and Pompeo got and keep their jobs not because of dollars
and sense, but something even more pathetic.
Namely, they flatter Trump and tell him he is "tough" in private, and do nothing to upstage Trump in public.
midway: The really big campaign bucks were made possible by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision back in 2010.
The conservatives on the court then probably never realized they were giving a handful of billionaires the power to
have more influence on federal politics than they had ever had before. If the US stumbles into a war with Iran in
the next couple of years, the little people wearing the MAGA caps will be worse off than ever.
"His determination to be even more pro-Saudi than the average president has guaranteed that U.S. foreign policy has
had less and less to do with American interests and has instead become a vehicle for promoting the ambitions of
regional clients at our expense."
Promoting the ambitions of regional clients at our expense it couldn't be put more clearly than that. An even
greater shame: this isn't part of some "great game"; we're led by a man who wants to be seen as tough by men he sees
as tough.
I did not notice the name Sheldon Adelson mentioned and if we are looking for reasons for Trump's antipathy toward
Iran, we need to recognize the fact of the large donations made by this ultra-Zionist to Trump's campaign.
"... For one, the Arabs know that Ivanka is calling the shots -- and that the president's fashion-focused daughter is behind the branding of the sexually androgynous, intellectually inchoate production that is Jared Kushner. If you think that's something Arabs respect, you don't know Shiite from Shinola . ..."
"... Then there's Bibi Netanyahu's ingenious, Israel First tactics. You have to be a special kind of dumb -- Jared and Ivanka dumb -- to imagine you can present Bibi with a plan to fix his part of the world. The Israeli prime minister will make the right noises and will have Jared for breakfast. ..."
"... As the Economist noted derisively -- its writers, too, are radicals in the mold of Jared and Ivanka -- Netanyahu is no radical. He is a reactionary nationalist. Temperamentally conservative," and "wary of change," as all true conservatives ought to be, Netanyahu "governs as if Israel needs no change." The Israeli prime minister has even passed nation-state legislation consecrating Israel as the home of the Jewish people. ..."
"... In case you're unfamiliar with Bibi's base -- supporters of Likud since the party's inception -- they are, "Voters from conservative religious and working-class backgrounds, Russian-speaking immigrants and Mizrahi Jews (who are descended from immigrants from the Arab world)." The political equivalent of Trump's deplorables. ..."
"... "We will forever live by the sword." Bibi's words in 2015. ..."
Let us begin with our debutant's Middle East peace plan, the thing his father-in-law calls
"the deal of the century."
The notion of Jared solving the Israeli-Palestinian vexation is laughable, perhaps the
dumbest thing ever. You just know this is a vain Ivanka move to brand the region and add it to
her CV. (Ivanka, to those who don't know, is
intent on riding to the presidency herself on her father's coattails.)
The Arabs slated to partake in the Kushner summit, Bahraini, Saudi and Emirati participants,
are likely laughing the hardest.
For one, the Arabs know that Ivanka is calling the shots -- and that the president's
fashion-focused daughter is behind the branding of the sexually androgynous, intellectually
inchoate production that is Jared Kushner. If you think that's something Arabs respect, you
don't know Shiite
from Shinola .
Wily Arabs are hip to White House dynamics. They know who's running the West Wing and who to
flatter. Some in the region have even given Donald Trump a
dubious honorific , Abu Ivanka al-Amriki. Being known as "father of Ivanka the
American" is, of course, no honor in the muscular, manly Middle East.
The timing of the Kushner peace plan is especially asinine. For all the upheaval in the
region, the Palestinian Problem has nevertheless dropped off the geopolitical radar as an
urgent matter to resolve.
For better or for worse, the two sides are locked in a deadly, tightly choreographed dance.
The Palestinians rise in frustration and fury; the Israelis respond with overwhelming force.
The world then offers-up perfunctory sympathy for the Palestinians. Everybody moves on.
It's just the way it is. The world has become desensitized to the plight of the
Palestinians.
Take the Economist -- a liberal, pro-Palestinian, most excellent weekly. Its editors
cogitated but briefly over the Israeli army's last use of excessive force against the
M.O.P.E (Most Oppressed People Ever), concluding nonchalantly that, "Every state has a right to
defend its borders." "It is time for Palestinians to take up genuine non-violence."
Understandably, the Palestinians will have no truck with the Trump administration.
Then there's Bibi Netanyahu's ingenious, Israel First tactics. You have to be a special
kind of dumb -- Jared and Ivanka dumb -- to imagine you can present Bibi with a plan to fix his
part of the world. The Israeli prime minister will make the right noises and will have Jared
for breakfast.
Netanyahu has been busy befriending "
once hostile neighbors and has gained the respect of world leaders ." Like himself, his new
friends (the murderous Saudi regime is among them) don't seem to care much that Israel's
"supposedly temporary occupation [of 4.5 million Palestinians] has become permanent
conquest."
Don't blame me for dishing Middle Eastern realpolitik. These are just the facts and the
deductions therefrom.
By the
Economist's telling , Mr. Netanyahu's strategy toward the Palestinians is a finely honed
"anti-solutionism." Netanyahu "has sought to convince Israelis that the conflict can be
managed, if the right people are put in charge of managing it, and thus need not be
solved."
From experience, Netanyahu knows that an "anti-solutionism" puts his army and him in
control, to better deliver on the security needs of the Israelis. This makes Bibi even more of
a mystery to the self-aggrandizing Kushners. After all, they are not acting in America's
self-interest. A provincial leader who does just that is anathema to the mindset dominant in
America.
Like him or not, the conservative, patriotic Bibi will not allow Jared Kushner to steer
Israel in a radical direction. Instead, Bibi will likely let The American rattle on about
radical change (which he, Jared, will not have to live through), and will quietly ignore him in
favor of maintaining the safer status quo.
You see, the Israeli prime minister is a grizzled old warrior -- and a true populist, the
kind that builds walls to protect his people and passes
laws to safeguard their ancient patrimony.
Netanyahu and his new Sunni partners will make polite noises and then shrug off this
Middle-East plan with a hearty laugh and some good arak , behind Jared's slender, sylphlike
back.
As the Economist noted derisively -- its writers, too, are radicals in the mold of Jared
and Ivanka -- Netanyahu is no radical. He is a reactionary nationalist. Temperamentally
conservative," and "wary of change," as all true conservatives ought to be, Netanyahu "governs
as if Israel needs no change." The Israeli prime minister has even passed nation-state
legislation consecrating Israel as the home of the Jewish people.
But by golly, Bibi will give the first-couple-in-waiting good hospitality -- leading Ivanka
and her poodle to "think" they succeeded in plastering their brand on the region. Then he'll
send Ivanka's emissary packing, to be celebrated by his clueless American fans.
And the region will return to its old ways.
Bibi, moreover, reads his voters well. The appetite for the charade that are the
Israeli-Palestinians peace talks has diminished. "The percentage of Israelis favoring talks
with the Palestinians has dropped from over 70 percent to closer to 50 percent over the past
decade. Among Mr. Netanyahu's supporters it is 30 percent."
In case you're unfamiliar with Bibi's base -- supporters of Likud since the party's
inception -- they are, "Voters from conservative religious and working-class backgrounds,
Russian-speaking immigrants and Mizrahi Jews (who are descended from immigrants from the Arab
world)." The political equivalent of Trump's deplorables.
To sum, "should it ever to arrive," Mr. and Mrs. Kushner's peace plan "will be dead on
arrival."
Americans like Jared and Ivanka don't know the past and show little respect for it.
Netanyahu, however, understands history and what it portends for the future. "Because the
Palestinian issue cannot be solved," Bibi's statecraft entails
preparing his people for a reality they understand all too well:
"We will forever live by the sword." Bibi's words in 2015.
Let us wrap-up on a more mirthful note. Here's some stuff our oracular Mr. Jared has
said
about rainbows and unicorns in the Middle East: "Progress could 'look like a lot of different
things." "Success 'can look like an agreement, it can look like a discussion, it could lead to
closer cooperation, maybe resolve a couple of issues."
Solid assessment. Bibi’s ruthlessness in pursuit of his people’s interests is
something I wish my people’s leaders would emulate. Instead, they buy into the Israeli
gaslighting and flattery and beclown themselves with paens to
“Judeo-Christianity,” “America’s greatest ally,” and “the
ME’s only democracy.”
It’s debatable whether Bibi’s “forever war” is in fact in the best
interests of Israeli Jews, but no one can credibly claim he’s a tool of foreign
powers.
The Empire, on the other hand, is most definitely in thrall to a people whose American
diaspora makes up less than 3% of its population.
I take issue with Mercer’s characterization of The Economist as
“excellent.” It may have been at one time. I dropped my subscription decades ago
when I realized it was a globalist propaganda rag.
I wish Trump would just keep his moron SIL on Israel-Palestinian affairs only. Who cares
if he F’s it all up. It’d be no different from where it was 10, 20, 50 years ago.
But everything Jared touches turns to shite, including his POS prison reform plan and
atrocious immigration bill. Trump’s turned into a POS because he put his POS SIL in
charge of everything, incl. his signature campaign issue, immigration.
Javanka is the worst thing to happen to America. Without these two treasonous rats Trump
might have saved the country, now he’s just another swamp creature.
Netanyahu (and most Israelis) don’t want the problem be resoved, neither does
Mahmoud Abbas (and most Palestinians). Abbas has already explicitly stated that he will not
accept the plan whatever it is. Under such circumstances the only result of Jared’s and
Ivanka’s mission might be that Ivanka will get some lucrative contracts for selling her
designer shoes in the Middle East, like she did in China. God help us if ever this naive and
ignorant woman will run for president!
Shorter Ilana……’the dogs bark, the caravan moves on.’
Meanwhile Netanyahu is in deep doodoo. After winning the election he failed to form a
majority party. So there will be a do over election. This means the PIECE Plan is dead for
the time being.
Here’s the Kushner, Greenblatt, Friedman peace plan. Its not new. Its a transfer
plan.
The Jerusalem Summit
Assessment
1. The conventional-wisdom paradigm for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
has failed woefully, bringing nothing but misery and despair to both sides – but
particularly to the Palestinians as individual human beings.
[Hide MORE]
2. This conventional paradigm has attempted to solve the conflict by means of a Political
Approach involving the establishment of a self governing Palestinian entity on territories in
Judea Samaria and Gaza which have been under Israeli control since 1967 i.e. on the basis of
a “Land for Peace” approach.
3. Dispassionate assessment of the history of the conflict and its current development
will strongly suggest that persisting with attempts to attain a political solution on the
basis the conventional paradigm are at best futile – and at worse harmful. Accordingly,
alternative modes of resolution must be pursued.
B. Analysis
1. Analysis of Palestinian deeds and declarations over the years make it difficult to
avoid the conclusion that they are in effect both unwilling and incapable of achieving and
maintaining statehood.
(a) Palestinian Unwillingness: This is reflected in the fact that the Palestinians have
rejected every single viable proposal which would have afforded them a state – from the
1947 partition plan to the 2000 Barak proposals.
(b) Palestinian Incapability: The Palestinian national movement has enjoyed conditions far
more favorable than almost any other national independence movement since WW-II –
widespread international endorsement of their cause, unmitigated support of a superpower in
the decades of the Cold War, highly sympathetic coverage by the major media organizations,
and over a decade of Israeli administrations who have acknowledged (and at times even
identified with) the Palestinians declared national aspiration. In spite of this, the
achievements of Palestinian national movement have been more miserable than almost any other
national independence movement – bringing nothing but privation and penury to its
people.
2. It is thus far easier to understand Palestinian conduct if one assumes that it is driven
less by lack of Palestinian self determination and more by the very the existence of Jewish
self determination; less by the aspiration to establish a Palestinian state and more by the
aspiration to dismantle a Jewish state.
3. The latter, and seemingly more plausible, explanation of Palestinian behavior –
i.e. rejection of Jewish self determination and the dismantling of the Jewish nation state
– reflects an agenda totally unacceptable by any international standards and thus must
be branded as devoid of any legitimacy.
4. Accordingly if the accepted version of the Palestinian narrative – i.e. a desire
for Palestinian self determination and the aspiration for Palestinian statehood –
cannot be reconciled with the history of Palestinian behavior, this narrative also must be
branded as devoid of any legitimacy.
5. This issue of legitimacy of narrative is crucial. Indeed the very fuel of the Political
Paradigm involving the establishment of a Palestinian state is the perception – or
rather the misperception – of the presently prevailing Palestinian narrative as
legitimate.
C. Conclusion
1. The establishment of a Palestinian State must removed from the international
agenda.
2. However, removing the issue of a Palestinian state from the international agenda will
not eliminate the humanitarian predicament of Palestinians residing in Israeli-administered
areas.
3. This is clearly an issue that must be addressed and resolved. But it must be addressed
not in political terms but in humanitarian ones.
4. Thus, to successfully resolve the Palestinian problem, the Political Paradigm must be
replaced by a Humanitarian Paradigm. This, however can only be done if the current
Palestinian narrative, which fuels the Political Paradigm, is de-legitimized.
5. Thus, the de-legitimization of the Palestinian narrative becomes a vital prerequisite to
any comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian issue.
D. Proposal
1. A comprehensive Humanitarian Approach to the Palestinian issue would entail three major
elements:
(a) The dissolution of UNRWA – which will end the discriminatory treatment of the
Palestinians with regard to their status as refugees;
(b) The termination of ethnic discrimination against Palestinians , living in the Arab
world – which will end the discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians with regard to
their status as residents;
(c) Generous relocation grants to Palestinians living in Israeli administered territories
on an individual basis and not via any official Palestinian organization.
2. UNRWA is an organization that perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem. It is an
anomalous organization which exists solely to deal with Palestinian refugees, while all the
other refugees on the face of the globe are dealt with by the UN High Commission for Refugees
(UNHCR).
3. The organizations not only deal differently with the refugees under their auspices,
they each have different definitions for classifying an individual as a
“refugee”.
4. This difference in definition has far-ranging consequences. For in contrast to the
UNHCR definition, which results in a decline in the number of refugees over time, the UNRWA
definition leads to an inflation of the number.
5. In fact, if the UNHCR’s otherwise universal definition were applied to the
Palestinian case, the number of refugees would decline from 4-5 million to 200-300,000 i.e.
by over 90%!!
6. It thus appears that UNWRA is perpetuating the very problem it was designed to
eliminate.
7. Accordingly, the dissolution of UNRWA is an essential prerequisite for any comprehensive,
durable settlement of the Palestinian issue.
8. With the dissolution of UNWRA, the remaining, and drastically reduced, number of
Palestinian refugees, should be placed under the auspices of UNHCR – in accordance with
the accepted practice for all other refugee groups on the face of the globe.
9. Those Palestinians no longer classed as refugees under the new arrangements, must be
offered all the privileges afforded all other peoples resident in their current countries of
domicile in the Arab world — including the right to acquire citizenship.
10. In order to do this, a vigorous diplomatic and media campaign must be mounted to
induce Arab governments to end their harsh discriminatory behavior towards the millions of
Palestinians domiciled in their countries and absorb them into their societies as fully
fledged citizens. After all, even the Palestinians assert (in the opening paragraph of their
National Covenant) that they are “part of the Arab Nation”.
11. As for the Palestinians resident in Israeli administered territory, there is only one
reasonable and feasible alternative that will facilitate:
(a) extricating them from their dire humanitarian plight;
(b) free them from the yoke of generations of misrule by their leadership;
(c) ensure the survival of Israel as the nation-state of the Jews.
12. This is a generous relocation and resettlement package to allow them to build a new
life for themselves and their families in countries preferably, but not necessarily
exclusively, with similar religious and socio-cultural conditions.
13. In order to minimize the ability of organized Palestinian interest groups to impede
the success of such an effort, the offer of financial inducement to emigrate must be
“atomized” – i.e. made to individual Palestinian breadwinners on a one-to
one personal level and not on a communal level via some formal Palestinian entity.
14. A survey conducted among the Palestinians in Nov. 2004 indicates that only about 15% of
the Palestinian population resident in Israeli administered areas would reject such an offer
outright. By contrast, over 70% would accept some form of material compensation as an
inducement to emigrate permanently from the areas currently under Israeli administration (see
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/news.php?news=102
)
15. The economic cost of such a policy of generously financed humanitarian relocation and
resettlement would be eminently affordable and would compare favorably with almost all other
settlement proposals on the table today. Indeed, its total cost would be around 50% of the
present total US outlay on the War in Iraq!!
16. Indeed, given Israel’s present level of GDP, it is an initiative that it could
well undertake on its own over the next decade to a decade and a half. It should be realized
that this is the period that has elapsed since the initiation of the Oslo process –
which has brought nothing but failure and tragedy at the cost of billions of dollars and
thousands of lives.
17. Of course, if the US, the EU and other developed nations were to contribute to this
effort, it could be implemented in a far shorter space of time and with almost no burden on
the world economy.
18. Quite the opposite, the Palestinians arriving in their new countries of domicile will
not be impoverished refugees but reasonably affluent émigrés. The funds that
they would be bringing with them would provide a considerable boost for the economies of
these nations – most of which would be developing countries with a pressing need for
such a substantial influx of funds.
E. Summary
The proposed initiative constitutes a “win-win” proposal which will:
Alleviate, and even eliminate, the humanitarian plight of individual Palestinians
Ensure the continued security and survival of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish
people
Provide a Significant Boost to the Economies of the Developing World
Transform poverty stricken refugees into affluent émigrés
How can one write meaningfully about the Kushners without mentioning that they are
Chabadniks? To understand the significance, one must understand Jared’s family
background and the virulent malevolence of supremacist Chabad. http://judaism.is/kushner.html
The Palestinians rise in frustration and fury; the Israelis respond with overwhelming
force. The world then offers-up perfunctory sympathy for the Palestinians. Everybody moves
on
——————————————————————————————————-
Interesting that after getting their butts kicked every time, when the smoke clears,
there’s another Pal. kid is still throwing rocks at israeli soldiers. I don’t
know how it will happen but somehow the Pals are going to win this thing.
So much wrong with this, where to start. The Economist is not excellent, The Economist
only supports Israel to have the right to protect its borders, Kusher is a jewish supremacist
that has given absolute everything to Israel, the Arabs taking part in these ethnic cleansing
talks are all corrupt puppets and how no real support in their countries.
This is all makes sense if one knows that this woman is an anti white jew. Its time to
deport this anti white crusader back to South Africa, she was after all very eager to destroy
the country the whites built, why should she not suffer the consequences of her actions and
beliefs?
What I find curious about Israel is that they are backed by the world’s most
powerful military force, they get infinite money, almost any high-tech military hardware they
want, an international propaganda aparatus that exonerates them regardless of what they do,
and an entire population that is militarized, and yet with all these advantages going on 70
years, these jews CANNOT even colonize a tiny desert strip of the Levant. Unbelievable.
Really, how incompetent are jews? Forget Eretz Israel. That requires conquering people much
more dangerous and resilient than poor Palestinian peasants. It’s like jews are
incapable of building. Destruction is all they know.
Israel will fail.
Like their Soviet Union failed.
Everything a jew touches fails.
Javanka is the worst thing to happen to America. Without these two treasonous rats Trump
might have saved the country, now he’s just another swamp creature.
Trump is a denizen of the swamp….a Deep State sycophant. Javanka is allowed to be
‘treasonous’ by her daddy. You have the cart before the horse.
Can’t have the possibility that a Palestinian genocide bump the Holocaust from the
headlines. As it is now every Jewish holiday, they can celebrate historic bloodshed with
Palestinian bloodshed. Oh and not to forget, all those rock tossing kids have organs to be
harvested for Israel’s growing transplant industry.
Brilliant article, Ilana. I love the term Abu Ivanka al Amriki. If that isn’t
derisive, I don’t know what is. Trump has already turned off a part of his base in
regard that Jared and Ivanka still having too much to say in the administration. The sooner
he gets rid of them (don’t hold your breath), the better off the nation will be. The
only pressure I can see Trump bending to in regard to Bimbo & Boy Bimbo is that of the
military – one of the few institutions that he respects. Since Obama cleared the
military of a lot of its good men, leaving it with career-minded slimeballs, one wonders who
in the military would have to cojonees to put that kind of pressure on Trump? If Ivanka
thinks having her eye on the presidency is realistic, she better think twice. I’d
ALMOST contemplate voting for Ocasio-Cortez for a micro-second before I’d go that
route. Unfortunately, the Palestinians are disposable. They have nothing to offer anyone in
realpolitik. Muslims and Arabs will make all kinds of noise, but not seriously risk a thread
of their wives’ burkhas. Only human compassion motivates activism on behalf of the
Palestinians. Yes, Bibi will have Jared & Ivanka’s heads spinning and dazed by the
time their plane lands back in the US. Ah well, such is realpolitik.
Jews had made a mess of Europe until WWII because they were always treated as the
outsiders, not allowed to own land, etc., so they stuck together as a group for survival and
to thrive. But things are different now, esp. in the US, they are outsiders no more. Why do
Jews continue to stick together as a tribe, still refusing to assimilate, wanting the US to
go to more wars on behalf of Israel, and encouraging open borders and multiculturalism so
that they are not the only out group against a white majority. Why won’t they
assimilate?
I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s all because of Israel. Israel needs for
the diaspora to stay loyal to the tribe to ensure it’s survival. That’s why they
are going out of their way to build the holocaust museum, because Judaism is losing its
appeal as more Jews become secular, they need to keep them loyal to the tribe on a new
religion: Holocaustianity.
As long as there is an Israel, Jews will never assimilate, and the world will always be in
chaos. For the world to achieve peace, Israel Must DIE.
Girly man a.k.a. Lucifer in the flesh’s Mideast Peace Plan is dead on arrival
because China and Russia ain’t drinking his poisonous KoolAid, unlike his dumb FIL who
chugs it by the bucket:
"... There are numerous NGOs that act on behalf of Israel in the U.S., examples being CUFI, JINSA, AIPAC and the Chabad Lubbivitcher sect. ..."
"... For, if the real intention had been to "get" Trump post election -- and not make him a sympathetic character to the average American -- an investigation would have focused on the "Russian" mafia and their banks, Israeli intel, Trump's bankruptcies (and who got him out of them) and the Chabad Lubbavitcher sect. Does anyone really believe that a U.S. legislature that previously violated protocol and invited Bibi Netanyahu to the U.S. on its own -- and then gave him more than 15 standing ovations -- would impeach the man who gave Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Israel? This is sheer nonsense -- theater intended to sway the gullible public. ..."
"... In fact, Adelson even funds a major newspaper in Israel -- Israel Today -- that has helped keep Netanyahu in power. (The 85-year-old and his wife Miriam gave $82-million+ to Republicans and candidate Trump in 2016.) But, alas, this alone is not enough to account for the election upset (if that was what it was.) ..."
"... In order for Trump to win, it would be necessary to swing a small percentage of disaffected white Americans from both parties. That small percentage (8%-10%) is now referred to as the "Alt Right." ..."
"... It should be remembered that, during the 2016 campaign, Hillary had discussed creating a private non-monitored hotline to Netanyahu when she was elected [12] ) ..."
"... So, the unhinged and unprecedented frothing-at-the-mouth rage towards Trump displayed by the worst of the Neocons (Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, etc.) is all part of the ruse? ..."
"... entire deep state apparatus, with international assistance swung into action with the phony Mueller investigation was a sure sign that Trump's platform was never going to be allowed. ..."
"... "When a public is stressed and confused, a big lie told repeatedly and unchallenged can become accepted truth." ~George Orwell ..."
"... As for Flynn: he knew about many of the misdeeds of the previous administration. They took advantage of a neophyte administration fending off Sally Yates Russian Collusion initiative via a corrupt FBI Director to pressure them to let Flynn go – a terrible newbie mistake telegraphing weakness to all his enemies. ..."
"... So that being said, what's his point. That Trump is exceptionally corrupt despite no collusion with Russia because he's controlled by Izzies? ..."
The Mueller Report is done, and from the digest made public, its conclusion of no collusion to "fix" the last election by the
Russian or "other" foreign governments does not surprise me. I agree with this conclusion. These foreign governments would, presumably,
include Israel. However, in the case of Israel, I believe this may be a question of semantics.There is, I believe, considerable
evidence that non-governmental forces acting on behalf of Israel succeeded in placing an individual in charge of the U.S. who is
currently redirecting the power and financial resources of the nation to almost entirely serve the interests of a foreign power.
(And that entity is not Russia!)
There are numerous NGOs that act on behalf of Israel in the U.S., examples being CUFI, JINSA, AIPAC and the Chabad Lubbivitcher
sect. There are many super-wealthy patrons of Israel and the Netanyahu government, such as Sheldon Adelson, that were involved
in Trump's election. Finally there are shadowy private Israeli contractors, such as those referred to by Cambridge Analytica's Alexander
Nix, and the so-called "Russian" mafia, which is reputedly controlled by individuals loyal to Israel. Trump apparently has had business
proximity in the past to such entities and their bank.
[1]
First indication along these lines can be deduced from special prosecutor Robert Mueller's indictment of General Michael Flynn
[2]
. Flynn admits lying to FBI agents about his conversations with Sergey Kislyak, then-Russian Ambassador to the United States,
in December 2016, when Trump was president-elect. Apparently acting on orders from Jared Kushner, Trump's senior advisor and son-in-law,
Flynn contacted Kislyak to ask if Russia would delay or veto a UN Security Council vote criticizing Israeli settlements. It's certainly
a stretch to see how aiding and abetting actions illegal under international law would benefit the U.S. or Trump's MAGA agenda.
Empirical evidence of the preceding and a good example of the type of Israelocentric policy making that came in with the election
of Mr. Trump can be found in the book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House .
[2a] There author Michael
Wolff relates an alleged conversation between former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and Roger Ailes, the former CEO of
Fox News. Bannon reportedly told Ailes that Trump, Bibi Netanyahu and Trump-Netanyahu backer Sheldon Adelson are in agreement with
moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. The national interests of the U.S. and possible international ramifications of this act apparently
were not considered.
Trump's reaction to Bannon's alleged statement: "When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind."
"Donald Trump is the Zionist water boy in the Oval Office. Trump's collusion was never with the Russian government; it was always
with the Bolshevik/Ashkenazi/Zionist mafia (the new Deep State) that has now ousted the old Clinton-Bush mafia (the old Deep State)
from power. And that coup was stunningly successful and swift. Accordingly, Donald Trump has faithfully filled his administration
with quintessential Zionist insiders -- including Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Elliot Abrams, Gary Cohn, Steve
Mnuchin, Wilbur Ross, David Friedman, Jared Kushner, et al.," comments America's most courageous evangelist, Chuck Baldwin, "God
help us." [3]
MAGA -- Make America Great Again -- was widely believed to be a spontaneous outpouring of authentic nationalistic sentiment embodied
by President Donald Trump. Trump's election was initially welcomed by some countries as a government acting in the actual self-interest
of the U.S. because it would be far more predictable than one acting for hidden interests. And Trump's election, promising to reduce
the footprint of the U.S. abroad, offered the hope of rolling back the push toward a world war.
Alas, much as was the case with the so-called "Arab Spring", these hopes did not materialize and U.S. interventions overseas
have grown. Often, these are somehow related to the interests of the Israeli state and its Likud government:
Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal and placed new sanctions on Iran, in accordance with the wishes of Netanyahu
and Sheldon Adelson. On April 22 nd , for instance, oil prices jumped 3% as the Trump administration promised to remove
sanction waivers on Iran oil
[4] -- which had allowed
countries such as India to continue buying Iranian oil -- prompting threats from Iran to close the Straits of Hormuz for this violation
of the nuclear disarmament treaty. American consumers could pay soaring prices on all their purchases for this act which demonstrably
is connected to pre-election planning by backers of Israel with the Trump campaign. (Apparently fearing that this would cause a
major rift with India, further alienate Turkey, and scuttle hopes of a trade agreement with China, Trump quietly reversed course
to give these countries another year to comply, further demonstrating the Israelocentric monomania of the Neocon-Zionists vs. the
actual interests of the U.S.) The ongoing negotiations with North Korea appear centered on its "giving up" Iranian nuclear and missile
secrets -- as well as destroying its own offensive missile capabilities -- in return for normalization. Trump recently vetoed a
bill to pull U.S. troops out of Yemen and their support of the Saudi aggression (apparently as part of a deal to have Saudi Arabia
guarantee Arab support for Trump and Jared Kushner's new Mid-East "peace plan".) Trump's promises of reducing involvement in Syria
appear stalled and the U.S. continues the de facto support of he partition of Syria (A future Kurdistan may well become a
part of Eretz Israel in the future -- the Barzani brothers were trained by Israel and articles have appeared linking the Kurds to
the genetics of the Israeli population) as well as the protection of the evacuation of key ISIS operatives. In South America, war
is on the horizon as Neocons move to topple Venezuela -- going so far as to name an alternative president. Venezuela's heavy crude
is key to diesel production and China has substantial claims on it (which might not be honored if they don't play ball with Trump.)
And the restructuring of South America may also play a role in the creation of a "New Israel" in Patagonia -- a potential evacuation
zone of Jews from Israel, the U.S., Canada and elsewhere in the event of war or national chaos -- where Israeli operatives are reported
to be extremely active.
[4a] Meanwhile, President Trump has destroyed the last vestiges of international law relating to conquest of territory by aggressive
warfare, as in the case of the 1967 Mideast War. He has ceded control of territory so seized (recognizing Israeli conquest of East
Jerusalem and Syria's Golan Heights) despite U.S. membership in the U.N., which was created to prevent such events in the future
so as to make war less attractive. Was this done for any specific U.S. benefit? I think not. But it may have something to do with
President Trump's "fabulous" new Mideast peace plan that is similar to Bill Clinton's fabulous new peace plan. Possibly to pressure
Europe to support the redrawing of the Mid East, the Trump administration is expected to launch a tariff war with the EU starting
this May. (This will apparently follow an expected superficial agreement with China during the same period.) And money for Israel
has not been stinted either. Military aid for Israel apparently avoided the budget ax in Trump's 2020 fiscal plan sent to Congress.
It includes the full $3.3-billion in assistance promised under a 10-year memorandum of understanding, despite spending cuts in other
sectors affecting American interests throughout the proposal.
[5]
While the interests of the Israeli ally have been thoroughly protected, in the economic sphere, Trump's MAGA has been something
of a train wreck for Trump's populist supporters on main street. Their indebtedness has soared
[6]
while the interest on savings (for the 40-something percent of those who have any) dropped to near zero. They got tax breaks
that were temporary (as opposed to the massive permanent tax cuts for corporations who are often heavily indebted to large banks)
and then, many learned they wouldn't be getting their usual annual tax refunds due to quirks in the tax law -- something that has
hit the retail economy hard. Wall St. and the big banks have certainly prospered. U.S. Corporations were allowed to repatriate huge
sums of money with no strings attached. And what did they do with this money? Did they invest in infrastructure, job training of
Americans and building/retooling of factories as President Trump should have insisted? No, they used it for stock buybacks and acquisitions
-- mostly paper shuffling -- that has kept the stock market propped up.
Trump's tariff war, meanwhile, has imposed new costs on average Americans -- not on the Chinese -- with industrial production
dropping or remaining flat and U.S. trade deficits soaring. The ham-handed imposition of tariffs without corresponding domestic
industrial capacity may also have destroyed some of America's backbone and staunch Trump supporters -- farmers on small- and mid-sized
farms. Large amounts of corn and soybeans were placed in silos awaiting the end of Trump's "trade war". These have mostly been destroyed
by record flooding and are NOT covered by crop insurance. Many of these farmers will go bankrupt and big agribusiness may ultimately
take over their land. (And the "farm bailouts" announced by Trump will mainly go to large farms and big agribusiness -- including
farms owned by Chinese interests!)
In a nutshell, Trump "jazzed" a brief economic recovery in the U.S. with massive tax cuts for big business and temporary cuts
for voters (more bark than bite variety) while increasing the national debt, which these same overtaxed voters will ultimately be
on the hook for. At the same time Trump "jawboned" the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy so interest rates wouldn't rise as
a result of the vast increase in national indebtedness. He has laid the groundwork for eventual hyperinflation (or hyper-stagflation)
that may well ruin more of his middle class voters after the 2020 election.
"Manufacturing production ( in March -- Ed. ) was flat after dropping in January and February. In the first three months
of the year, factory output fell at an annual rate of 1.1%. Production of cars, truck and auto parts dropped 2.5% in March and 4.5%
over the past year." [7]
The Cass Freight Index, a measure of truck shipments indicative of overall economic activity is down for the fourth consecutive
month year-over-year. [8]
Sales of Class 8 trucks (18-wheelers) hit the ditch in January, with orders down 58 percent from a year ago hitting a level
not seen since October 2016, near the end of the transportation recession, "when Class-8 truck orders had plunged to the lowest
levels since 2009, and truck and engine manufacturers responded with layoffs," writes Wolf Richter.
[9]
American businesses expanded in April at the slowest pace in 31 months, according to IHS Markit's survey of business executives.
IHS Markit's flash PMI for services slipped to 52.9 from 55.3, while the manufacturing index was flat at 52.4. Any number over 50
signifies expansion. "The U.S. economy started the second quarter with its weakest expansion since mid-2016 as businesses reported
a marked slowing in output, new orders and hiring," said Chris Williamson, chief business economist at IHS Markit "
[10]
"Manufacturing production has pivoted to the downside in the first quarter of the year, showing the revival in factories and
output is sputtering for the first time since the Trump economics team took office," said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG
in New York. "The trade war and America First policies have not brought factories back home yet."
[11]
What about immigration? While President Trump "talks the talk" he has failed to close the border as previous presidents have
done and seems more interested in expanding the H1B program for large corporate interests instead of retraining Americans to fill
at least some of the gap of necessary skills . He allows American soldiers to be captured and disarmed by the Mexican military
inside U.S. borders (as happened recently without a proportionate response) and the rate of "catch and release" has soared
due to lack of internment facilities. America is filled with unemployed (U6 -- the real unemployment rate -- is 3 times higher than
the publicized rate and many of the real jobs are part time and multiple jobs can be held by a single person), homeless and homeless
camps, yet we need hordes of unskilled labor pouring into the country? Trump proposes to dump refugees in sanctuary cities, which
sounds nice until one realizes that these cities will simply give the refugees tickets to go elsewhere in America. (This already
happens in some places in the U.S. where indigents are given tickets to go elsewhere.)
The empirical evidence is therefore clear. Trump's announced program vs. what he has actually delivered to nationalist voters
who supported him is what a Hollywood Western town is to a real Western town: it is only a facade. (It should be remembered that
Steve Bannon, one of the chief architects of the Trump victory, went from being a Goldman Sachs investment banker to being a Hollywood
movie director!) The only plausible explanation? That the Neocon-Zionist power structure co-opted the authentic nationalist sentiments
of Americans for their own ends and disguised this control with "Pepe": a neo-Nazi green frog "front man" wearing a red "MAGA" ball
cap. It stands to reason that such potent and capable forces are the real source of President Trump's power.
Amazingly, Trump's approval rating remains surprisingly high despite the outcome. Part of this may be the unwillingness of average
people to believe their vote counted for nothing and they are heading for the same outcome as if Hillary Clinton had been elected.
Then there is something called the Galileo gambit (also called the "Galileo fallacy.") This informal logical fallacy is a way to
convince listeners (or viewers) that a questionable leader (or his policies) are good despite evidence to the contrary. I believe
this was accomplished using the Russian meddling meme and having the establishment media -- widely distrusted by Trump supporters
-- pile on Trump. For, if the real intention had been to "get" Trump post election -- and not make him a sympathetic character
to the average American -- an investigation would have focused on the "Russian" mafia and their banks, Israeli intel, Trump's bankruptcies
(and who got him out of them) and the Chabad Lubbavitcher sect. Does anyone really believe that a U.S. legislature that previously
violated protocol and invited Bibi Netanyahu to the U.S. on its own -- and then gave him more than 15 standing ovations -- would
impeach the man who gave Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Israel? This is sheer nonsense -- theater intended to sway the gullible
public.
To make a case for the election of Trump being a soft takeover of the U.S., it's necessary to examine how this might have been
accomplished. It is child's play to hack Diebold voting machines for which no paper trails exist. But due to the nature of such
rigging it would likely be impossible to prove, say, a hypothesis that Hillary had some machines in key states rigged and "someone's"
black ops unrigged them. We also know one of Trump's major backers, the Zionist Sheldon Adelson, is also the main backer of Netanyahu
in Israel. In fact, Adelson even funds a major newspaper in Israel -- Israel Today -- that has helped keep Netanyahu in power.
(The 85-year-old and his wife Miriam gave $82-million+ to Republicans and candidate Trump in 2016.) But, alas, this alone is not
enough to account for the election upset (if that was what it was.)
America is pretty well divided by party and elections are typically very close. There is a block of Israeli-indoctrinated Pentecostal
and "Christian Zionist" voters that could deliver 20% of votes. But many of these are already on the Republican rolls. In order
for Trump to win, it would be necessary to swing a small percentage of disaffected white Americans from both parties. That small
percentage (8%-10%) is now referred to as the "Alt Right."
And it is the Alt Right -- comprised of voters who might otherwise not have voted in the election -- that swung the election
coupled with the divisive campaign of Hillary Clinton, which many middle class Americans found odious. (It must be remembered how
quickly Trump backed off his "jail Hillary" meme at the conclusion of the election. Was this also play acting? It should be
remembered that, during the 2016 campaign, Hillary had discussed creating a private non-monitored hotline to Netanyahu when she
was elected [12] )
So, we may start with the genesis of this Alt Right movement. Which was in Israel. Breitbart News, the flagship of the Alt Right
movement and a mouthpiece for the Trump campaign (and the eventual nesting place of Steve Bannon) was actually started by a Jewish
lawyer and businessman, Larry Solov.
[13]
In a 2015 post announcing the opening of Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau, Solov wrote that Breitbart News itself was conceived of
in Israel, when Solov traveled to the Israeli state with Andrew Breitbart, the now-deceased founder of Breitbart and met with him
and Bibi Netanyahu in planning sessions. (There are pictures of this event.)
"One thing we specifically discussed that night was our desire to start a site that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and
pro-Israel. We were sick of the anti-Israel bias of the mainstream media and J-Street," he wrote.
[14]
Breitbart's infatuation with Israel is eerily reminiscent of a similar situation in the 1930s. National Socialist propagandist
Josef Goebbels ran a publication called the Algerminer in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Goebbels was quite sympathetic
to Zionist interests, sponsored a fact-finding trip to Palestine and had a commemorative coin issued in honor of this collaboration
depicting a swastika on one side and a Jewish hexagram ("Mogen David") on the obverse.
[15]
Subsequently, the so-called Transfer Agreement saw German Jews brought to Palestine on German ships.
[16]
Andrew Breitbart subsequently died -- but not before Steve Bannon had him narrate one of his turgid Hollywood conservative documentaries
and got on his and Larry Solov's "good side." Solov then tapped Bannon as Breitbart's successor and brought him on to run the website
-- possibly also due to his links with the wealthy Mercer family. Bannon went on to transform Breitbart into the spearhead of Trump's
campaign to disaffected Americans vis a vis the Alt-Right. (Although Bannon was reputed in a divorce proceeding to have once made
a comment about "whiny Jews," he was given a kosheresque seal of approval by no less than the Israeli ambassador to the U.S.
[17]
)
Bannon's masterful use of Breitbart's ideas and website pale in comparison with the impact of his creation of Cambridge Analytica
in 2013 (with billionaire fund manager Robert Mercer)
[18]
as a spinoff from Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL.)
[19] SCL is a UK firm
whose niche "specialties" were once described as psychological warfare , public diplomacy and influence operations.
Cambridge's first big success with "behavorial microtargeting" was swinging the Brexit vote in the U.K., a cause also championed
by the Zionist politician Boris Johnson
[20] (The Israeli press,
not surprisingly, now raises the possibility of Israel becoming Britain's "window on the world" in the event of a hard Brexit! No
doubt, Israel may ultimately benefit from the trade wars launched by President Trump as well. It has free trade arrangements with
many nations.) Thanks to what's alleged to have been a massive data breach of some 50-million Facebook users, Cambridge was apparently
able to corral the (private) data on the social media accounts of millions of American voters in swing states
[21]
, allowing development of Trump's talking points and election materials directed at individual voters' "hot buttons" by a sophisticated
AI program allegedly developed by company whistleblower Christopher Wylie with help getting the data from a company, Global Science
Research (GSR), controlled by researcher Aleksandr Kogan of Cambridge University.
[22] Kogan reportedly
gave thousands of volunteers a personality test app (thisisyourdigitallife) and then used the Facebook platform (allegedly in violation
of the terms of use) to find their friends and their friends' friends and so on much like Carnivore to create a relational database
that grew into many tens of millions. In effect, this created the potential for psychological warfare to be used by Cambridge Analytica
on the American voting public in order to "game" the election.
For its part, Cambridge claimed that it believed GSR had abided by the UK Data Protection Act and, as soon as it found out this
was not the case, terminated the data and deleted the information. And that, after being paid $6.2-million by the Trump campaign,
none of the consent-less data was used to elect Trump. (Reuters relates that the N.Y. Times interviewed half a dozen former employees
and contractors and reviewed documents and records and claimed these indicate Cambridge retained the data and did use the data.
Facebook, after receiving information that 270,000 people had downloaded Kogan's app and that data obtained without consent had
not been deleted, then banned Cambridge Analytica and Wylie from using its platform.
[23] )
What is even more disturbing is that foreign players may also have been involved in the 2016 election. While Cambridge Analytica
and its parent SCL ceased operations on May 2nd, 2018 (possibly to stymie investigations as to the extent of its activities for
the Trump campaign and foreign governments)
[24]
that cessation came after its former CEO Alexander Nix had some interesting things to say when recorded by TV Channel
4 with a hidden camera while making a sales presentation.
[25] In addition to
the usual allusions to prostitutes, shady characters, blackmail and the like, Nix carelessly " boasted of his ability to employ
"Israeli companies" to gather intelligence on politicians Nix then went on to praise the ability of "Israeli" intelligence personnel
in what can only be described as a power sales pitch to a would-be client."
[26]
Like Bannon with his revelations to Wolff, Nix had gone too far and was quickly sacked pending an investigation. Had he committed
the unforgivable sin of speaking the truth in an insecure venue??? According to a statement put out by CA at the time:
"In the view of the Board, Mr. Nix's recent comments secretly recorded by Channel 4 and other allegations do not represent
the values or operations of the firm and his suspension reflects the seriousness with which we view this violation. We have asked
Dr. Alexander Tayler to serve as acting CEO while an independent investigation is launched to review those comments and allegations."
[27]
Much like exploding armor on tanks, Trump seemingly uses associates and then fires them to deflect criticism when they become
compromised. In the case of the massive Cambridge data breach and its possible use to swing the election, Steve Bannon fared no
better than General Flynn.
After Bannon's departure from the White House, quoting McClatchy Washington Bureau: " Bannon sold his stake in Cambridge Analytica
-- the controversial data firm Donald Trump's campaign employed to reach voters with hyper-targeted online messaging -- in April,
as required by his ethics requirement. But Bannon only notified the government of the sale in November, three months after he had
left the White House and one month after McClatchy asked him if he still had an interest in the company. He was fined for the late
report about the sale Bannon was supposed to sell his $1 million to $5 million stake in Cambridge Analytica while he served in the
administration as part of his ethics agreement, but it was never clear until now if he had done so Under Federal law, late filers
such as Bannon are fined $200. However, while the fine is small only a tiny percentage of such government-required reports are filed
late. Obviously, most reports are timely filed because tardy filing could be an indication of some misfeasance or malfeasance.
[28]
[2] United States
of America vs. Michael T. Flynn, Violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001
In a plea agreement, Flynn admitted that he had lied to Justice Dept. investigators, with regard to a resolution submitted by
Egypt to the UNSC concerning sanctions on Israel for illegal settlement construction in Palestinian areas, he contacted the Russian
Ambassador to the U.S. on December 22 nd , 2016 at the behest of a "very senior member of Trump's transition team" (believed
to be Jared Kushner -- Ed.) and requested Russia vote against the resolution or at least delay it. He met again with the Russian
Ambassador on December 23 rd and was informed Russia would not comply if the resolution came to a vote.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1015126/download
[2a] Wolff, Michael,
Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, ISBN 978-1-250-15806-2, Henry Holt and Co. (2018)
[3] Baldwin further
adds that (in addition to the Kushners -- Ed.) Trump's association with Jewish mafia billionaires is easily documented. I'm talking
about men such as Alexander Mashkevich, Tevfik Arif (not Jewish by birth but a strong Zionist), Felix Henry Sater and Lev Avnerovich
Leviev. Look them up for yourself. Jewish Zionist Wilbur Ross (Bilderberg), whom Trump appointed as Secretary of Commerce, was one
of the Jewish billionaire Rothschild bankers who bailed Trump out of one of his bankruptcies. "Donald Trump, John Hagee, Zionism
And The Chabad," by Chuck Baldwin, February 14, 2019
[6] Americans'
credit spending was greater than ever in 2018, as debt levels reached record totals. Overall consumer debt reached $13.3 trillion
in the last quarter of 2018, while the total amount of unpaid revolving debt hit $4.1 trillion.
[17] Ron Dermer,
Israel's ambassador to the United States, in 2016 praised President-elect Donald Trump as a "true friend of Israel" and said he
looks forward to working with incoming White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. "Israel has no doubt that President-elect Trump
is a true friend of Israel "
[18] According
to testimony given to British lawmakers by a company whistle blower, Christopher Wylie, Cambridge Analytica was founded by billionaire
Robert Mercer and Steve Bannon.
In other words, Bannon was likely a kingpin and not just a bit player in what transpired -- and probably the real reason he had
to leave the White House. "Trump and Brexit: Cambridge Analytica Whistleblower Gives Bombshell Testimony to British Lawmakers,"
by Pam and Russ Martens, Wall Street on Parade, 27 March 2018
[24] Are
Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group attempting
to evade recent negative coverage, only to re-form and continue their work as part of a new entity? "The news Wednesday about the
closure of Cambridge Analytica does not mention Emerdata or its subsidiary Firecrest Technologies All of the other UK SCL-related
companies are still listed as active and have no pending filings .
The business purpose of Emerdata is not known, beyond the general description of "data processing, hosting and related activities".
However, in a channel 4 News report, the SCL Group founder, Nigel Oakes, said it was his understanding that Emerdata was set up
to acquire all of Cambridge Analytica and SCL.
"Cambridge Analytica is dead -- but its obscure network is alive and well," by Wendy Siegelman, The Guardian Weekly, 5 May 2018
[26] "The Cambridge
Analytica Scandal Could Provide Hard Evidence of "Israeli" Meddling in Trump Election," by Adam Garrie, Global Policy and Analysis
Think Tank, 20 March 2018
[28] "Bannon Sold
His Stake in Cambridge Analytica, and was Fined for Late Ethics Report," Hamodia-The Daily Newspaper of Torah Jewry, 20 February
2018
menters to Ignore ...to Follow Endorsed Only Trim Comments?
So, the unhinged and unprecedented frothing-at-the-mouth rage towards Trump displayed by the worst of the Neocons (Bill
Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, etc.) is all part of the ruse?
"There is, I believe, considerable evidence that non-governmental forces acting on behalf of Israel succeeded in placing
an individual in charge of the U.S. who is currently redirecting the power and financial resources of the nation to almost
entirely serve the interests of a foreign power. (And that entity is not Russia!)"
Wow, I've been looking for an article with this level of truth since this latest cardboard cutout was ushered into office.
You shills who will be screaming for evidence I suggest you watch the video below and then tell me Israhell is not in charge
of American foreign policy.
Wait! We have had a president in the last 30 years who hasn't been a water boy for Israel? Even the "Muslim" Obama bent over
for that insignificant nation.
I think there are people on the alt-right who are both pro and anti Israel. Obviously the pro ones only love Israel because
Israel likes killing brown people.
14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency
Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and
China - as well as attacks in the US and South America. There are reports of infections in 99 countries. A string of ransomware
attacks appears to have started in the United Kingdom, Spain and the rest of Europe, before striking Japan, Vietnam and the
Philippines on May 12. According to Kaspersky Laboratory, Russia, Ukraine, India and Taiwan were hit hardest.
and yet many Jews are after Trump. Why is that? Now that you know about Trump's wicked friends, learn about Trump's
wicked enemies Anti-Trump & Pro-Obama, the Pritzkers made Obama. "They're bigshots in Holocaustianity, pioneers of mortgage-backed
derivatives & publish the genocidal Zohar."
It looks to me like the anti-Trump 'cranks' are getting the upper hand here at Unz Review. Tom Mysiewicz is known for writing
articles of this type for Renegade Tribune, which presents the most highly conspiratorial view of world politics possible. Just
because he can create 28 footnotes doesn't mean that any of them are credible or actually provide evidence for what he is proposing.
In this article, most don't. For example, this paragraph:
Breitbart's infatuation with Israel is eerily reminiscent of a similar situation in the 1930s. National Socialist propagandist
Josef Goebbels ran a publication called the Algerminer in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Goebbels was quite sympathetic
to Zionist interests, sponsored a fact-finding trip to Palestine and had a commemorative coin issued in honor of this collaboration
depicting a swastika on one side and a Jewish hexagram ("Mogen David") on the obverse.[15]
Subsequently, the so-called Transfer Agreement saw German Jews brought to Palestine on German ships.[16]
I can confidently say that this simplified description and 'conclusion' misrepresents the actual situation at the time and
also misrepresents Josef Goebbels intentions. It's the same with many of Mysiewicz's sources intended to back up his argument
that Trump is a bought and paid for Israeli asset, and Israel rules the world. What's really going on is that the Jewish population
in every country acts as Israeli assets, which gives them their power. And who is responsible for that? Let's look first at
the English aristocracy.
Donald Trump is who he is. He has a long history as a public figure and he's been saying the same things for many years.
The idea that he has set out to fool Americans in order to serve the interests of Israel and bring about total Jewish domination
over us is not supported by the overall reality. The reality is that every U.S. president has limited power and is beset by
opposition at all times (including the fierce Jewish Lobby). That is Democracy as we know it. Those who want to sell two-dimensional
comic-book villains to their conspiracy-obsessed readers are doing us all a disservice.
@Carolyn Yeager
Then he shit on his base and became the most insanely pro-Israel zealot we have ever seen. The southern border is wide open
with thousands of invaders pouring in, and they are given WORK PERMITS. Trump was a shill to begin with, or they threatened
him and his family so he caved. I kind of think he was a shill to begin with, that he was always a globalist piece of shit and
he lied to us to get elected.
In any case, Trump actually is a two dimensional comic book villain that hires every neocon he can find and turns his back
on people that believed in him.
" our June 8, 2019 Memorial Service will be held at the Navy Memorial, 701 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington DC 20004
at noon. I admit it would be more moving to have the service at Section 34, Arlington Cemetery, however, because of security,
logistics, and cost issues, the Navy Memorial is the better choice. In any case, prayer and remembrance can occur anywhere the
heart is."
entire deep state apparatus, with international assistance swung into action with the phony Mueller investigation
was a sure sign that Trump's platform was never going to be allowed.
Whether you like Bannon or not, his departure statement – the Trump presidency is dead – has been entirely accurate. The
unanswered question is whether that was the plan all along, or whether Trump received an offer that he couldn't refuse. Until
proof otherwise, my view is the latter. This was confirmed yesterday when I saw Mueller's bullshit political statement which
was essentially, the President can't prove when he stopped beating his wife.
Although the term "Alt Right" has gone out of style these days, the group to which it actually referred is NOT in any way
pro-Israel. Tommy Robinson and his like were never Alt Right. The Alt Right is characterized by many things, and some disagree
on these, but two things on which no one disagrees is regarding race realism and knowledge of the Jewish question, which means
the Alt Right is "anti-semitic" in the eyes of its true enemies. Semitism causes anti-Semitism, and any who refuse to address
the Jewish question, and especially those who shill for Israel are NOT Alt Right.
Again, some here are totally unable to face the truth. This is known as cognitive dissonance. If you suffer from this condition
please seek help. Here is a good place to start.
"When a public is stressed and confused, a big lie told repeatedly and unchallenged can become accepted truth." ~George
Orwell
Trump's tariff war, meanwhile, has imposed new costs on average Americans - not on the Chinese - with industrial production
dropping or remaining flat and U.S. trade deficits soaring.
Not on the Chinese? That is news to them and everyone else
China's economy grew at its slowest pace in 28 years in 2018, with gross domestic product expanding 6.6%, down 0.2 percentage
point from the previous year, according to data released Monday by the country's National Bureau of Statistics.
The last time economic growth was so tepid was 1990, when the economy slumped in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square
incident. Last year, the economy was hampered by a drive to cut regional government and corporate debt, as well as China's trade
war with the U.S.
In a nutshell, Trump "jazzed" a brief economic recovery in the U.S. with massive tax cuts for big business and temporary
cuts for voters (more bark than bite variety) while increasing the national debt, which these same overtaxed voters will ultimately
be on the hook for. At the same time Trump "jawboned" the Federal Reserve to ease monetary policy so interest rates wouldn't
rise as a result of the vast increase in national indebtedness. He has laid the groundwork for eventual hyperinflation (or hyper-stagflation)
that may well ruin more of his middle class voters after the 2020 election.
There has never been hyperinflation in any Western nation other than the Weimar Republic. This has been going on since the
Bretton Woods agreement. Trump has been dealing with a coup since he took office, when exactly did he have time to reform or
replace our central bank with a new money standard and reform our banking laws? Was he supposed to start a recession the moment
he took office so we could start tightening our belts and paying all our debts?
said:
"Wow, I've been looking for an article with this level of truth since this latest cardboard cutout was ushered into office.
You shills who will be screaming for evidence I suggest you watch the video below and then tell me Israhell is not in charge
of American foreign policy."
Yawn. As if Trump is any different from all the other Presidents who have bowed to Jew / Israeli interests. The alternative
was Hillary.
Quit the strawman arguments. People here realize that Trump yields to Jew interests. The problem you and those like you have
is that none of you have differentiated Trump from other Jew ass kissing Presidents. And given the for-Israel wars of Bush &
Obama, it's fair to say that Trump is actually better in that regard.
You have also not explained why most Jews dislike Trump. Now please sit down.
Israel can be useful to the Alt-Right in two ways.
1. As a destination for Jewish diaspora relocation.
2. The existence of the Jewish ethnostate serves as a talking point for white nationalists.
First, apart from mentioning it's over in first paragraph, it has NOTHING to do with the Mueller report. It's a reasonable
diatribe about how the Izzies have their hands on the American Presidential throat. Name me one President for whom that has
not been the case since the 1950s. One: Obama (maybe). And what a totalitarian, police state disaster he was. Maybe in order
to do all that he had to do an end run around most of the Izzy agents in the USG, or maybe it was a highly principled stand.
But apart from him, nobody. Well, maybe Kennedy, actually, but look what they did to him?
As for Flynn: he knew about many of the misdeeds of the previous administration. They took advantage of a neophyte administration
fending off Sally Yates Russian Collusion initiative via a corrupt FBI Director to pressure them to let Flynn go – a terrible
newbie mistake telegraphing weakness to all his enemies.
So that being said, what's his point. That Trump is exceptionally corrupt despite no collusion with Russia because he's
controlled by Izzies?
Rather feeble if you ask me. I expect better in Unz.
Kusnher and Graham have drafted new immigration legislation for amnesty and higher levels of immigration. Trump SAYS what
we want to hear, then does NOTHING.
Nothing about sanctuary cities. Nothing about E-verify. Nothing about birthright citizenship. Nothing about the Visa lottery.
No wall to speak of, maybe a few miles. His fraud on immigration is handing the democrats permanent power and he has to know
this.
Yes ..the nose has fought him at every turn, you're right about that.
But Israel got 38 billion dollars, while we get more mexicans.
Maybe I'm just tired of seeing the national dept continue to skyrocket.
Maybe I'm just tired of the crumbling infrastructure of my country being ignored while billions upon billions are given to
other countries in the form of foreign aid.
Maybe I'm just tired of never ending wars that drain my country of blood and treasure.
Maybe I'm just tired of putting my faith in some politician promising the world and never delivering.
Maybe I'm just tired of the right/left, Republican/Democrat game.
Just like the vague conclusions of the commission which investigated the 9/11 and didn't reveal the real story, Robert Mueller
did the same by deceiving the people and didn't reveal the real story of his investigation into 2016 election. By announcing
in detail yesterday as how the Russians manipulated the election in 2016 Mueller completely failed to describe that some of
the Russians involved in meddling were Russian Zionists with ties to the Russian mobs! So far this is the 2nd event that they've
gotten away with it. It's so sad to see the extend of their involvement in the US government affairs!!!!
The State of Israel as a Light unto the Nations. In his writings and speeches, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973)
emphasized his vision of the state of Israel as a moral and social beacon to the whole world, and by that, in his view, it shall
implement the vision of the prophets.
@Robert Dolan
come together. If you think any president can just do away with all these things you mention, you are very naive, even childish.
I remember during Trump's campaign, he was speaking to a small rally in the West, maybe California, and one man stood up
and asked his position on Israel as a criminal, enemy nation (not his exact words). Trump seemed genuinely shocked, all he could
say was, 'We all love Israel don't we? Israel is great, Israel is our friend' like that, then went on to someone else's
question. Trump also praised Israel when he spoke to AIPAC and said then he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem. So you are
cherry-picking things he said that fit your "poor me" scenario of being lied to.
The individuals you name are fanatical supporters of the Zionist state. Looking at what Mr. Trump has done to date vis a
vis Israel, how can that not be the case, i.e., that their criticism was a ruse? Suggested reading is the Thomas Friedman book
"From Beirut to Jerusalem" where he recounts how covert Arab assets of the Israelis were deliberately attacked in the Israeli
press to increase their credibility on the Arab "street." If you read my article carefully–especially on the microtargeting
of the disaffected white minority–you will see that such attacks by Neocons were necessary and entirely predictable.
@Carolyn Yeager
sume to know the mind of Josef Goebbels I cannot make a conclusion on the actual, documented events..FACTS? It's documented
that leading members of the Stern Gang (such as Shamir and Begin) were on the Axis side until well into 1942. Admiral Canaris
provided the Jewish Lubbavitcher "Rebbe" Schneerson and his family safe passage in and out of the Warsaw Ghetto. What was he
thinking–have you any telepathic revelations on the subject.
I base my conclusions on facts and observations. You, in light of what you said on tariffs, have another methodology. And,
sadly, I am an "anti-Trump crank" who voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils and now regrets it. Mea culpa!
@Chris Mallory
r grasp of jurisprudence is remarkable. Do you allege Russia rigged voting machines or destroyed ballots? What, precisely
did Russia do to swing the election in favor of Trump? This is nonsense. Except for the U.S., no state player–even Israel–would
be so careless as to risk being implicated in such a scandal. Because that would swing public opinion against the interests
of the offending state.
Trump cannot be prosecuted for any crimes related to this while in office, as Mueller pointed out. So these avenues were
not pursued. Which is what I allude to in my article. A serious question: what is the definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution?
I'm not sure there is one.
I don't think any Unz readers need any more proof that Israel has ruled American foreign policy since Truman. There were
just a couple refusals by Eisenhower and Kennedy to comply with Israel orders. But since November 1963 every president has been
an Israel puppet.
In America, the treasonous act must be done in time of war to aid the enemy.
Since we're not at war with Israel or Russia whatever anyone does to help those countries is not treason. All the Israeli
and in the old days, Russian theft of military information and materials didn't fit the definition of treason since we weren't
at war with those countries.
The constitution is whatever one federal state or even municipal Judge says it is.
I have a book about Abu Nidal. He was a big anti Israel bogeyman for decades. The author claims the evil anti semitic Nidal
was an Israeli operative all along. The purpose was to supply a bogey man to scare gullible American Jews into giving more and
more money and lobby for the American tax payers to give even more to help Israel. He also allegedly gave Israel information
about Palestinian activists.
It's pretty well known that even 100 years ago the Zionists had plenty of spies and operatives in the Arab organizations.
Neither Mueller nor his 3 year investigation came up with one concrete, actual thing the Russians did to influence the election.
So some Russians may might have set up a website that some American voters may, might have looked at. BFD
@Corvinus ment
point of view. You kept writing about collusion. Exactly what did Trump or his associates DO that constitutes collusion? 3 years
of investigation and Mueller has found NOTHING that constitutes collusion.
For your simple minded incoherent self: for example the crime of theft. Something must be taken. Robbery, something must
be taken from the physical person who owns or legally possesses it. Burglary burglar must go inside a building.
So, what exactly was the ACT of collusion? Mueller found nothing. The only people who are interested any more are the same
old same old ultra liberals who hate Whites, Republicans , and Trump/
This investigation is way above your intellectual pay grade. I dumbed down the comment especially for your ilk to understand
what is going on. Just keep putting your hands over your face and say "Nothing to see here, move along".
@Johnny Walker Read
. Yes, even the sainted Tulsi Gabbard has taken her pull on the kosher sausage.
Yes – it is sad.
Israeli security – Israeli security – Israeli security - those two words are part of Washington's DNA. Deny those words and
lightening will strike you dead in DC. The fact is that Gabbard has served against mutual US/Israeli enemies – surly that has
influenced her.
I am for Peace, even for Jews – I also do not want a blood bath in Israel. I still believe that Gabbard is anti war with
Iran. A pure and total anti-Israel stance.
He received the offer on election night. The real-time poll agglomerate I was following simply couldn't update Georgia and
other states.. tv commentators were stuck in a loop.. then tv stations announced .. and the first words out of Trump's mouth
were "sorry to keep you waiting, complicated business".
He had agreed not to prosecute Hillary in exchange for an easy recognition of his triumph. And so the enemy was free to persecute
him..
In 3 years Mueller did not find one administrative, civil or criminal city county state or federal law violation. Some Russians
had a website on which was posted news about the election. BFD!!!!!!!
You're not an attorney are you? If you were,you'd know the difference between unproven allegations and some kind of law breaking,tort,
sharp practice whatever that could be prosecuted or the grounds for a civil suit.
@Monty Ahwazi
us you've never been involved in any kind of litigation. Never heard of cause of action or violation of a law code. You're
so naive you'll believe anything somebody named Mueller talks about on TV.
What exactly did Trump DO. What violation of an administrative civil or criminal code did Trump DO? Trump did nothing wrong
and Mueller and the liberals know they found nothing. so they are just starting from scratch allover again hoping to convince
idiots like you that there is something,anything.
So some Russians posted something on the internet. BFD
@Carolyn Yeager
– he is a total loser on immigration. Our country is going backwards.
Things just get worse – now he is penalizing our neighbor Mexico because he cannot lead America to an immigration solution.
We on our side of the issues, need to begin to see the whole picture of his administration – not just the opposition. He
bears some responsibility for much of the crazed opposition.
He is the president – he needs to lead us to solutions – not spend his time saving his ego.
How much of our country's disfunction – is his personal disfunction?
That means implicit acknowledgement from Bilderberg group that neoliberalism is under threat... Essentially trade war
with China is destroying neoliberalism as we speak because "national neoliberalism" -- neoliberalism without globalization is
just a flavor of neofascism, not a new social system.
Stacey Abrams, Eric Schmidt, Mike Pompeo, and Mattel Renzi, among others, will be
attending the top-secret Bilderberh meetings from today through the weekend.
Topics to be discussed include the weaponisation of social media, the future of
capitalism, Brexit, China, and threats to the neoliberal world order.
Held since 1954, Bilderberg has acted as a meeting point for high-level establishment
politicians and corporate elites to promote the interests of Atlanticism and global
corporations.
Many attendees of Bilderberg have gone on to play major roles in their countries'
politics, including Angela Merkel and Barack Obama.
The presence of Abrams at the event is another sign that she may act as a
vice-presidential candidate for Joe Biden, who himself has attended corporate-linked summits
including Davos and the Munich Security Conference this year and who has seen his narratives
bolstered by think tanks such as More in Common and the Trilateral Commission.
Abrams is herself a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and has pursued a
neoliberal agenda while in office.
It utterly amazes me how you neo liberals still don't get why people voted for Trump. It
will be the same reasons why he isn't going to win again.
He won by just barely flipping three rust belt states. Has he stopped any income
depressing immigration? Nope, its accelerating. How about ending those pesky international
entanglements, and getting along? Unless your an Israel firster, the answer is a big zero.
PA, Wisconsin, Michigan all have Democrat governors now. Woohoo...more dead and illegals
voting Democrat. Make matters worse you have the impending agriculture and financial
collapse.
My guess is the Donald will pull out of the election at the most inopportune time, and not
even bother with it.
By the way Trump ain't the problem. The bankers and their central bank are the problem.
The deep state was created to serve them. Guess for some as long as (D) is in back of our
politicians name, all will be good. Sad.
Re "An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate and
will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House."
Respectfully, MofA, please stick to your excellent, insightful, and informative analyses
in the international arena and stay away from US domestic politics.
The Dems are not at all sure about winning in 2020, not least because of the pathetic
gaggle of so-called candidates they've go to offer. Their main goal in pursuing impeachment
will not be to weaken Trump for 2020, it's – still – to get him out of the White
House.
As was the case in 2016, Trump's the only GOP candidate who has a shot at winning, though
it's not a sure thing. The Dems want a sure thing.
Do they have the goods to get rid of him yet? No. That's while they'll keep digging.
Taxes. Business skullduggery in NY. Babes. They hope that sooner or later they'll uncover
something that will give enough Republicans in the Senate an excuse to give Trump the
heave-ho.
A Republican Senate will "vote down any impeachment"? Ha. Compare Clinton and Nixon.
Clinton literally could have raped Juanita Broaddrick in the middle of Fifth Avenue and the
Dems still would have circled the wagons to defend him, as they in fact did, without a single
Dem vote to convict.
Nixon, however, was done in by his own party when Senate GOP leaders told Tricky Dick
(loathed by most of his party, as Trump is) that he had to resign or they would vote to
remove him. Depending on what the Dems dig up, Republicans can be counted on to see scary
editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times and run in panic. "I've always been
supportive of the president, but I can't defend that. So I have no choice but to ") Add the
fact that between a quarter and a third of GOP Senators would jump at the chance to put a
knife in Trump's back if they got the opportunity, with sanctimonious warmonger Mitt Romney
at the front of the line.
I am not predicting that Trump will be removed: the Dems might come up empty on the needed
dirt; they may fall short of the number of Republicans they need to give him the "Nixon
talk"; even if he is given an ultimatum, he may decide to fight and actually win. But don't
take it as a given that impeachment is a futile exercise undertaken only to weaken Trump for
reelection and likely to backfire. It might succeed.
If it doesn't, Trump's chances of winning reelection are better than even, though the
landscape has become less favorable. His base remains strong (most of his Deplorables think
he's actually delivering on his promises, because he says so in tweets and at his rallies.
Look at that big, beautiful invisible nonexistent Wall! Winning!). On the other hand, failure
to control our border means the demographic shift against Republicans continues, coupled with
zero efforts to police voting by non-citizens and (notably in Florida) letting felons vote.
If Trump loses either Florida or Pennsylvania, it's probably all over even with a lousy
Democratic opponent. That's aside from whatever economic hiccup occurs between now and next
fall. Or if Trump gets in a war somewhere.
Finally, I dispute the suggestion it's desirable to elect more Dems to Congress. Let's
agree Republicans are horrible. But even if you like the Dems on domestic grounds (I don't)
let's not ignore the fact that on the warmongering front the Dems are at least as bad as the
GOP and in most cases worse, especially when it comes to Russia. Note how Mueller began and
ended his swan song by emphasizing the Russian "attack" on the US in 2016. That's will
continue to be the core dogma of the Democratic Party, with most of the GOP joining them in
making sure Trump shows no sign of heresy. More Democrats means even more of a straitjacket
on whatever off-script impulses Trump occasionally displays with regard to Korea, Syria, and
Russia. Even Iran, where he has disavowed regime change (somebody tell President
Bolton!).
"... This business against trump would be pure showmanship, and the democrats have lost nearly every single time they tried to show up Trump, who is admittedly a sorry rotten ass it's true but a more clever showman and bullshitter than any of them. ..."
"... Maybe the Russiagaters make a lot of noise, but so far Pelosi and Schumer know better than to fall into that trap ..."
The democrats don't really have squat as far as real impeachment charges are concerned.
I lived through Watergate and everyone in college at that time enjoyed that circus daily,
and there was real evidence which continued to grow as the hearings went on..... please
recall only one of the charges against Nixon related at all to the war, if I recall, about
the 'secret' bombings of Cambodia - there's nothing in foreign policy they can or would
indict this guy on (sad to say), without involving their own complicity in all the wars and
war crimes in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and so on... Same goes for their incredible Surveillance
State. they are all guilty.
This business against trump would be pure showmanship, and the democrats have lost
nearly every single time they tried to show up Trump, who is admittedly a sorry rotten ass
it's true but a more clever showman and bullshitter than any of them.
How can the Democrats win on anything other than bread and butter issues? but they
haven't been strongly in favor of the working and middle classes in 30-40 years and are a
corporate party more now than ever. They fucked up so bad in 2016 and have been totally
distracting with this 'Russiagate' nonsense. nobody that makes a real living in the country
gives a shit about that, it's health care, wages, standard of living, climate catastrophe
and other real things that concern people.
Maybe the Russiagaters make a lot of noise, but so far Pelosi and Schumer know
better than to fall into that trap
As long as the US and world economy don't tank (which I believe is a very real
possibility - like what gave Obama his win against McCain in sept-nov 2008), then alas, I
believe trump will very likely win. but well over 17 months to election is a long long time
in politics and many things can happen
As I wrote earlier, the only solution I see is evicting TrumpCo in 2020 by
ensuring Sanders becomes POTUS, which means defeating the DNC's likely efforts to make Biden
its nominee. The way to defeat Biden will need to wait, but he's very vulnerable on numerous
polies AND his own previous documented history of abetting Obama's unconstitutional and
illegal acts.
Donald's trade war is getting dangerously close to crashing the stock market. This won't
bother farmers because they get subsidised but Wall Street won't be happy. Nor will mutual
fund holders.
Interesting to see Huawei ... become a bargaining chip...
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
May 23
More
"Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the
intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General's investigation into surveillance
activities....
....during the 2016 Presidential election. The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to
declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling
classified information....
....Today's action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that
were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1131716322369392646
Yes, Trump's all of that, but he differs little from his predecessors as I enumerated, and Pence is even worse than Trump.
Clearly, your hatred is clouding your judgment. And your obvious bias destroys any chance you have at convincing a skeptic.
You must learn how to control your hate and channel that energy into productive pursuits. Right now, you're acting like
Rambo in the Police Station, blasting away at everything in sight with an M-60. Keep your cool and fight smart!
DO NOT WASTE TIME visiting emptywheel. That is a totally stupid site. A wheel with no spokes... empty! and could not go
round if you kicked it. Marcy Wheeler is as bad as HA Goodman when it comes to predicting the demise of Trump or Clinton.
They are time wasters.
The trouble with impeachment and the Dems chasing after the Trump for dirty money deals is that Biden will be outed for the
same offense. Biden got grubby nobbling a judge in Ukraine to protect his son's million$. And that is the most prominent of
his willingness to "prostitute' himself for ca$h.
They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition.
Trump makes a threat by declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but
so far no heads have rolled and perhaps never will.
Absolutely brothers, you nailed it. There is a high probability that we could see two
hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the
leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader. If only it were easier to have a
new third party for the Presidential race. AFAIK establishing a third party to run takes
years and can only be registered after immense hurdles are crossed.
And no, I am not advocating the Greens for Bernie or Tulsi. That way is suicide.
I am sure there are many reasons why democrats want to impeach trump but to me it comes down
to this, they are hot about impeachment because they are so afraid they won't be able to
defeat him in the next election. get it. this is really simple.
there are two ways to get him out of power, so they think - either successful impeachment
(highly doubtful both on the actual charges, and convincing 67 senators to go along with the
house), or actually defeating him in 2020..... how they gonna do that? what are the great
issues that the democrats are going to taken on, again, to defeat this wanker - bad trump bad
bad bad! you know, that worked really well the last time didn't it?
the man is a menace both to the country and to the world, and should be defeated. who's
gonna take hi s place, another neo-liberal and war monger, like biden. don't make me
laugh.
but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core
economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it
infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the
white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks.
and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia
russia russia
Trump is just a bloody clown and maybe the American people deserve hold.
The American people are 'exceptional' in there delusional degenerate greed.
Here is a clip from the speaker of the U.K. House of Commons (a Tory)
If Trump is impeached then this will just confirm the false-fact of Russian interference in
the US elections. While the fuss about Venezuela was going on, US mercenaries appear to have
been involved in massacres and putting down an insurrection/revolution in Haiti.
The US have (this week) encouraged Kosovo special forces to conduct operations in Serbian
held areas in violation of UN agreements and have assaulted and arrested UN officers (who are
Russian) - The US is seeking to provoke the nightmare of Balkan conflict and drag Russia into
open conflict by provoking a war between Kosovo and Serbia.
The US have (today) accused Russia of conducting Nuclear Tests when there is absolutely no
evidence of this (Nuclear explosions would have been detected).
The US is maneuvering towards war. Only the American people can stop this. The Trump
psycho-drama is a major distraction which is obscuring US actions from its own people.
This next US election looks like it's going to be a major joke. American's are going to
get a lot more comments like that of Lowdown @92 unless you start getting control of what
your Nation (on your behalf) is doing to the world.
Circe wrote: "The reason Pelosi is against impeachment is because her Zionist financiers want
Trump or Biden to win, and if Trump is impeached this will favor Sanders. Sanders would be
higher in the polls if Dems weren't so scared of Trump labelling him a radical socialist."
I can think of two reasons for Pelosi to be against impeachment - Trump will continue cry
"witch hunt!" and the media will help him with plenty of coverage, and he and the GOP will
point out that the House is wasting time with investigations instead of helping "hard working
Americans". They may even revive the old "Do nothing Congress" tag.
Trump's crimes such as they are have yet to be revealed. The federal courts in New York state
will be the venue and it is inconceivable based on any objective reading of the US Criminal
Justice System that an investigation into Trump's businesses for the prior 10-20 years will
not result crimes being uncovered.
The other objective reading that will apply is whether Trump by virtue of his now extreme
elitism will be let off the hook. I'm thinking the answer is yes he will be let off the
hook.
Anyone stuck on "Russiagate" is simply evading Trump's true legal exposure.
Trump is tooting Boris and Nigel's horn. Notice how this Zio ass kisser doesn't even give
Corbyn the time of day, but instead is slobbering all over Netanyahoo calling his win
resounding and now what is happening to BibiYahoo so unfair. Then you expect me to show
restraint where Trump is concerned?
The best thing that can happen is Sanders getting Pence as a campaign opponent! Trump
would be way more dirty with Sanders. Anyone against impeachment is in the Zionist camp!
PERIOD, end of sentence.
It utterly amazes me how you neo liberals still don't get why people voted for Trump. It will
be the same reasons why he isn't going to win again.
He won by just barely flipping three rust belt states. Has he stopped any income
depressing immigration? Nope, its accelerating. How about ending those pesky international
entanglements, and getting along? Unless your an Israel firster, the answer is a big zero.
PA, Wisconsin, Michigan all have Democrat governors now. Woohoo...more dead and illegals
voting Democrat. Make matters worse you have the impending agriculture and financial
collapse. My guess is the Donald will pull out of the election at the most inopportune time,
and not even bother with it.
By the way Trump ain't the problem. The bankers and their central bank are the problem.
The deep state was created to serve them. Guess for some as long as (D) is in back of our
politicians name, all will be good. Sad.
Re "An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate and
will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House."
Respectfully, MofA, please stick to your excellent, insightful, and informative analyses
in the international arena and stay away from US domestic politics.
The Dems are not at all sure about winning in 2020, not least because of the pathetic
gaggle of so-called candidates they've go to offer. Their main goal in pursuing impeachment
will not be to weaken Trump for 2020, it's – still – to get him out of the White
House.
As was the case in 2016, Trump's the only GOP candidate who has a shot at winning, though
it's not a sure thing. The Dems want a sure thing.
Do they have the goods to get rid of him yet? No. That's while they'll keep digging.
Taxes. Business skullduggery in NY. Babes. They hope that sooner or later they'll uncover
something that will give enough Republicans in the Senate an excuse to give Trump the
heave-ho.
A Republican Senate will "vote down any impeachment"? Ha. Compare Clinton and Nixon.
Clinton literally could have raped Juanita Broaddrick in the middle of Fifth Avenue and the
Dems still would have circled the wagons to defend him, as they in fact did, without a single
Dem vote to convict.
Nixon, however, was done in by his own party when Senate GOP leaders told Tricky Dick
(loathed by most of his party, as Trump is) that he had to resign or they would vote to
remove him. Depending on what the Dems dig up, Republicans can be counted on to see scary
editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times and run in panic. "I've always been
supportive of the president, but I can't defend that. So I have no choice but to ") Add the
fact that between a quarter and a third of GOP Senators would jump at the chance to put a
knife in Trump's back if they got the opportunity, with sanctimonious warmonger Mitt Romney
at the front of the line.
I am not predicting that Trump will be removed: the Dems might come up empty on the needed
dirt; they may fall short of the number of Republicans they need to give him the "Nixon
talk"; even if he is given an ultimatum, he may decide to fight and actually win. But don't
take it as a given that impeachment is a futile exercise undertaken only to weaken Trump for
reelection and likely to backfire. It might succeed.
If it doesn't, Trump's chances of winning reelection are better than even, though the
landscape has become less favorable. His base remains strong (most of his Deplorables think
he's actually delivering on his promises, because he says so in tweets and at his rallies.
Look at that big, beautiful invisible nonexistent Wall! Winning!). On the other hand, failure
to control our border means the demographic shift against Republicans continues, coupled with
zero efforts to police voting by non-citizens and (notably in Florida) letting felons vote.
If Trump loses either Florida or Pennsylvania, it's probably all over even with a lousy
Democratic opponent. That's aside from whatever economic hiccup occurs between now and next
fall. Or if Trump gets in a war somewhere.
Finally, I dispute the suggestion it's desirable to elect more Dems to Congress. Let's
agree Republicans are horrible. But even if you like the Dems on domestic grounds (I don't)
let's not ignore the fact that on the warmongering front the Dems are at least as bad as the
GOP and in most cases worse, especially when it comes to Russia. Note how Mueller began and
ended his swan song by emphasizing the Russian "attack" on the US in 2016. That's will
continue to be the core dogma of the Democratic Party, with most of the GOP joining them in
making sure Trump shows no sign of heresy. More Democrats means even more of a straitjacket
on whatever off-script impulses Trump occasionally displays with regard to Korea, Syria, and
Russia. Even Iran, where he has disavowed regime change (somebody tell President
Bolton!).
Impeachment indeed would be a mistake. The Dems have been denigrating trump from the
beginning and what has that got them?
Also, remember Trey Gowdy and his endless investigations? Adam Shiff is nearly as
repugnant and should turn to other work in Congress.
Yes, SharonM, Tulsi is charismatic, as well as calm and collected. So far, though, she is
being ignored by the D.C. pundits. We should keep an eye on her positioning with respect to
the new DNC debate thresholds.
"... He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However, Congress can charge him thru impeachment" ..."
"... Russian spin is the key to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the election to get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda. Impeachment just serves to divide and distract, exactly what they want. ..."
"... Russia like China is a fake enemy. Fake conflict with the US serves them just as well as it does with the US. The people must have an enemy lest they focus attention on the government. So they all play along. ..."
"... we get the opportunity to vote for one clown or another, two max, is a mainstay (about the only one) of our "democratic" nation. And the wrong clown won! Damned Russians. ..."
What do you expect from the master of coverup himself?
He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find
Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't
obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However, Congress can charge
him thru impeachment"
Except for the Russian involvement that's the truth. But the Russian spin is the key
to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the election to
get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda.
Impeachment just serves to divide and distract, exactly what they want.
Russia like China is a fake enemy. Fake conflict with the US serves them just as
well as it does with the US. The people must have an enemy lest they focus attention on the
government. So they all play along.
No wonder hollywood is producing crap now and messed up GOT finale. All the good writers
are engaged in scripting our reality under the guidance of the Deep State. Trumps nothing
more than an actor following a script.
The Dems can't believe Hillary lost all on her own. It must have been the Russians who
threatened US democracy and it's too bad we don't have the truth b/c Trump obstructed the
patriotic and sacred investigation according to a powerful person.
. . .Nancy Pelosi --
"The Special Counsel's report revealed that the President's campaign welcomed Russian
interference in the election, and laid out eleven instances of the President's
obstruction of the investigation. The Congress holds sacred its constitutional
responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.
"The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and
secure our democracy. The American people must have the truth. We call upon the Senate to
pass H.R. 1, the For The People Act, to protect our election systems.
"We salute Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team for his patriotic duty to seek
the truth." . . . here
After all, the quadrennial presidential election, when we get the
opportunity to vote for one clown or another, two max, is a mainstay (about the only one)
of our "democratic" nation. And the wrong clown won! Damned Russians.
"... Even with impeachment and a nomination challenger Trump would likely still win the election. ..."
"... There is no charismatic Democratic challenger in sight. Currently leading in the primary polls are Biden, Sanders and Warren. Neither of them can compete with the Trump's popularity. Despite Russiagate he still has a 41% approval rating which is quite high for a midterm presidency. ..."
"... Trump is also a master at playing the media. He would surely find ways to turn an impeachment circus to his advantage. ..."
"... The Democrats can only win the 2020 election if they have a real strong policy issue that is supported by a large majority of the population. 'Medicare for all' is such a winner . Health care is THE top issue for U.S. voters. Some two thirds of them support a universal government run health insurance that would cover the basic health issues and catastrophic cases. Private insurance for more cosmetic issues could be bought on top of that. ..."
"... But significant parts of the Democratic party leadership are against such a system. They fear for the large donations and other bribes the pharma and health industry throws at them. ..."
"... "If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." ..."
"... Here essentially is Mueller's spin job: "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress can charge him thru impeachment" Mueller is likely to have his day in court along with the rest of the conspirators. How will those public hangings affect Lichtman's 13 keys? ..."
"... Impeachment PROCEEDINGS will divert attention away from Trump being an Israeli stooge. Trump is too valuable for Israeli interests to be removed from office. ..."
"... I voted for Trump based on 3 issues; Immigration, trade policy and ending futile foreign wars. As far as I am concerned, he's failed on all three and I don't care if he is removed from office. ..."
"... In addition to electing a MAGA nationalist, CIA/MI6/Mossad used the election to initiate a new McCarthyism, to smear Wikileaks, and to settle scores with Michael Flynn (who had angered them with his admission that the Obama Administration had made a "willful decision" to support ISIS) . ..."
"... At the heart of the issue are limits on the powers of the special counsel. Many legal scholars believe a sitting president can't be criminally indicted, meaning that if Mueller finds evidence of crimes by Trump, his strongest recourse might well be to make a referral to Congress for potential impeachment proceedings. But some of those experts tell TPM that under the regulation governing the special counsel's office, Mueller lacks the authority to make that referral without approval from Justice Department officials overseeing his investigation. ..."
"... After Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton, Congress changed the laws governing special investigations in 1999: No longer could a three-judge panel appoint an "independent counsel" acting with no direct DOJ oversight. Instead, the decision to appoint a "special counsel" had to be made by the attorney general. In Mueller's case, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself, because of meetings he had held with the Russian ambassador, leaving Rosenstein to appoint and manage Mueller and his probe. ..."
"... "Those regulations don't explicitly give the special counsel authority to make a referral," William Yeomans, a 26-year DOJ veteran who has served as an acting assistant attorney general and is now a fellow at the Alliance for Justice, told TPM. "If there is a referral, it's going to have to go through Rosenstein ..."
"... The new US "justice" system- -- "If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so." So sorry about that pal, you must be guilty because you can't prove you're innocent. ..."
"... Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the end of the Cold War, it became more apparent. ..."
"... IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence when you turn a massive entity like USA. ..."
"... Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in alt-media) can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't bring themselves to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "CIA is running the USA". ..."
"... May 9 - surprise medical bills will be outlawed ..."
"... The purpose of Russiagate was to 1) prevent any foreign policy initiative which featured rapprochement with Russia. 2) prevent or forestall any honest appraisal of why Clinton lost. ..."
"... It is obvious that the Democratic Party establishment is hostile to progressive initiatives, including a Single Payer medical system which absolutely would be a winning platform in America. Therefore the impeachment circus will continue as it keeps the Dem base focussed on the supposed national emergency which is Trump. Trump's election was probably the biggest opening for non-mainstream politics in decades in America, and its been mostly squandered by deliberate misdirection. ..."
"... Impeachment is not a conviction, it just shoves a trial over to the Senate where the Democrats are sure to lose. Its poor strategy to proceed with more nonsense. The whole Russian maneuver is going to end badly for them. They are turning Trump from a sure loser to a possible winner. ..."
"... What do you expect from the master of coverup himself? He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress can charge him thru impeachment" ..."
"... Except for the Russian involvement thats the truth. But the Russian spin is the key to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the election to get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda. Impeachment just serves to divide and distract, exactly what they want. ..."
"... In any case, my view is that Bernie Sanders is the biggest factor, not Trump. Even without H. Rodham running, the DNC will do everything it can to not let Bernie be the Progressive or Liberal representative in the Presidential race - even to the point of losing again to Trump. That's what really matters in 2020. ..."
"... Clearly we see it in a similar way... everything else is the cult of political personality - trump, pelosi, clinton, mueller, brennan, barr and etc etc - sideshow to keep the kiddies entertained.. meanwhile the fox continues to run the chicken house.. ..."
"... the Constitution's provision that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch ..."
"... The relevant provision you are looking for would be Article 1 / Section 8 of the US Constitution. ..."
"... Congressional oversight is implied in the US Constitution rather than stated explicitly. ..."
"... Further information and elaboration of Congress's powers of oversight are at this link. ..."
The Special counsel Robert Mueller today closed
his investigation into alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with alleged Russian interference with the 2016 election.Mueller said
nothing that goes beyond his already published report. But he
empathized that his report did not absolve Trump of obstructing his investigation. Mueller said:
"If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
and
"Charging the President with a crime was [..] not an option we could consider."
It is the long standing legal opinion of the Justice Department that it -- as part of the executive branch -- can not indict a
sitting president for a crime. The only entity which can do that is Congress through the impeachment process. Mueller had to follow
that opinion. He now punted the issue to Congress.
Even before Mueller's statement some Democrats strongly argued that such an impeachment process is warranted. Mueller's statement
today will be seen as support for that demand.
The leader of the Democratic party in the House Nancy Pelosi so far rejected to make that move. She
fears
that an impeachment process will only help Trump during the upcoming campaign season. He would certainly try to block the process.
He would play the victim and demonize the Democrats over it. The media noise during a running impeachment process would also drown
out any other policy issues the Democrats might want to highlight. Russiagate already did that throughout the last two and a half
years. It didn't help the party.
But there are also arguments that an impeachment process could damage Trump and increase the chance that he loses the 2020 election.
Professor Alan Lichtman, who correctly predicted all presidential election since 1984,
uses 13 true/false
statements to judge if the candidate of the incumbent party will get elected. His current prediction:
"Trump wins again in 2020 unless six of 13 key factors turn against him. I have no final verdict yet because much could change
during the next year. Currently, the President is down only three keys: Republican losses in the midterm elections, the lack of
a foreign policy success, and the president's limited appeal to voters."
One of Lichtman's key factors is 9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Lichtman thinks that an impeachment process would be negative for Trump:
"Democrats are fundamentally wrong about the politics of impeachment and their prospects for victory in 2020. An impeachment and
subsequent trial would cost the president a crucial fourth key -- the scandal key -- just as it cost Democrats that key in 2000.
The indictment and trial would also expose him to dropping another key by encouraging a serious challenge to his re-nomination.
Other potential negative keys include the emergence of a charismatic Democratic challenger, a significant third-party challenge,
a foreign policy disaster, or an election-year recession. Without impeachment, however, Democratic prospects are grim."
I disagree with that take. Even with impeachment and a nomination challenger Trump would likely still win the election.
There is no charismatic Democratic challenger in sight. Currently leading in the primary polls are Biden, Sanders and Warren.
Neither of them can compete with the Trump's popularity. Despite Russiagate he still
has a 41% approval rating which is quite
high for a midterm presidency.
Trump is also a master at playing the media. He would surely find ways to turn an impeachment circus to his advantage.
His arguments would be very simply:
If I, as your all powerful president, had really wanted to obstruct the investigation, I would have succeeded.
or
Why would I have obstructed an investigation that I was sure would find me innocent - which it clearly did.
Trump would turn the impeachment process from a scandal about him into a scandal that the Democrats are to blame for.
With or without impeachment the Democrats have little chance to win the presidency. They should concentrate on keeping their House
majority and on fetching more Senate seats. An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate
and will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House.
The Democrats can only win the 2020 election if they have a real strong policy issue that is supported by a large majority
of the population. 'Medicare for all'
is such a winner
. Health care is THE top issue for U.S. voters. Some two thirds of them
support a universal government run health insurance that would cover the basic health issues and catastrophic cases. Private
insurance for more cosmetic issues could be bought on top of that.
But significant parts of the Democratic party leadership are against such a system. They fear for the large donations and
other bribes the pharma and health industry throws at them.
During the midterm election Gallup
asked voters
about their main policy issues. Despite two years of loud media noise Russiagate was the issue they named least. An impeachment process
would likewise create lots of media attention, but would have little relevance for the real problems the voters care about. It would
drown out the policy messages the Democrats need to send.
To hype Russiagate was already a mistake. The voters did not care about it. To go for impeachment over murky obstruction charges
would likely be worse.
Posted by b on May 29, 2019 at 01:57 PM |
Permalink
"If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
_____________________________________________
Mueller's statements constitute reprehensible innuendo. As B. notes, both this oblique negative "clarification" and Mueller's
implication that his hands were tied by DOJ regulations amounts to a reprehensible attempt to signal that the institutional anti-Trump
"Resistance" should vigorously pursue stitching up Trump despite Mueller's own inability to do so.
It's like a tag-team marathon lynching, and the odious Mueller is handing off the baton to his teammates in malfeasance.
It's not exactly a selfless act on Mueller's part, either. If Trump is prematurely removed from office, or sufficiently slandered
to a point that renders him unelectable, Mueller and his corrupt associates will claim vindication.
Impeachment would be another distraction that would go nowhere positive for either party so it won't happen.
Trump has as much dirt on the Dems as they do on him......it would be an ugly cat fight and the public would win....we can't
have that
I like the last paragraph of Catlin Johnstone's latest
"
All political analysis which favors either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is inherently worthless, because both
parties are made of swamp and exist in service of the swamp. If you can't see that the entire system is one unified block of corruption
and that ordinary people need to come together and unite against it, then you really don't understand what you're looking at.
"
Here essentially is Mueller's spin job: "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just
came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress
can charge him thru impeachment" Mueller is likely to have his day in court along with the rest of the conspirators. How will
those public hangings affect Lichtman's 13 keys?
Impeachment PROCEEDINGS will divert attention away from Trump being an Israeli stooge. Trump is too valuable for Israeli interests
to be removed from office.
I voted for Trump based on 3 issues; Immigration, trade policy and ending futile foreign wars. As far as I am concerned,
he's failed on all three and I don't care if he is removed from office.
The investigation should have been about Israel and Saudi Arabias collusion with US Presidents, of which Trump has just managed
to take the mask off for all to see. Since Nixon the US has guaranteed Saudi Arabias safety due to the Petro-dollar. The US to
stay in the Saudis good graces has based our foreign policy on their objectives, even willing to join them as being the largest
financiers of terrorists (such as al Qaeda) in the world and with the genocide in Yemen. The Saudi objectives also align with
Israels, as outline in their "Clean Break" policy in 1996 and thus ours.
The job of the Democratic Party is to take out progressives in the primary, for a corporate shill favorable to their donors.
Impeachment would just divert their efforts. The Democratic establishments working hard to take down Bernie and Tulsi. They would
rather have Trump than a true progressive.
The utter falsity underlying the entire Russiagate hoax makes for big D Party problems. Current R Party Senate majority would
likely negate an Impeachment Conviction; and do we really want Pence to become POTUS?! The better political move is to remove
Trump via the 2020 election. Sanders would have won handily in 2016 and will do so if given the opportunity in 2020, particularly
if it's Sanders/Gabbard. More could be said, and likely will later.
Nothing matters except results. Another dem/rep talking head lying and making promises they'll never keep. Sorry, all done with
that. My government is now something to be endured. The time is now to create our own solutions to our common problems. Enough
is enough.
Sadly Trump was only the beginning. Most people have a blind belief in our system of government and once they lose that trust
they are going to be electing people who make Trump look like the the best thing since sliced cheese. Go read the text of the
Abortion law in Kentucky. Sick stuff.
Basically I can agree with b, thou for my part, I've seen nothing from the dems in years !! They play this centralist game as
if one damn republican will ever side with anything they say ?? Also, the dems are just as to blame for this current mess, ie,
Obama's that's look forward and not backward, failure to haul all the criminal bankers to court, not to mention they never forfeited
a dollar, but make even more !! Then there is this crappy bailout of insurance companies along with the bankers and all others
that benefited from this bailout !!! Also thanks to the great Bill and paving the way for the 2008 crisis, yes Bill, we know,
you just didn't think it would turn out that way !! Straight from the liar that brings forth an even bold lair in Trump !!
All that said, I agree with the statement offered by Psychohistorian which offers the truth of Caitlin Johnstone's last paragraph
!!! In other words we're screwed !!!
Trump is not a master at playing the media. This I think is an outright falsification designed to further nonsense about Trump
the stable genius. Trump is favored by the rich people who buy advertising. If they had wanted, the TV news would have covered
Trump's business career the same way they covered Clinton's email/Benghazi/Clinton Foundation. And they would have given Sanders
the same free publicity they gave Trump in the primaries too.
Trump impeachment for emoluments clause, Trump impeachment for relations with Saudi, Trump impeachment over illegal transfer
of funds (Nixon called it impounding) Trump impeachment over yes executive privilege do indeed offer enormous opportunities to
Democrats. Impeachment over treason with Russia doesn't, but then, equally stupid nonsense about Clinton treason got endless play,
didn't it?
The Clinton impeachment did not help the Republican in the Senate, though, as near as I can tell, actually pinning a Senator
to their vote in the trial makes a difference.
Licthman is not as big a fool as many political scientists seem to be, but predicting the EC winner is not really what he's
predicting. He predicted that Trump would win. I think at this moment Trump would lose the election again, but win the EC again.
And I would say his really strong moves are in gerrymanders and vote suppression.
The economic factor does not strongly favor Trump, no more than it strongly favored Clinton. The official statistics are not
very reliable in measure the welfare of the citizens (not least because the government doesn't care.)
If Hillary and Pelosi are against impeachment, how can any progressive not be FOR impeachment?
The timeline here is telling:
1) In December 2018 - before the vote for the Speaker of the House - Trump invited Pelosi and Schumer to the oval office to
discuss the Wall. This helped Pelosi to win the vote for Speaker of the House.
4) On April 23rd, as Democrats continued to push for impeachment, Hillary came out of retirement to support Pelosi who was
beset with demands from Democrats to impeach Trump. Hillary urged caution and said that the Senate would not convict so impeachment
was essentially useless (not so!).
<> <> <> <> <> <>
The reluctance to impeach Trump is in sharp contrast to the 'Deep State' horror during the 2016 election at the prospect of
a Trump presidency and the (supposed) continuing anger at Trump since.
But it supports what I've said for at least a year now:
The 'Deep State' was shocked by Russia's determined action against their plans in Syria (2013) and Ukraine (2014).
They decided that the next President should be MAGA nationalist and overt militarist (as indicated by Kissingers WSJ
Op-Ed of August 2014) and the fact that Trump was the only MAGA nationalist candidate in the Republican Primary
(out of a field of 19!).
Hillary ran a terrible campaign that raises serious doubts that she wanted to win. Her deliberate loss is highly likely
as she is a member of the 'Deep State' that wanted a MAGA nationalist. (Other likely 'Deep State' members: Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller)
In addition to electing a MAGA nationalist, CIA/MI6/Mossad used the election to initiate a new McCarthyism, to smear
Wikileaks, and to settle scores with Michael Flynn (who had angered them with his admission that the Obama Administration had
made a "willful decision" to support ISIS) .
thanks b... i pretty much agree with you and many of the comments -and tend to agree with @13 steven johnsons comments which run
counter to some of it here as well... i don't think trump is this brilliant media manipulator... israel / ksa and a few other
obvious suspects are determined to keep trump in power.. meanwhile the cia/dem russiagate story is a complete distraction that
many are not completely buying - fortunately...
no matter impeachment or not - the cia seems to be running the usa at this point, which is likely how israel/ military / financial
complex like it too... trump is the perfect fit! until the dems come up with a different strategy, trump will continue to muddle
along with all his trump fans in tow... the guy is a complete jackass - perfect alibi for those who are really running the show
here..
for an example of otherwise intelligent people getting completely distracted by russiagate, visit emptywheel.. the can see the
trees so well, they are unable to see the forest they are living in..
At the heart of the issue are limits on the powers of the special counsel. Many legal scholars believe a sitting president
can't be criminally indicted, meaning that if Mueller finds evidence of crimes by Trump, his strongest recourse might well
be to make a referral to Congress for potential impeachment proceedings. But some of those experts tell TPM that under the
regulation governing the special counsel's office, Mueller lacks the authority to make that referral without approval from
Justice Department officials overseeing his investigation.
After Kenneth Starr's pursuit of Bill Clinton, Congress changed the laws governing special investigations in 1999: No
longer could a three-judge panel appoint an "independent counsel" acting with no direct DOJ oversight. Instead, the decision
to appoint a "special counsel" had to be made by the attorney general. In Mueller's case, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused
himself, because of meetings he had held with the Russian ambassador, leaving Rosenstein to appoint and manage Mueller and
his probe.
[ Jeff Sessions and Rosenstein have left DOJ. William Barr replaced Sesssions and, AFAIK, has no reason to recuse himself
so later references to Rosenstein's authority should apply to Barr instead. ]
"Those regulations don't explicitly give the special counsel authority to make a referral," William Yeomans, a 26-year
DOJ veteran who has served as an acting assistant attorney general and is now a fellow at the Alliance for Justice, told TPM.
"If there is a referral, it's going to have to go through Rosenstein [ Barr ] . Ultimately,
it's probably his decision."
Susan Low Bloch, professor of constitutional law at Georgetown Law School, agreed. " Rosenstein [ Barr ] decides what to
do, and if he sees an impeachable offense I would say that he should send it to Congress," she said in a phone interview on
Monday. "But if he chooses not to, I don't think you can do anything."
The new US "justice" system- -- "If we have confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
So sorry about that pal, you must be guilty because you can't prove you're innocent.
And you, over there, snickering in the corner -- I have no proof of your innocence either! . . .Get the cuffs.
I don't think impeachment will be pursued as long as Pelosi is Speaker of the House. How likely are Democrats to pursue it? They
don't have the guts or the honor to carry it off. They were complicit in the Iraq War, joining the Republicans, and brought no
impeachment against G.W. Bush for his crimes against humanity, for implementing torture as policy, and even upholding as legal
such unspeakable acts. Along the arc of the government's vile history it's clear that the Democrats have surrendered and made
accommodations for crimes as they occurred. Pelosi and her leadership surrendered at each step to the creeping fascism and the
surveillance state. They are as eager to see Assange destroyed, Venezuela invaded, and to look blithely upon a dystopian, Big
Brother state. They are quite as infamous as the republicans.
Impeachment talk is now just a way to fill time before next summer's Democratic nomination. I think B is exactly right, the resulting
circus in the Senate would give Trump 2-3 extra points in the polls, which would bring his odds up (my intuitive guess) from 1:4
now to 1:1.
A Biden candidacy would make it really hard to make anything other than "I am not Trump" to be the message. Anyway there are
other things going on.
The economy and China seem to be the wild card.
On a popular level, basic and unsophisticated hostility toward China might actually be a positive for Trump's audience, I really
don't know.
The agricultural-export states currently eating the consequences of the trade war so far will vote Republican either way, they're
irrelevant.
For Boeing to hit a pain point via China would be very significant. But their response would be to just tell the Trump admin
what to do, rather than bother changing the election.
Natural gas industry would be electorally significant, because it is centered on the most pivotal state, PA. But global natgas
flows and pricing take years to change, so the timing may prevent it from being a relevant issue in the election. (Japan's re-nuclearization,
hence reduction of LNG imports, may be a closely related subject to watch, with Trump there just now)
There is bipartisan support for Trump's targets of choice - China, Iran, Venezuela, but the mob parts ways on Russia. Trump and
the smaller faction behind him recognise that Russia needs to become a neutral if not an ally US to give the US a chance at taking
down China.
The larger part of the mob think they can take down any combination of target countries as they are the exceptional nation.
Over the last few weeks China seem to have decided that what Trump kicked off will be continuing with increasing intensity
and now going into war mode. Russia came to this point shortly after MH17. I don't think Trump would have succeeded in separating
Russia from China, but Russiagate is ensuring that Russia and China form a solid war mode alliance against the US.
The last guns and butter President was LBJ, and it ruined his presidency. Social programs like Medicare for All (single payer),
tuition free college and infrastructure are not possible with continued high military expenditures and foreign wars. Tulsi Gabbard
states this clearly and it's resonating when she's allowed to be heard. In addition, Trump has made himself vulnerable to a
real antiwar candidate with the Venezuela fiasco, delaying the withdrawal from Syria and vetoing the Yemen bill. But only
a real antiwar candidate can win unless Trump actually starts a war. I'm disappointed Bernard doesn't even mention Tulsi
as a charismatic candidate who could defeat Trump if given a fair shot at the nomination.
Unfortunately, as Jimmy Dore says, "Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive." Their strategy
of flooding the field with just enough "favorite son" candidates to keep anyone from winning on the first ballot will work, allowing
super delegates to nominate Biden as a "compromise," who will lose hands down to Trump unless Trump actually starts a war.
Perhaps the best outcome would be for the House to start impeachment proceedings at the same time Barr indicts both Orrs, Page,
Strzok, Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Rice (Susan), Clinton, Obama and perhaps even Mueller himself. Clean out both wings of the stable
at the same time.
Copeland @ 20, well said, couldn't agree more, there's no there when it comes to the dems, a complete sellout of the people they're
supposed to or say they represent !!
I don't know for sure that b understands this country, not having grown up here. What is to oppose this juggernaut of hypocrisy,
and how much more moral accommodation will the traffic bear? It is far more than the case of justice delayed is justice denied.
The repackaging and the makeover of lies will be unendurable for another election cycle, merely going through the motions, just
sticking our nostrils into the stink of corruption one more time.
The objective of this political circus is noise, its prime manipulation is to discourage real dialogue, its methods are demagogic.
If any honor could be summoned; it would have as its objective an impeachment proceeding in which there was a determination to
talk about reality, to examine this nation's real problems. It will be easier to accept the counterfeit proceedings of the 2020
campaign.
Imagineering and propaganda are leading us straight to hell. One more season of politics where the candidates of the unreal
appear willing to bamboozle the country, on the altar of power, will put an end to us. One more wretched ambassador of the empire.
One more glad-handing sport to tell us how great we are. One more oligarch or oligarch's man/woman will be the final stroke.
Wow what a disgraced person he really is, instead of correcting that his witch hunt didnt find any collusion nor obvious obstruction,
he just doubles down before retire:
Pulling a Comey: How Mueller dog-whistled Democrats into impeachment of Trump https://on.rt.com/9vdv
US is so finished politcally, new voices, parties needs to be created.
Mueller put a great deal of emphasis on Russian interference with the election, which is being both parroted and universally interpreted
as a Russian hack of the DNC server - a hack which could not possibly have taken place.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
The "Russian interference" issue was ancillary to Mueller's investigation, yet it is a focal point of his comments. Why was it
so important that it merited that degree of relative emphasis? If it was a download and not a hack, the only suspect is the late
Seth Rich. The only person (I assume) who can unequivocally prove where those materials came from is Julian Assange. After years,
suddenly asylum is revoked, and suddenly the US is prosecuting for espionage. After years of disparagement, mainstream media is
suddenly rallying to Assange's case - yet truth be told nobody at CNN will ever face even administrative sanction for the same
sort of activity as Assange's. SOS Pompeo met with FM Lavrov, came back to the US and said he had warned Lavrov about interfering
with US elections...and Lavrov and Russian press reported those statements were never made. Apparently someone corrected Pompeo's
errant failure, and at the next meeting he did in fact warn Lavrov about such interference. Obviously it was a big deal - to someone
that was sufficiently powerful to tell the SOS what to do with great specificity - that this official condemnation was publicly
registered. It certainly was not Trump. Lavrov responded with not only denial, but as Aaron Mate pointed out and was noted here,
Lavrov said he had a file on it and was prepared to discuss it. Pompeo was not prepared to discuss whatever was in that file.
Although it is patently obvious the Russians did not hack the DNC server, and that the materials in question - which relate to
HRC - were downloaded, it is apparently an imperative of a very large number of powerful people to maintain the official narrative
of a Russian hack of the DNC computer. While that suits other narratives, it also buries any questions as to who might have downloaded
the materials (and someone did). Which ends any inquiry as to what might have happened from that moment in time, just as inquiry
into Whitewater ended with Vince Foster's demise and an incredibly "irregular" forensic inquiry. Boxes of documents were removed
from Foster's office that same evening - by HRC personally. Recall she wanted to drone strike Assange. All of this is happening
on the heels of the revelation that the Mueller investigation was not going to take down Trump and end all potential for inquiry
into any untoward DNC related activity. Thank you in advance to any comments in response to this comment.
After reading numerous articles on "Russia gate," the 2016 presidential election and the rise of Generalissimo Bone Spur and President
Chief Kaiser to the US presidency, Donald Trump, the 19th century British political historian and thinker Lord Acton summed it
all up best; namely "never underestimate the influence of stupidity on history." What else is there to say?
@ Bruce # 29 with the Seth Rich questions about the DNC
You are correct in pointing out that the Mueller investigation is hiding DNC and Clinton II crimes which is why I said above
that the impeachment will not proceed. Somewhere I read that Hillary is on tape having said that she/they were screwed if Trump
won.
The bottom line is that none of those folks are working in my best interest and are committing crime after crime to stay in
power.
Impeachment indeed would be a mistake. The Dems have been denigrating trump from the beginning and what has that got them?
Also, remember Trey Gowdy and his endless investigations? Adam Shiff is nearly as repugnant and should turn to other work in
Congress.
Yes, SharonM, Tulsi is charismatic, as well as calm and collected. So far, though, she is being ignored by the D.C. pundits.
We should keep an eye on her positioning with respect to the new DNC debate thresholds.
It won't take a masterful performance given the news that keeps spilling over the transom. Meanwhile Mueller plays his criminal
hand of innuendo until the end. Were he ever to submit to questions in a Congressional setting, Mueller would be out-Giancana-ing
Sam on taking the Fifth. The Special Counsel format is at this stage a superseded footnote. The ball's now in Barr/Durham's court
now and the theme is Hunt for Red Predicates.
Breaking news. The Russia Collusion time-zero may in fact lead to Rome as all roads are wont to do. Italy is not a Five Eyes member.
However that did not prevent Obama and Brennan from treating it like one. Both spent a lot of time there at opportune moments.
As it turns out the oft-cited, oft-profaned Steele Dossier was the barest of predicates that was always meant to be hopped
over anyway. The Mother of all Predicates was a a failed effort on the the part of Italian intelligence and the FBI to frame Trump
in a stolen (Clinton) email scandal. How did the Italians get hold of these emails and who thwarted the frame-up attempt? Hmm.
Just when you think the transnational plot is thick enough, it gets thickerer, and if Obama's Milan itinerary's any indication,
it may well reach the tippy-top.
Nine Days in May (2017) is where 90% of the action is.
@29 bruce... everyone here at moa is saying much the same which is why some of us are saying the cia is running the usa at this
point.. that and a confluence of other interests... mueller - ex cia... so, basically the mueller investigation was more cover
up and b.s. for the masses... it seems to have worked to a limited degree..
Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the
end of the Cold War, it became more apparent.
IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold
War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence
when you turn a massive entity like USA.
Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in alt-media)
can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't bring themselves
to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "CIA is running the USA".
Regarding a candidate addressing a really important domestic issue in USA, Pres. Trump has drawn the teeth (to an extent) on that
one, and put the Democratic party in the position of either supporting the Republican initiative, or throwing sand in the wheels
of a measure which will be very popular with the American public:
May 9 - surprise medical bills will be outlawed
"...Today I'm announcing principles that should guide Congress in developing bipartisan legislation to end surprise medical
billing...we have bipartisan support, which is rather shocking..."
Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the Earth. I recommend listening to the two-part
interview of George Papadopoulos with Mark Steyn, where he describes the convoluted plot to use him to bring down Trump.
What they did to this guy is truly disgusting. Brennan belongs in a prison cell, and he should be sharing it with Mueller.
Papadopoulos also has written a book about his experiences called 'Deep State Target, How I got caught in the crosshairs of the
plot to bring down President Trump.
And, a final comment. Hillary Clinton proved beyond all doubt that she and not Trump was not fit to be President. To engage
in this scheme and then to raise tensions through the roof with a nuclear superpower, which can destroy this country, is about
as low and selfish as it is possible to be.
the democrats don't really have squat as far as real impeachment charges are concerned. I lived through Watergate and everyone
in college at that time enjoyed that circus daily, and there was real evidence which continued to grow as the hearings went on.....
please recall only one of the charges against nixon related at all to the war, if I recall, about the 'secret' bombings of Cambodia
- there's nothing in foreign policy they can or would indict this guy on (sad to say), without involving their own complicity
in all the wars and war crimes in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and so on... Same goes for their incredible Surveillance State. they are
all guilty.
This business against trump would be pure showmanship, and the democrats have lost nearly every single time they tried to show
up trump, who is admittedly a sorry rotten ass it's true but a more clever showman and bullshitter than any of them.
how can the Democrats win on anything other than bread and butter issues? but they haven't been strongly in favor of the working
and middle classes in 30-40 years and are a corporate party more now than ever. they fucked up so bad in 2016 and have been totally
distracting with this 'Russiagate' nonsense. nobody that makes a real living in the country gives a shit about that, it's health
care, wages, standard of living, climate catastrophe and other real things that concern people.
maybe the Russiagates make a lot of noise, but so far Pelosi and Schumer know better than to fall into that trap
As long as the US and world economy don't tank (which I believe is a very real possibility - like what gave Obama his win against
McCain in sept-nov 2008), then alas, I believe Trump will very likely win. but well over 17 months to election is a long long
time in politics and many things can happen.
b is correct in stating that the Democrats' hyping of Russiagate was a mistake, but he is wrong in believing that impeaching Trump
would be a similar mistake. That is because Trump, in rejecting Congress's efforts to investigate his administration, has gone
beyond mere obstruction of justice. He has declared that Congress has not the power to investigate his office, which is a direct
violation of the Constitution's provision that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch.
If the Democrats accept such a declaration, then the United States will have officially crossed the line into authoritarianism
and fascism. Whether Trump's chances of re-election are helped or hurt is almost besides the point. The nation cannot meekly bow
to the will of a tyrant who holds himself unaccountable and above the law.
The Democrats presumably had the option of taking the high road against Trump and trying to legislate around him, but chose
the low road instead. Now find themselves spinning their wheels in the muck, with no other options on the table.
As they continue down this road, it will only show how useless the whole charade is becoming. The assumption being There Is
No Alternative. The underlying intention being true oligarchy, as this equivalent of a national home loan eventually comes due
and those with the biggest piles of treasuries intending to trade them for the remaining public assets, facilitated by those bureaucrats
who understand they are already working for their future employers.
Yet the only tool of control they will have, as all hope dies, is fear. Then the reset will start, as the scab becomes ever
more separate from the wound. The nations of the Eurasian continent will eventually thank the US for forcing them to work together,
while we and those most attached, such as England, slowly come to realize that it is all about something far deeper and more important,
than the Benjamins. We need public finance, like we needed public government and usurped monarchies. The bankers are having their
'Let them eat cake' moment and it is getting messy. They may as well wallow in the swamp.
The purpose of Russiagate was to 1) prevent any foreign policy initiative which featured rapprochement with Russia. 2) prevent
or forestall any honest appraisal of why Clinton lost.
It is obvious that the Democratic Party establishment is hostile to progressive initiatives, including a Single Payer medical
system which absolutely would be a winning platform in America. Therefore the impeachment circus will continue as it keeps the
Dem base focussed on the supposed national emergency which is Trump. Trump's election was probably the biggest opening for non-mainstream
politics in decades in America, and its been mostly squandered by deliberate misdirection.
Impeachment is not a conviction, it just shoves a trial over to the Senate where the Democrats are sure to lose. Its poor
strategy to proceed with more nonsense. The whole Russian maneuver is going to end badly for them. They are turning Trump from
a sure loser to a possible winner.
There is some talk of kicking Pence off the ticket and adding Nicky Haley if there is a sense of trouble in Trumps reelection.
They promised us a 100 years war. 4 more years of Trump and 8 years of Haley would add another 12. Probably we will have those
12 more years of war no matter who is in the office. The socialist opposition is absent of war party opposition.
Someone mentioned the economy and that could end it all for the Trump ticket. Things look lousy.
The relevant provision you are looking for would be
Article 1 / Section 8 of the US
Constitution. Congressional oversight is implied in the US Constitution rather than stated explicitly. Further information and
elaboration of Congress's powers of oversight
are at this link.
What do you expect from the master of coverup himself? He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary &
I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just
that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However,Congress can charge him thru impeachment"
Except for the Russian involvement
thats the truth. But the Russian spin is the key to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the
election to get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda. Impeachment just serves to
divide and distract, exactly what they want.
Russia like China is a fake enemy. Fake conflict with the US serves them just as well as it does with the US. The people must
have an enemy lest they focus attention on the government. So they all play along.
No wonder hollywood is producing crap now and messed up GOT finale. All the good writers are engaged in scripting our reality
under the guidance of the Deep State. Trumps nothing more than an actor following a script.
An Impeachment attempt would guarantee an already likely Trump re-election win. If there is an attempt to impeach him, he'll beat
his breast all the way back into the White House saying he is being "witch hunted". What is also interesting is how other commenters
talked about disappointment in Trump's trade policy.
Isn't free trade an ongoing gift to the multinationals and oligarchy? And
while a trade war will certainly hurt the common man - the common man doesn't vote based on the absolute cost of goods in Wal
Mart. They vote based on whether they think their interests are at least being listened to. Underestimating the anger at offshored
jobs and production is exactly the mistake the DNC and mainline Democrats have been making.
In any case, my view is that Bernie Sanders is the biggest factor, not Trump. Even without H. Rodham running, the DNC will
do everything it can to not let Bernie be the Progressive or Liberal representative in the Presidential race - even to the point
of losing again to Trump. That's what really matters in 2020.
@jackrabbit.. Clearly we see it in a similar way... everything else is the cult of political personality - trump, pelosi,
clinton, mueller, brennan, barr and etc etc - sideshow to keep the kiddies entertained.. meanwhile the fox continues to run the
chicken house..
don't get me wrong.. whether one votes for scuzball trump, or scuzball whoever from the dems - it will be business as
usual - war, war, and more war with an ongoing sideshow of political personality to keep everyone distracted.. both the repubs
and the dems have shown their true colour and it has nothing to do with small people getting a leg up.. maga my ass and all the
rest of the politically subservient tripe..
"Democrats would rather lose to a Republican than win with a progressive." Their strategy of flooding the field with just enough
"favorite son" candidates to keep anyone from winning on the first ballot will work, allowing super delegates to nominate Biden
as a "compromise," who will lose hands down to Trump unless Trump actually starts a war.
The first parts I agree with entirely, and on that account I must retreat from my earlier declaration Sanders would win. As
things stand now, I believe he has no chance to get the nomination.
The second part is where we disagree. I have a visceral feeling Trump will not be President in 2021 unless some extra-legal
things happen, for any of the Democrats in the race will defeat him - badly. Even the horrid Biden. Biden or one of the other
Hillary clones will most likely take office in 2021. I'd prefer Warren, Sanders or Gabbard, but the Democratic Big Brass aren't
likely to allow any of these.
@ Jen 49
re: Rob 44 -- the Constitution's provision that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to oversee the Executive Branch
> The relevant provision you are looking for would be Article 1 / Section 8 of the US Constitution.
No, it isn't there.
> Congressional oversight is implied in the US Constitution rather than stated explicitly.
Implication? Come on. Rob 44's cmt is above -- "Constitution's provision..."
> Further information and elaboration of Congress's powers of oversight are at this link.
Requested Page Not Found (404).
Wow! Is it me or is the room getting a tad bit louder discussing impeachment? Do you know what it means? It means the the impeachment
distraction is working perfectly! Also, just in time to rescue the Demoncrats, the Republitards are passing anti-abortion bills
that are bad enough to increase Demoncrat voter turnout. Accordingly, for the regular voter, the wars, coups, and trade will remain
out of sight, out of mind. Congratulations, Amerikan regime! You guys are awesome!
Trump is
sign of degeneration of the US political elite. Much like Pompeo and Bolton.
But his hostility to Iran is just desire to please people who control him and finance his re-election bid .
Notable quotes:
"... ran sees no prospect of negotiations with the United States, a foreign ministry spokesman said on Tuesday ..."
"... Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that there won't be any talks with the U.S. until our government rejoins the JCPOA. ..."
"... I don't see how Iranians could view Trump as anything other than a menace when one of his first acts as president was to declare all of them to be potential security threats with the unnecessary and cruel travel ban. His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people have been intense and consistent for more than two years. ..."
"... When the president veers between "genocidal tweets" and disingenuous offers to talk, this doesn't come across as the work of a master negotiator but rather the impulsive babbling of a leader who can be easily enraged by the smallest and most inconsequential things that he happens to see on television ..."
"... Trump is not talking to Iran but his lackies in the U.S. MSM. They are seeing Iran as being fanatic and unreasonable in refusing to talk. This will be one of the justifications for war and permanent hostilities. ..."
"... I think you're wrong here. Trump doesn't hate or have contempt for Iranians. He's supremely indifferent to them. The hostility and contempt he has shown Iran and Iranians is meant to keep his major Israel and Saudi Arabia donors happy. That's been true from the beginning. Scores of millions in campaign contributions are riding on it. ..."
"... Increasingly, Donaldius Iohannes Trumpius reminds me of some latter day Roman emperor like Caligula or Nero. Absolute power, depravity, insatiable appetites for everything from power to money and women, a pathological lack of empathy, fawning courtiers – it's all there. ..."
In case there was any doubt, the Iranian government
made clear that they were not interested in talking to Trump:
I ran sees no prospect of negotiations with the United States, a foreign ministry
spokesman said on Tuesday , a day after U.S. President Donald Trump said a deal with
Tehran on its nuclear program was possible.
Iranian officials have repeatedly stated that there won't be any talks with the U.S.
until our government rejoins the JCPOA. That definitely won't happen under the current
administration, so there has never been a realistic chance of starting up U.S.-Iranian
negotiations in the near term. Everyone understands that, and that makes the president's random
"offers" to talk all the more ridiculous. Iran has already been burned by Trump's decision to
renege on the nuclear deal and wage economic war on the entire country, so there would have to
be a major effort on the U.S. side to regain Iranian trust. The Trump administration would have
to reverse course and undo every anti-Iranian thing that it has done over the last two years,
and even then that would barely get the U.S. and Iran back to where they had been in 2017.
Trump wouldn't ever do that because it would require him to admit being completely wrong.
Najmeh Bozorgmehr reports on how Iranians
are adapting to life under U.S. economic warfare against them:
Iranian analysts tell me the US made one big mistake this time. It used almost all its
non-military leverage against Iran over the wrong issue, because the country was not
violating the 2015 nuclear accord. Iranians may despise their rulers but they are aware that
the US is not righteous, either. How can they see Mr Trump as a saviour when he calls Iran "a
nation of terror" and promises "the official end of Iran"?
I don't see how Iranians could view Trump as anything other than a menace when one of
his first acts as president was to declare all of them to be potential security threats with
the unnecessary and cruel travel ban. His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people
have been intense and consistent for more than two years. The complete lack of respect
that Trump has shown to Iranian leaders and the Iranian people alike stands in sharp contrast
to his fawning praise for the North Korean leader, and they cannot help but take that as an
insult. It also isn't lost on the people being strangled by Trump's sanctions that they are
being punished for abiding by an international agreement backed by the world's major powers
while North Korea is celebrated after successfully defying the rest of the world by building up
their nuclear arsenal and long-range missiles. Iran is being penalized because they trusted the
U.S., and Trump has proven to them that this was a foolish thing for them to do. Why would they
reward Trump's aggression and make the same mistake twice?
When the president veers between "genocidal tweets" and disingenuous offers to talk,
this doesn't come across as the work of a master negotiator but rather the impulsive babbling
of a leader who can be easily enraged by the smallest and most inconsequential things that he
happens to see on television . As the North Koreans have also learned, no one can
successfully negotiate with a person as unreliable and moody as Trump. No one in Iran's
government is going to go out on a limb and take the political risk of engaging with the U.S.
again after the last effort blew up in their faces, and Trump's mercurial instability
guarantees that it would be a waste of everyone's time.
Trump is not talking to Iran but his lackies in the U.S. MSM. They are seeing Iran as
being fanatic and unreasonable in refusing to talk. This will be one of the justifications
for war and permanent hostilities.
Our own acts of aggression are completely ignored.
"His hostility to and contempt for Iran and its people have been intense and consistent
for more than two years. "
I think you're wrong here. Trump doesn't hate or have contempt for Iranians. He's
supremely indifferent to them. The hostility and contempt he has shown Iran and Iranians is
meant to keep his major Israel and Saudi Arabia donors happy. That's been true from the
beginning. Scores of millions in campaign contributions are riding on it.
Increasingly, Donaldius Iohannes Trumpius reminds me of some latter day Roman emperor like
Caligula or Nero. Absolute power, depravity, insatiable appetites for everything from power
to money and women, a pathological lack of empathy, fawning courtiers – it's all
there.
"... "Anyone associated with the 1994 Crime Bill will not have a chance of being elected," tweeted Trump. "In particular, African Americans will not be able to vote for you. I, on the other hand, was responsible for Criminal Justice Reform, which had tremendous support, & helped fix the bad 1994 Bill!" ..."
President Trump took a hard swing at both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton on Monday,
referencing a 1994 crime bill originally written by then-Congressman Joe Biden , which was
supported by Hillary Clinton, and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
The "1994 Law" was widely blamed for contributing to the
mass incarceration of black Americans for low-level drug crimes during the USA's infamously
failed war on drugs.
"Anyone associated with the 1994 Crime Bill will not have a chance of being elected,"
tweeted Trump. "In particular, African Americans will not be able to vote for you. I, on the
other hand, was responsible for Criminal Justice Reform, which had tremendous support, &
helped fix the bad 1994 Bill!"
In a second tweet, Trump writes ".... Super Predator was the term associated with the 1994
Crime Bill that Sleepy Joe Biden was so heavily involved in passing . That was a dark period in
American History, but has Sleepy Joe apologized? No!"
Propaganda works until it does not. Neoliberal propaganda lost power to pusvade the USA voters after 2008. that's why Trump was
elected. And that is the problem that forced neoliberal elite to invent Russiagate.
Caitlin Johnstone is wrong: for Sunders it was not propagandas which derailed him: it was criminal machinations of DNC
Kamala Harris again demonstrated that she is an establishment candidature uncapable of independent thinking. She bought
Russiagate narrative "hook, line, and sinker"
Notable quotes:
"... Another concern people have been voicing, which has far more legitimacy, is the fear of election tampering from domestic actors. ..."
"... Initiatives are sprouting up to bring more election security and reliability to the United States, which is currently ranked dead last in election integrity among all western democracies. Support for paper ballots is picking up steam with support from Senate Democrats and multiple presidential candidates, and rightly so; hand-counted paper ballots is considered the gold standard for election integrity, and every nation should want that for their voting systems. ..."
"After the Mueller report was released, our president called Vladimir
Putin, spent an hour on the phone with him,"
Democratic presidential
candidate Beto O'Rourke
said
on
CBS's
Face The Nation
yesterday. "Described the report as a hoax, giving Putin
a green light to further interfere in our democracy."
"Russia interfered in the 2016 election,"
tweeted
presidential
candidate Kamala Harris the other day. "If we don't do anything to upgrade our election
infrastructure, we will leave our nation vulnerable to future attacks."
We've been seeing
many
such hysterical warnings
about Russian interference in the upcoming 2020 elections, and
as the election gets nearer we are 100 percent guaranteed to see a lot more.
Another concern people have been voicing, which has far more legitimacy, is the
fear of election tampering from domestic actors.
An
article
published the other day by
Roll Call
reports that experts are warning
America's 2020 elections "will be held on voting machines that are woefully outdated and
that any tampering by adversaries could lead to disputed results." An
article
published last month
by the
Guardian
warns that new voting machines aren't
necessarily an improvement.
"The purchases replace machines from the turn of the century that raise serious
security concerns," the
Guardian
reports. "But the same companies that made and
sold those machines are behind the new generation of technology, and a history of
distrust between election security advocates and voting machine vendors has led to a
bitter debate over the viability of the new voting equipment -- leaving some campaigners
wondering if America's election system in 2020 might still be just as vulnerable to
attack."
Initiatives are sprouting up to bring more election security and reliability to
the United States, which is currently
ranked
dead last
in election integrity among all western democracies.
Support for
paper ballots is picking up steam with
support
from Senate Democrats
and multiple presidential candidates, and rightly so; hand-counted
paper ballots is considered
the
gold standard
for election integrity, and every nation should want that for their voting
systems.
But neither foreign interference nor domestic vote tampering will be the most
egregious form of election meddling that we will see in America's 2020 presidential
elections.
Bolton is the distillation of the pathology of the pro-Israel Lobby, which recruits
American power diplomatically and militarily to "secure the realm" for Israel.
Bolton may be unique only in the purity of this pathology, but the Trump's administration
is positively seething with creatures of the pro-Israel Lobby.
The pro-Israel Lobby must be stopped before it gets its next war.
It is indeed beyond troubling that the man we have to count on to do it is "1000 percent"
Israel-firster Donald Trump.
At a 2015 gala hosted by the Algemeiner Journal, Trump declared "We love Israel. We will
fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." His bid for the presidency was announced soon
after. Trump's whole "insurgent" campaign, his purported break with GOP orthodoxy,
questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian
deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were an
elaborate propaganda scam engineered by the Israel Lobby from the very beginning.
Trump's efforts on behalf of Israel began immediately after the election, prior to his
taking the oath of office.
Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser on Middle East/Israel issues,
gave his first on-the-record appearance at the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution on 3
December 2017. Saban praised Kushner for attempting to derail a vote at the United Nations
Security Council about Israeli settlements during the Obama administration.
Kushner reportedly dispatched former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to make
secret contact with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 in an effort to undermine or
delay the resolution, which condemned Israel for settlement construction. Saban told Kushner
that "this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very
much." Kushner thanked the audience at Brookings, a leading pro-Israel Lobby think tank,
"It's really an honor to be able to talk about this topic with so many people who I respect
so much, who have given so much to this issue."
During the keynote conversation, Kushner and Saban framed Middle East peace as a "real
estate issue". Kushner acknowledged that "We've solicited a lot of ideas from a lot of
places." Trump's understanding of "regional dynamics" in the Middle East clearly manifests "a
lot of ideas" from pro-Israel war hawks from the Saban Center at the Brookings
Institution.
It is clear that the pro-Israel Lobby pathology has thoroughly infected both major
political parties in the US. In fact, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and all their
rivals from the 2016 presidential campaign, are deep in the pockets of the pro-Israel Lobby.
Trump's current policies are not significantly at variance from Clinton's equally pro-Israel
foreign policy agenda.
The fracture between the Trump and Clinton contingents of the pro-Israel Lobby is rooted
in the personal predilections of their major American oligarch donors. Billionaires Sheldon
Adelson and Haim Saban are the Koch Brothers of the pro-Israel Lobby, and both are obsessed
about starting war with Iran.
When Adelson and Saban shared the stage at the Israeli American Council's inaugural
conference in Washington, D.C. in 2014, Saban quipped, "There's no right or left when it
comes to Israel". Despite their shared pro-Israel Lobby objectives, Adelson and Saban had a
fracas in 2015 over political tactics. The Republican Party and Democratic Party campaign
platforms in 2016 reflected right and left pro-Israel Lobby orientations. Even the Sanders
sheepdog campaign was a far-left pro-Israel Lobby iteration.
It's all too easy to focus on the "unique" pathology of Bolton or Mike Pompeo, or
congressional creatures like Lindsey Graham, not to mention faux "insurgent" President Trump,
while ignoring the wider extent of pro-Israel Lobby pathology in the US government.
It is also extremely dangerous to refer to these figures generically as mere
"neoconservatives" or "warhawks". They are unquestionably pro-Israel warhawks, and regardless
of "liberal" or "conservative" leanings, all are paid to advance a pro-Israel Lobby agenda
for US foreign policy.
In a video discussion based on his March 22, 2016 Consortium News article, Consortium News
founding editor Robert Parry addressed pro-Israel Lobby influence during the 2016
presidential election:
Note Firefox does not pickup the user name in Zero hedge anymore. So user names in comments were omitted... BTW comments from
Zerohedge reflect very well the level of frustration and confusion of common Americans with the neoliberal social system. Neoliberal
elites clearly lost most of the legitimacy in 2016.
While this is pretty poignant critique of American empire it does not ask and answer the key question: "What's next?" The crisis
of neoliberalism and the end of cheap oil probably will eventually crush the US led global empire and dollar as the reserve currency.
Although it probably will be much slower and longer process then many expect.
Are we talking about 20, 40 or 80 years here?
But what is the alternative to the neoliberal and the US dominated global neolinberal empire established after dissolution of the
USSR in 1991? That's the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Empire understands nothing except ruthless expansion. It has no other raison d'etre. In the past this meant the violent acquisition of lands and territories by a militarized system where [miliraty] caste was very apparent and visible. But today the dealings of empire are far more duplicitous. The ruling order of this age expands empire via the acquisition of capital while using the military industrial complex to police its exploits. But there is an insidious social conditioning at work which has led the general public to where it is today, a state of "inverted totalitarianism" as political philosopher Sheldon Wolin explained. Indeed, capitalism has morphed into the unassailable religion of the age even among the working class. Its tenets are still viewed as sacrosanct. ..."
"... There is mass compliance to the dictates of the ruling class and this occurs most often without any prompting or debate whatsoever. In this dictatorship of money the poor are looked at with ridicule and contempt, and are often punished legally for their imposed poverty. ..."
"... Most Americans still believe they live in the greatest country on the planet. They believe the American military to be noble and that they always reluctantly go into or are forced into war. Indeed, both the Democrats and Republicans possess an uncanny ability to bridge their ideological distances when it comes to defending US militarism, the Pentagon and the war machine of imperialism. But this is tied to the defense of capitalism, the ruling class, and the ultimate reason for war: the protection of that class's global capital investments. ..."
"... Today Iran and Venezuela are once again in the crosshairs of the American Empire's belligerence. Their defiance to the dominant [neoliberal] socioeconomic order will simply not be tolerated by the global ruling caste, represented as the unquestioned "interests" of the United States. ..."
"... To be sure the American Empire, which has seldom seen a year without pillage of another nation or region, is now facing its greatest nemesis. Unheeded lessons of the past have made it thoroughly inoculated to its own demise. In short, it is drunk on its hubris and unable to grapple with its inevitable descent. ..."
"... The American Empire, one of the shortest lived in human history, has become the biggest threat to humanity ..."
"... But like all empires it will eventually fall. Its endless and costly wars on behalf of capital investments and profiteering are contributing to that demise ..."
"... The US Republic has come and gone - the Empire is failing rapidly despite massive spending to support it. Cecil Rhodes and his heirs dreamed of restoring Anglo American domination of the world yet despite all of the technology employed the US is losing grip. By sheer numbers (and a far more efficient dictatorship) China is moving to a dominant role. ..."
"... In the end, the elite has no problem to rebrand themselves any color it needs to take to rule again, and become totalitarian state. As it becomes in the Soviet Union and China. ..."
"... Another blame America article that fails to mention the International Banksters. They have the finger-pointing thingy down to an art form. ..."
"... How do you begin to change that? Most Americans have been brainwashed and zombified by Hollywood and MSM into revering and lionizing the military without question. The sheer amount of waste in the MIC is not only negligent, but criminal. By the time the sheep awaken, the empire will have run out of their money to pillage. The beast of empire requires new victims to feed off in order to sustain - it devours entire nations, pilfers resources and murders people. Is this really what the founding fathers wanted? ..."
"... Precisely right. It's as if we've painted ourselves into the proverbial corner ..."
" Capitalism's gratuitous wars and sanctioned greed have jeopardized the planet and filled it with refugees. Much of the
blame for this rests squarely on the shoulders of the government of the United States. Seventeen years after invading Afghanistan,
after bombing it into the 'stone age' with the sole aim of toppling the Taliban, the US government is back in talks with the
very same Taliban. In the interim it has destroyed Iraq, Libya and Syria. Hundreds of thousands have lost their lives to war
and sanctions, a whole region has descended into chaos, ancient cities -- pounded into dust."
– Arundhati Roy
"As naturally as the ruled always took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the
deceived masses are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on the
very ideology which enslaves them. The misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is done to them is a greater
force than the cunning of the authorities. "
― Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military
force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period,
I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was
a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism ."
― Smedley Butler, War is a Racket
"It is no longer a choice, my friends, between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. And the
alternative to disarmament, the alternative to a greater suspension of nuclear tests, the alternative to strengthening the
United Nations and thereby disarming the whole world, may well be a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation, and
our earthly habitat would be transformed into an inferno that even the mind of Dante could not imagine."
-- Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution, 31 March 1968
Empire understands nothing except ruthless expansion. It has no other raison d'etre. In the past this meant the violent acquisition
of lands and territories by a militarized system where [miliraty] caste was very apparent and visible. But today the dealings of
empire are far more duplicitous. The ruling order of this age expands empire via the acquisition of capital while using the military
industrial complex to police its exploits. But there is an insidious social conditioning at work which has led the general public
to where it is today, a state of "inverted totalitarianism" as political philosopher Sheldon Wolin explained. Indeed, capitalism
has morphed into the unassailable religion of the age even among the working class. Its tenets are still viewed as sacrosanct.
Violence is the sole language of empire. It is this only currency it uses to enforce its precepts and edicts, both at home and
abroad. Eventually this language becomes internalized within the psyche of the subjects. Social and cultural conditioning maintained
through constant subtle messaging via mass media begins to mold the public will toward that of authoritarian conformity. The American
Empire is emblematic of this process. There is mass compliance to the dictates of the ruling class and this occurs most often
without any prompting or debate whatsoever. In this dictatorship of money the poor are looked at with ridicule and contempt, and
are often punished legally for their imposed poverty.
But the social conditioning of the American public has led toward a bizarre allegiance to its ruling class oppressors. Propaganda
still works here and most are still besotted with the notion of America being a bastion of "freedom and democracy." The growing gap
between the ultra-wealthy and the poor and the gutting of civil liberties are ignored. And blind devotion is especially so when it
comes to US foreign policy.
Most Americans still believe they live in the greatest country on the planet. They believe the American military to be noble
and that they always reluctantly go into or are forced into war. Indeed, both the Democrats and Republicans possess an uncanny ability
to bridge their ideological distances when it comes to defending US militarism, the Pentagon and the war machine of imperialism.
But this is tied to the defense of capitalism, the ruling class, and the ultimate reason for war: the protection of that class's
global capital investments.
The persecution of Chelsea Manning, much like the case of Julian Assange, is demonstrative of this. It is a crusade against truth
tellers that has been applauded from both sides of the American establishment, liberal and conservative alike. It does not matter
that she helped to expose American war crimes. On the contrary, this is seen as heresy to the Empire itself. Manning's crime was
exposing the underbelly of the beast. A war machine which targeted and killed civilians and journalists by soldiers behind a glowing
screen thousands of miles away, as if they were playing a video game.
Indeed, those deadened souls pulling the virtual trigger probably thought they were playing a video game since this is how the
military seduced them to serve in their ranks in the first place. A kind of hypnotic, addictive, algorithmic tyranny of sorts. It
is a form of escapism that so many young Americans are enticed by given their sad prospects in a society that has denuded the commons
as well as their future. That it was a war based on lies against an impoverished nation already deeply weakened from decades of American
led sanctions is inconsequential....
... ... ...
Today Iran and Venezuela are once again in the crosshairs of the American Empire's belligerence. Their defiance to the dominant
[neoliberal] socioeconomic order will simply not be tolerated by the global ruling caste, represented as the unquestioned "interests"
of the United States. The imposed suffering on these nations has been twisted as proof that they are now in need of American
salvation in the form of even more crippling sanctions, coups, neoliberal austerity and military intervention. As the corporate vultures
lie in wait for the next carcass of a society to feed upon, the hawks are busy building the case for the continuation and expansion
of capitalist wars of conquest.
Bolton and Pompeo are now the equivalent of the generals who carved up Numidia for the wealthy families of ancient Rome, with
Trump, the half-witted, narcissistic and cruel emperor, presiding over the whole in extremis farce. Indeed, the bloated orange Emperor
issued the latest of his decrees in his usual banal fashion, via tweet:
"If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!"
One can query when Iran, or any other nation has ever "threatened" the United States, but that question will never be asked by
the corporate press who are also in service to Empire. They are, in fact, its mouthpiece and advocate. The US has at least 900 military
bases and colonial outposts scattered around the planet, yet this is never looked at as imperialistic in the least by the establishment,
including its media. Scores of nations lie in ruins or are besieged with chaos and misery thanks to American bellicosity , from Libya
to Iraq and beyond. But the US never looks back in regret at any of its multiple forays, not even a few years back.
To be sure the American Empire, which has seldom seen a year without pillage of another nation or region, is now facing its
greatest nemesis. Unheeded lessons of the past have made it thoroughly inoculated to its own demise. In short, it is drunk on its
hubris and unable to grapple with its inevitable descent.
... ... ...
American Empire knows no other language sans brutality, deceit and belligerence...
... ... ...
The American Empire, one of the shortest lived in human history, has become the biggest threat to humanity ...
But like all empires it will eventually fall. Its endless and costly wars on behalf of capital investments and profiteering
are contributing to that demise . After all, billions of dollars are spent to keep the bloated military industrial complex afloat
in service to the ruling class while social and economic safety nets are torn to shreds...
Nowadays the US has a massive military and little else. And "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to
look like a nail" - Wesley Clark, Former US General.
14 hours ago
Twaddle. Capitalism has lifted out of poverty more people around the globe than all other "successful" systems combined; and
in a fraction of the time. Education. Health. Wealth. Not to mention Arts and Sciences.
Go demand a refund for your liberal education. And stop spreading lies.
11 hours ago (Edited)
Poppycock! Capitalism has traded real sovereign wealth for fiat debt backed funny money at the barrel of a gun! You assholes
have been forcing otherwise healthy communities into poverty for decades so you could steal their resources and molest their children!
Why? Because children are the only people impressed by your tiny d!cks!
The organization described the average sex tourist as a middle-aged white male from either Europe or North
America who often goes online to find the " best deals. " One particular Web site promised "nights of sex with two
young Thai girls for the price of a tank of gas."
Sowmia Nair, a Department of Justice agent, said the Thai government often "turns a blind eye" to child sex tourism because
of the country's economic reliance on the tourist trade in general . He also said police officers are often corrupt.
" Police have been known to guard brothels and even procure children for prostitution," Nair said. "Some police
directly exploit the children themselves."
A report from the International Bureau for Children's Rights said the majority of child prostitutes come from poor families
in northern Thailand, referred to as the "hill tribes." With limited economic opportunities and bleak financial circumstances,
these families, out of desperation, give their children to "recruiters," who promise them jobs in the city and then force the
children into prostitution.
Sometimes families themselves even prostitute their children or sell them into the sex trade for a minuscule sum of money.
This is not by accident! This is by design!
14 hours ago
Capitalism has nothing to do with this. For the average American the empire is a losing proposition.
13 hours ago (Edited)
Empire good. Emperor bad. Kingdom good. King bad. Country good. President bad. Village good. Idiot bad.
13 hours ago (Edited)
Empire is cancer. Especially the present one that leaves a trail of failed states and antangonism in its wake.
16 hours ago
We are part of a scientific dictatorship - the 'Ultimate Revolution' Huxley spoke of in 1962 where the oppressed willingly
submit to their enslavement. Social conditioning - promoted by continuous propaganda stressing that the state is their protector,
reinforced by endless 'terrorist threats' to keep the masses fearful is but one part of the system.
The state no longer has to use threats and fear of punishment to keep the masses under control - the masses have been convinced
that they are better off as slaves and serfs than they were as free men.
The US Republic has come and gone - the Empire is failing rapidly despite massive spending to support it. Cecil Rhodes
and his heirs dreamed of restoring Anglo American domination of the world yet despite all of the technology employed the US is
losing grip. By sheer numbers (and a far more efficient dictatorship) China is moving to a dominant role.
18 hours ago
Capitalism and corporatism are not the same. When corporate interests effectively wield gov power, you have corporatism, not
Capitalism.
14 hours ago
Corporatism=Fascism.
18 hours ago 'Muricanism is the gee-gaw of the chattering classes.
18 hours ago (Edited)
The US is its own worst enemy. They have no idea what they are doing. 2008 – "Oh dear, the global economy just blew up"
Its experts investigate and conclude it was a black swan.
It is a black swan if you don't consider debt. They use neoclassical economics that doesn't consider debt.
They can't work out why inflation isn't coming back and the real economy isn't recovering faster.
Look at the debt over-hang that's still left after 2008 in the graph above, that's the problem. The repayment on debt to banks
destroy money pushing the economy towards debt deflation.
QE can't enter the real economy as so many people are still loaded up with debt and there are too few borrowers.
QE can get into the markets inflating them and the US stock market is now at 1929 levels. They have created another asset price
bubble that is ready to collapse leading to another financial crisis.
We need a new scientific economics for globalisation, got any ideas?
What if we just stick some complex maths on top of 1920s neoclassical economics?
No one will notice.
They didn't either, but it's still got all its old problems.
The 1920s roared with debt based consumption and speculation until it all tipped over into the debt deflation of the Great
Depression. No one realised the problems that were building up in the economy as they used an economics that doesn't look at private
debt, neoclassical economics.
What's the problem?
The belief in the markets gets everyone thinking you are creating real wealth by inflating asset prices.
Bank credit pours into inflating asset prices rather than creating real wealth (as measured by GDP) as no one is looking
at the debt building up
1929 and 2008 look so similar because they are; it's the same economics and thinking.
The 1920s problem in the US is now everywhere, UK, US, Euro-zone, Japan and China.
20 hours ago (Edited)
Capitalism is based on darwinian economic competition driven by a desire to accumulate material wealth. When a capitalist becomes
sufficiently rich, he can (and does) buy politicians and armies to do his bidding. Ironically, although capitalism is based on
the assumption of competition, capitalists actually hate competition and harbor the urge to put competitors out of business. The
true goal of a capitalists is monopoly-- as long as it is them.
Imperialism is a logical (and historically predictable) expansion of capitalism.
18 hours ago
Capitalism may not be the path to peace, but just about every other ism, including socialism and communism delivered worse.
Attacking capitalism for common failings is off base.
15 hours ago
Socialism and ultimately communism appear when capitalism goes rampant, and it is normal for the socium to embrace socialism
when the inequality becomes too large.
In the end, the elite has no problem to rebrand themselves any color it needs to take to rule again, and become totalitarian
state. As it becomes in the Soviet Union and China.
So don't mistake the people's desire for equal world with totalitarian capitalism masked as socialism.
14 hours ago
the real issue is NO GROUP OF HUMANS can be trusted will any form of power. ever. period.
so it goes that no "xyz"ism" will ever work out for the whole. yet humans are social animals and seek to be in groups governed
by the very people that strive to lead that exhibit sociopathic tendencies, which are the worst possible leaders. how fuked up
is that?
so how can that work? it does for a while. then we end up in the same spot every time, turmoil, the forth turning.
the luck of life is the period of time you live during, where and what stage of human turmoil the society is in...
21 hours ago (Edited)
" Capitalism's gratuitous wars and sanctioned greed have jeopardized the planet and filled it with refugees".
Capitalism did all that huh? It had nothing to do with corrupt politicians in bed with corporations and banks. Now they even
have the military singing the same stupidity. Governments make these messes, not capitalism. Someone who risked their life for
a corrupt government giving the pieces of **** that put him there a free pass by blaming it on capitalism. What a moron. When
politicians hear this stupidity, it's like music to their ears. They know they've successfully shifted the blame to a simple ISM.
Governments want to blame the very thing that will fix all of this, for the sake of self-preservation.
18 hours ago
Every system acts to centralise power, even anarchism. So you say it was wealth that enabled what was to follow but it was
really power.. something every -ism will centralise and enable.
22 hours ago
Another blame America article that fails to mention the International Banksters. They have the finger-pointing thingy down
to an art form.
16 hours ago
Really! Did you miss the Smedley Butler quote?
22 hours ago
Could you please distinguish between capitalism and political, monetary, fiscal, press, and legal aberrations that can occur
in capitalist systems because of government sloth and malfeasance? Media monopoly, mass illegal immigration, and offshoring are
not the essence of capitalism. And socialist systems can see hideous abuses.
Please read something more than **** and Jane adventures.
23 hours ago
"... is still the owner of the world's biggest nuclear arsenal."
===
Here is the list of all nine countries
with nuclear weapons in descending order, starting with the country that has the most nuclear weapons at hand and ending with
the country that has the least amount of nuclear weapons
China is negotiating a militarybasein a strategic port of Djibouti, the president said, according to
the AFP news agency. The move raises the prospect of US and Chinesebases side-by-side in the ...
Oct 10, 2017 · China and the small African nation of Djibouti reached an agreement in July to let the People's Liberation Army
establish up its first overseas militarybase there. The base on Africa's east ...
China is building its first militarybaseinAfrica . America should be very nervous. ... In
Africa , China has found not just a market for money but for jobs and land -- crucial components of ...
23 hours ago (Edited)
Oh noes! 1 base in Africa.....meanwhile the empire has 800 outposts around the world and despite that, like a snowflake, is
bitching about China's one.
Isn't it fascinating how the Chinese do not find it necessary to resort to retarded regime change projects and stoopid kikery
to "win" influence? Easy peasy. Methinks the Anglo-Zionists can learn a trick or two from China.
23 hours ago
The empire of 800 outposts is puny compared to the 1960's and 1970's. I can provide the information if you'd like. Almost all
the 800 have company sized or smaller contingents. Still, I'd like to see much of it dismantled. No world Policeman.
23 hours ago
The entire world is in favor of a more peaceful planet Earth, except the military-industrial complex. Ron Paul
War puts money in their pockets. Lots of money. It's in the trillions of dollars.
23 hours ago (Edited)
How do you begin to change that? Most Americans have been brainwashed and zombified by Hollywood and MSM into revering
and lionizing the military without question. The sheer amount of waste in the MIC is not only negligent, but criminal. By the
time the sheep awaken, the empire will have run out of their money to pillage. The beast of empire requires new victims to feed
off in order to sustain - it devours entire nations, pilfers resources and murders people. Is this really what the founding fathers
wanted?
Now you know why wars happen. If "we the people" can't stop this beast, another nation's military will.
21 hours ago
@BH II
Precisely right. It's as if we've painted ourselves into the proverbial corner. The only way out of the morass is
to find men of very high character to correctly lead the way out. America needs a Socrates.
"... No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully. ..."
"... For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable. ..."
"... Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region. ..."
"... As shown in a previous article, "The Return of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight. ..."
"... When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war. ..."
"... I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME. ..."
"... The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity. There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel? ..."
"... However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises. ..."
"... I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they might not. ..."
"... "War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read. As true today as it was back when he wrote it. ..."
"... "The Axis of Sanity" – I like it, I like it! Probably quite closely related to the "reality-based community". ..."
"... "Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets. ..."
"... He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000. ..."
"... Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed. ..."
"... first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies, controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of the seats of power at the 527 person USA. ..."
"... This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push things too far. Karma can be a bitch. ..."
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq.
Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken
chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster
by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is
collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political
defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in
opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly
US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided parliament
called
for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter ."Parliament must clearly
and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker
loyal to the populist cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr
.
Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq "does not
want a new devastating war in the region." He t old a press conference in Moscow this past week, "Iraq is a sovereign
nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory," he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed.
Other MPs called for
a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced
demanding
war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and
somehow failing to find those "weapons of mass destruction."
As Iraq/Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural
gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate
the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided
the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government."
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament
would vote
on a bill compelling the invaders to leave . Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament's
national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country's two biggest parliamentary factions -- the Sairoon bloc,
led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri --
supported the bill. Strangely, Saturday's result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess
as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of
the American bully: Iraq's own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious
demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both
also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi
elections, is similar to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various
Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other
countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good
reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton
can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia,
with protests increasing and indicating
a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned
economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring
the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow .
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries.
Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he
shot down his first-
and last – Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently
he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This
is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments.
Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the
far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia's Gazprom, that runs through Turkey
to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey
. It
will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against
US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey's resolve, saying his country
is preparing for potential American
sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws
near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400's might be put to good use if
America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries
under Russo/Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring
the Russo/Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours
in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next
slaughtered a police station near the western border with
Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Amir Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power
within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence
. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave
refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary
in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of
ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously
when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon.
In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer
military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings
of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line
their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and
Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour
Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon
has not requested a few S-300s of their own. No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis
at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for
its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across
the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The
reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion
threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown
in a previous article, "The Return
of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons
and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the
world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price
of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing
point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US
servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the '20 primary season. If this
is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran's non-military
nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly
increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will
see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due
to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf,
like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy
in tatters.
Trump is already
reportedly
seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo's false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela.
With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton's stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks
in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary
to stoke his shallow character. When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war
with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren
political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
In two
excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are
taking place from Asia
to the Mid-East to the Baltics . Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/Sino pact of economic opportunity
and its intentions of "soft power" collectively spell doom for Zio-America's only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention.
States, Escobar:
"We should know by now that the heart of the 21 st Century Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between
the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and
cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might."
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction
of this new Russo/Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy,
as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to
future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be
sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures
of Israel's making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist
control, well
That just good for business!
About the Author:Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news
agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis
that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL
Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene
((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they
want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute
instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
I believe you are far
too generous in your estimation of his ability to distinguish between flavors of any type. Otherwise, your analysis is insightful
and thorough.
The U.S. is in the same position today that we were aboard Nimitz back in 1980. Too far from Tehran to start a war or even to
find our people. We are perhaps in even a far worse position in that today, Iran holds no hostages. There's nothing so 'noble'
as 44 hostages to inspire war today. This here is merely at the behest of Israel and the deep state profit centers for mere fun
and games and cash and prizes. Iran, overall, is nothing. Obama put Iran away for what, a billion-five? And Jared, Bolton and
Pompeo dredged it all back up again? Care to guess the first-night expense of a shock and awe on Tehran? It's unthinkable.
I used to like Israel. The Haifa-Tel Av-iv-Jerusalem-Galili loop was pretty cool. The PLO hadn't quite started their game,
we could move freely about the country. It's where the whole thing started. And, unlike Italy and Spain, they treated us Americans
ok. They were somewhat war torn. But now? They're a destructive monolith, they're good at hiding it and further, they make disastrous
miscalculations. Eliminating Saddam was huge. Turns out, Saddam was the only sane one. The last vestiges of Saddam's nuclear program
went up in the attacks on the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981. Why did they push for the elimination of Saddam afterwards?
Why the lies? Miscalculation.
This here with Iran won't travel further than threats and horseshit. I hope. Lots of bleating and farting. Someone agrees.
Oil dropped three or four bucks today.
"the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2016 Hezbollah virtually obliterated its ground
attack, heavy amour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon."
I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake
for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing
failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME.
Threatening Iran is now simply grotesque.
Concerning the article. The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity.
There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel?
However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions
on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism
is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual
spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises.
Is the author unaware of the nation of Saudi Arabia and the fact that they are new BFFs with Israel. They have come out quite
openly they'd like to see Iran attacked. That whole Sunni Wahabism vs. Shia thing is a heck of alot older than this current skirmish.
Being that SA has a border w/ the Persian Gulf and that Kuwait who is even CLOSER may be agreeable to be a staging area, why
the hand wringing about this nation & that nation, etc. The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases
followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as
a land bridge, in a pinch.
So will we expect the follow up article discussing this glaring omission, or am I missing some great development re: S.Arabia's
disposition and temperament regarding all this.
The transformed relationship between Russia and Turkey illustrates perfectly the shifting sands of strategic alliances as we cross
the desert towards destiny. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even
covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they
might not.
As for the costs of taking on Iran, while one cannot underestimate the cocksuredness of Uncle to take on Iran with a 2003 "Iraq
will be a cakewalk" attitude, the resulting air war will likely not be as costly to Uncle as the author believes, but the thought
of flag-draped coffins in the thousands will certainly deter a land invasion. If there is any action at all, it will be air interdiction
and missile attack.
It is curious that Uncle has not already resorted to his favorite tactic of declaring a No-Fly zone already but instead merely
hinted that airliner safety cannot be guaranteed; this is likely just another form of sanction since Iran receives money for each
airliner that transits its airspace, and a couple of Uncle's putative allies supply Iran with ATC equipment and services.
Uncle's Navy has already demonstrated a willingness to shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace, so it is no idle threat,
kind of like the mobster looking at a picture of your family and saying, "Nice family you have there; it would be a shame if anything
happened to them."
"War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read.
As true today as it was back when he wrote it.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Stasi " Merkel muss weg " (Merkel must go) is too weak to even think about taking Germanstan into such a foolish adventure.
Maybe the Kosher Kingdom of simpletons, especially under American-born Turkish "Englishman" (((Boris Kemal Bey))), another
psycho like (((Baron Levy's))) Scottish warmonger Blair.
Iraqi MP: US after Turning Ain Al-Assad into Central Airbase in Iraq
FARSNEWS
"Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase
which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets.
He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from
the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000.
Al-Mohammadawi said that Washington does not care about Iraq's opposition to using the country's soil to target the neighboring
states.
In a relevant development on Saturday, media reports said that Washington has plans to set up military bases and increasing
its troops in Iraq, adding the US is currently engaged in expanding its Ain al-Assad military base in al-Anbar province."
The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if
need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated
massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed.
Also minor point, LOL, but Kuwait is a "landbridge" between Saudi Arabia and Iraq Unless you are proposing the US attacks
Iraq (again!) which it would have to do to achieve a "landbridge" to Iran. Another good reason Iraq is acquiring the S-400.
More minor points: 1. South Iraq is ALL shiite. 2. Kuwait is SMALL i.e. a BIG target for thousands of missiles
@Ilyana_Rozumova
your question of responsibility is very intuitive.. two general answers.. both need deep analysis..
first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations
enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated
place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas
distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water
provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies,
controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of
the seats of power at the 527 person USA.
2nd is the impact of the laws that deny competition in a nation sworn to a method of economics (capitalism) that depends on
competition for its success. Another group of massive in size mostly global corporations again owned from Jerusalem, NYC, City
of London, etc. financed at wall street, use rule of law to impose on Americans and many of the people of the world, a blanket
of economic and anti competitive laws and monopoly powers. These monopolist companies benefit from the copyright and patent laws,
which create monopolies from hot thin air. These laws of monopolies coupled to the USA everything is a secret government have
devastated competitive capitalism in America and rendered American Universities high school level teaching but not learning bureaucracies.
Monopolies and state secrets between insider contractors were suppose to deny most of the world from competing; but without
competition ingenuity is lost. Monopoly lordships and state secrets were supposed to make it easy for the monopoly powered corporations
to overpower and deny any and all would be competition; hence they would be the only ones getting rich.. But China's Huawei will
be Linux based and Tin not Aluminium in design, far superior technology to anything these monopoly powered retards have yet developed
especially in the high energy communications technologies (like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics). In other words copyrights,
patents and the US military were suppose to keep the world, and the great ingenuity that once existed in the person of every American,
from competing, but the only people actually forced out of the technology competition were the ingenious, for they were denied
by copyright and patents to compete. Now those in power at the USA will make Americans pay again as the corporations that run
things try to figure out how to catch up to the Chinese and Russian led Eastern world. Modi's election in India is quite interesting
as both China and Russia supported it, yet, Modi says he is going to switch to the USA for copyrighted and patented stuff?
on the issue of continued USA presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, ..
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government." <that's a joke, first off, I never desired to be in Iraq, and I do not desire USA military or American
presence in Iraq, do You? <blatant disregard for the needs of America.. IMO. Bring the troops home. If the USA would only leave
Iraq to the Iraqis and get to work making America competitive again they would once again enjoy a great place in the world. But
one thing i can tell you big giant wall street funded corporations, and reliance on degree credentials instead of job performance,
will never be the reason America is great.
This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most
of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation.
Trump has allowed madmen
Bolton and Pompeo to get this country into an awful mess – all for the sake of Israel and the Zionists.
He needs to find a face-saving
way to get out before Washington gets its long needed comeuppance. But how can Trump accomplish this as long as Bolton, in particular,
continues to be the man who most has his ear? If Titley is correct, then Trump had better start listening to his military leaders
instead.
Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push
things too far. Karma can be a bitch.
"... Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by Israel. ..."
"... Ravid's Israeli sources acknowledged that it wasn't hard intelligence or even an intelligence assessment based on evidence. Instead, as one Israeli official acknowledged, Mossad "drew several scenarios for what Iran might be planning." Ravid's sources ultimately admitted that Israel's Mossad doesn't really know "what the Iranians are trying to do." ..."
"... That April 15 meeting was only the most recent one between top U.S. and Israeli national security officials over the past year, according to Ravid. These meetings were conducted under a still-secret U.S.-Israeli agreement on a joint plan of action against Iran reached after two days of unannounced meetings at the White House between Ben Shabbat and then-national security advisor H.R. McMaster on December 12, 2017. ..."
"... It also creates a new incentive for the Israelis and Saudis to provoke military responses by Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
@renfro Remember
Iraq .with visions of WMDs, yellow cake and dancing Israelis in your head.
"In meetings in Washington and Tel Aviv in the past few weeks," the paper's Jerusalem
correspondent wrote, "Israeli intelligence warned" U.S. officials that "Iran or its proxies
were planning to strike American targets in Iraq." The report cited a "senior Middle Eastern
intelligence official" -- the term traditionally used to describe an Israeli intelligence
official–as the source.
Newsweek unearthed another clue as to the provenance of the claims. The magazine said that
it learned from one Pentagon official that the satellite imagery of loading missiles into
fishing dhows was not produced by U.S. intelligence but rather had been provided by
Israel.
Reporting by the leading Israeli diplomatic correspondent Barak Ravid, now of Channel 13
but also filing for Axios, provides more detailed evidence that Israel was the original
source of all three alleged Iranian threats. Ravid's story reports that an Israeli
delegation, led by national advisor Meir Ben Shabbat, met with Bolton and other U.S. national
security officials in the White House on April 15 and passed on to them "information about
possible Iranian plots against the U.S. or its allies in the Gulf," according to "senior
Israeli officials."
Bolton confirmed the meeting with Ben Shabbat in a tweet after it happened, but revealed
nothing about what was discussed.
Ravid's Israeli sources acknowledged that it wasn't hard intelligence or even an
intelligence assessment based on evidence. Instead, as one Israeli official acknowledged,
Mossad "drew several scenarios for what Iran might be planning." Ravid's sources ultimately
admitted that Israel's Mossad doesn't really know "what the Iranians are trying to do."
This is the obvious explanation for why U.S. officials were so unwilling to reveal the
provenance of what has loosely been called "intelligence." It also tallies with one Pentagon
official's revelation to Newsweek that the satellite imagery cited as evidence of missiles in
fishing boats had been "provided to U.S. officials by Israel ."
That April 15 meeting was only the most recent one between top U.S. and Israeli national
security officials over the past year, according to Ravid. These meetings were conducted
under a still-secret U.S.-Israeli agreement on a joint plan of action against Iran reached
after two days of unannounced meetings at the White House between Ben Shabbat and
then-national security advisor H.R. McMaster on December 12, 2017. Ravid reported the
details of that agreement in late December based on information from a "senior U.S. official"
and confirmation from senior Israeli officials.
Ravid's story provided details on the four working groups that were formed under the
agreement, including one on "Joint U.S.-Israeli preparation for different escalation
scenarios in the region, concerning Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza." The
Mossad "scenarios" apparently provided the central ideas with which to justify the Trump
administration's subsequent escalatory moves against Iran, including ostentatiously moving an
aircraft carrier and a B-52 bomber group into the region.
Bolton's May 5 statement warning of "unrelenting force" against Iran in response to any
attack by either Iranian or "proxy" forces added a very significant new element to America's
retaliatory threats. It referred to an attack "on United States interests or on those of our
allies." That broadening of the range of scenarios that could be cited to justify a U.S.
strike against Iran, which has so far been studiously ignored by major news media, represents
a major concession to the Israelis and Saudi Arabia.
It also creates a new incentive for the Israelis and Saudis to provoke military responses by
Hamas in Gaza or the Houthis in Yemen. And it poses the problem of incidents that could be
blamed on Iran or a "proxy" but for which actual responsibility is ambiguous, such as the
apparent "limpet mine" attack on oil tankers on May 12 -- or the rocket fired into Baghdad's
Green Zone within a mile of the U.S. embassy there Sunday night.
These deceptions are part of a dangerous game being run by Bolton in which Israel is
apparently playing a crucial role. That should prompt some serious questioning as to Bolton's
claims and the role of the alleged secret U.S.-Israeli understandings.
"... Current members of Congress should find it hard to live with themselves if they don't do something to prevent the Trump administration from dragging us into an illegal and unnecessary war. Yet so far the congressional response has been limited to ineffectual grousing and the introduction of a few bills that are wholly inadequate to the task at hand. ..."
"... Instead the House should consider passing a resolution "expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the use of offensive military force against Iran without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution." ..."
"... The current House leadership is notably gun-shy about impeachment. But over the last two years, House Democrats have threatened to impeach Trump for much less. In the previous Congress, for example, Congressman Steve Cohen introduced articles charging Trump with, among other things, overspending on golf cart rentals at Mar-a-Lago . In January 2018, Congressman Al Green got 66 Democratic votes to move forward on a resolution to impeach Trump for "attempting to convert his bigoted statements into United States policy" in the form of the travel ban and the ban on transgender troops. ..."
"... Other options on the table. H.R. 2354 , barring funds for military action against Iran absent congressional authorization, can -- and would -- be vetoed by the president. A sense of the House resolution could not . It wouldn't have the force of law, but it would be more than mere symbolism: a shot across the administration's bow and fair warning to the president. Moreover, a resolution publicly declaring war with Iran an impeachable offense could serve as a precommitment device for the House, a public pledge to take action should he cross that line. ..."
"... Trump is likely bluffing anyway. It's not that he has some master plan behind it, it's just how he does business. He creates chaos and then looks (and often finds) some advantage in the the tumult that follows. ..."
"... This constitutional abuse of the war powers article and the ascent of an Imperial Presidency began when President Harry Truman went to war in Korea and instituted a draft with an executive order to prosecute the war. ..."
"... A Congressional warning won't do. Trump by making that statement is implicitly rejecting the oath he took to defend the Constitution of the United States. That rejection should be grounds for impeachment before he actually takes the United States to war. ..."
"... And to reiterate on the comment, the Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon would be rejecting the oath they also took to the Constitution. They should sacked and even arrested for complying with Trump's illegal and unconstitutional commands. ..."
"... Why wait for Trump to start a war on Iran? His crimes in Yemen and Syria and Ukraine (to name but three) are enough for Trump (and many members of previous administrations) to be placed in irons and delivered over to await his fate. ..."
"... Congress has not declared war in 70 years and it won't start now. War with Iran is supported by the leadership of both parties. The MSM is full speed ahead. Trump wants to run as a War President to unite the country behind him. Impeachment will be the last thing on anyone's mind once the Middle East explodes and Trump promises to keep us safe from the terrorists hiding under everyone's bed. ..."
"... The Constitution is like a religious relic. Worship it at your own risk. ..."
"... As you well know, Mr. Healy, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby would approve of the very course of action that you think should be the basis for impeachment. ..."
"... Given that AIPAC would approve of the US bombing of Iran, Congress would also approve of the bombing. ..."
"... Given that AIPAC would approve of the bombing, not only would Trump not get impeached over the bombing, but we would witness Congressmen and Senators give near-unanimous approval for the bombing. ..."
"... If he engages in another regime change war sponsored by Israel and Kushner that he campaigned against then he's no better than Hillary and perhaps worse. ..."
Without Congress's approval, he has no legal
authority to start a war, no matter what John Bolton seems to think.
a power grab by President Donald Trump's undeterrable national security advisor, John
Bolton. And it's true that Bolton has never met
a "preventive" war he didn't like and that there's every reason to suspect him of scheming
to create an excuse for one. But lately it's getting hard to distinguish President Trump from
"President
Bolton." "If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran," Trump rage-tweeted
Sunday . "Never threaten the United States again!"
If the administration can't be convinced to stand down, the House of Representatives should
launch a preemptive strike of its own. They should credibly threaten to impeach the president
if he goes to war without congressional authorization.
Waging war without legal authority is an impeachable offense, if anything is. Impeachment
was designed to thwart attempts to subvert the
Constitution ; congressional control of the war power was one of that document's core
guarantees. "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found," James Madison
affirmed , "than in
the
clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the
executive department."
The first federal impeachment case, brought less than a decade after the Constitution's
ratification, centered on charges of unauthorized warmaking. In 1797, the House impeached
Tennessee Senator William Blount for conspiring to raise a private army for
"a military hostile expedition" against Spanish-held Louisiana and Florida, "in violation
of the obligations of neutrality, and against the laws of the United States." In the Founding
era, usurpation of the war power was considered serious enough to merit the ultimate
constitutional remedy.
No president has yet been impeached for illegal warmaking, but Richard Nixon came closest.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee debated impeaching Nixon for conducting a secret bombing
campaign in Cambodia "in derogation of the power of the Congress to declare war." The article
never made it into the final charges, possibly scuttled by Democratic leadership out of fear of
revealing "that a few prominent members of their party had known about the secret bombing
at the time." As Congressman William Hungate
put it afterwards: "It's kind of hard to live with yourself when you impeach a guy for
tapping telephones and not for making war without authorization."
Current members of Congress should find it hard to live with themselves if they don't do
something to prevent the Trump administration from dragging us into an illegal and unnecessary
war. Yet so far the congressional response has been limited to
ineffectual grousing and the introduction of a few bills that are wholly inadequate to the
task at hand.
Instead the House should consider passing a resolution "expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that the use of offensive military force against Iran without prior
and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and
misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution."
The late, great
Congressman Walter Jones , long one of the most jealous guardians of Congress's power "to
declare War," proposed
a similar measure during President Obama's second term, when the administration was
publicly contemplating airstrikes on Syria. Jones introduced a
concurrent resolution stating that "except in response to an actual or imminent attack
against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a President
without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress" is an impeachable
offense.
The Jones resolution only secured a handful of cosponsors and proved unnecessary in any
event, when President Obama decided to seek congressional
authorization for airstrikes, then abandoned the effort entirely. The
stakes are far higher now.
The current House leadership is notably gun-shy about impeachment. But over the last two
years, House Democrats have threatened to impeach Trump for much less. In the previous
Congress, for example, Congressman Steve Cohen introduced articles charging Trump with, among
other things, overspending on
golf cart rentals at Mar-a-Lago . In January 2018, Congressman Al Green got
66 Democratic votes to move forward on a resolution to impeach Trump for
"attempting to convert his bigoted statements into United States policy" in the form of the
travel ban and the ban on transgender troops.
Surely, more Democrats -- and even a few Republicans, like Congressman Justin Amash -- could
rouse themselves to threaten impeachment to avoid a disastrous war in violation of a core
constitutional guarantee.
Other options on the table.
H.R. 2354 , barring funds for military action against Iran absent congressional
authorization, can -- and would -- be vetoed by the president. A sense of the House resolution
could
not . It wouldn't have the force of law, but it would be more than mere symbolism: a shot
across the administration's bow and fair warning to the president. Moreover, a resolution
publicly declaring war with Iran an impeachable offense could serve as a precommitment device
for the House, a public pledge to take action should he cross that line.
Only two presidents have ever been impeached by the House, yet others still fear joining
their ranks. Trump has claimed he's "
not even a little bit " worried about the prospect, but
insider accounts and his public Twitter
feed tell a different story. Earlier this week, he blew up at
Representative Amash for opining that he'd engaged in impeachable conduct: "Justin is a loser
who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!"
Impeachment's purpose isn't primarily to punish abuses after the fact -- that would be cold
comfort here -- but to prevent damage from being done in the first place. "It will not be the
only means of punishing misconduct, but it will prevent misconduct," future Supreme Court
justice James Iredell remarked
during the ratification debates in 1788. "Although he may be a man of no principle, the very
terror of punishment will perhaps deter him." But in law as in war, deterrence sometimes
requires a credible threat.
You think? I say lock the man up for war crimes if he bombs Iran. There will be no 911 this
time, and that was the only way those last criminals were able to pull off their neocon fantasy
in Iraq.
Trump is likely bluffing anyway. It's not that he has some master plan behind it, it's
just how he does business. He creates chaos and then looks (and often finds) some advantage in
the the tumult that follows.
This constitutional abuse of the war powers article and the ascent of an Imperial
Presidency began when President Harry Truman went to war in Korea and instituted a draft with
an executive order to prosecute the war. Congress should have impeached him.
But instead it later authorized both executive actions and its political position on this
issue of war since then has been supine like an exhausted toothless whore. And now Mr. Healey
expects it to find some vestige of its moral fortitude and redress this fragrant abuse of
power? Mr. Healy, what planet are you living on? And is it in our solar system? The president
has become essentially a constitutional dictator, and Congress merely rubber stamps his abuse
of the Constitution with its war resolutions. Our nation crossed its Rubicon long ago.
" Over the last two years, House Democrats have threatened to impeach Trump for much less. In
the previous Congress, for example, Congressman Steve Cohen introduced articles charging Trump
with, among other things, overspending on golf cart rentals at Mar-a-Lago."
The phrase "among other things" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
If/when we go to war with Iran, Trump's defenders will cite the "Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Terrorists" to argue that they don't need Congress.
Below is a reposted comment to a related Daniel Larison entry. It distills down to this. A
Congressional warning won't do. Trump by making that statement is implicitly rejecting the oath
he took to defend the Constitution of the United States. That rejection should be grounds for
impeachment before he actually takes the United States to war.
And to reiterate on the comment, the Generals and Admirals in the Pentagon would be
rejecting the oath they also took to the Constitution. They should sacked and even arrested for
complying with Trump's illegal and unconstitutional commands.
*** Repost ***
Christopher Preble at the Cato Institute has opined on preventive vs. pre-emptive war. What
about preventive or pre-emptive impeachment?
Trump's crazed threats against Iran are wildly unconstitutional. His threats contain no
references to the Congress which has the sole authority to declare war. Trump is implying that
he has war-making authority as President that the Constitution explicitly denies him.
Moreover, a Pentagon that supports Trump in his illegal war-mongering demonstrates
allegiance to a self-anointed Emperor, not the Constitution. The sanctified "Generals" are a
huge part of the problem whether in supporting the Saudi war crimes in Yemen or the
war-mongering against Iran.
If I were in Congress, I'd move to impeach Trump now because if he starts a war, that bell
can't be unrung no matter how illegal and unconstitutional its origin.
One of the two reasons (the other being immigration) that I stifled nausea and voted for Trump
was his belief that America had no business engaging in Wilsonian adventurism -- and at this
point clearly he, aided and abetted by that Rasputin wannabe, Bolton, appears to be
backtracking on the latter. Under the circumstances Congress must assert its constitutional
mandate to authorize all war making proposals made by a president and when a president attempts
to act unilaterally, then he is in defiance of the US Constitution and subject to the
impeachment process. All other cases proposed thus far for impeachment of Donald Trump pale in
comparison to the issue of who decides to send American soldiers into harms way-an individual
president or the collective representatives of the American people from whom those soldiers are
drawn.
Why wait for Trump to start a war on Iran? His crimes in Yemen and Syria and Ukraine (to
name but three) are enough for Trump (and many members of previous administrations) to be
placed in irons and delivered over to await his fate.
Ninth & Hennepin, Actually, it was for violating the Emoluments Clause but referencing
"overspending on golf cart rentals" has a juicier petty ring to it.
Congress has not declared war in 70 years and it won't start now. War with Iran is
supported by the leadership of both parties. The MSM is full speed ahead. Trump wants to run as
a War President to unite the country behind him. Impeachment will be the last thing on anyone's
mind once the Middle East explodes and Trump promises to keep us safe from the terrorists
hiding under everyone's bed.
The Constitution is like a religious relic. Worship it at your own risk.
As I've tried to explain to my hyperventilating Democrat friends, getting enough votes in the
House to impeach Trump is easy. But if you do that without a good shot at getting enough votes
in the Senate to convict him, you are engaging in mental mastu sorry, self-gratification.
Until enough R's in the Senate grow a spine, we are stuck.
Congress could impeach, but they won't. Way to many Democrats & Republicans are beholden to
AIPAC and the MIC and other warmaking interest to ever question a POTUS on taking America to
war.
"No president has yet been impeached for illegal warmaking"
And you're not going to start with Trump now.
Good grief, after the long list of grifters and worthless wankers we've had to put up with
in the White House, you want to impeach Trump? After we've waited this long to get a President
like Trump.
Sir, how about you suck a lemon and take a freaking hike.
I'm strongly opposed to bombing Iran, but this article is stupid. The remedy is for Congress to
exert its constitutional prerogative to declare war, and if necessary take the
separation-of-powers controversy, as it pertains to War Powers, to SCOTUS for resolution.
The shorter-term remedy is to fire Bolton, and, if need be, Pompeo. Along with the
injudicious Kushner (apologies to John Locke and "the judicious Hooker"), they're making me
wonder how I could have been such a saphead as to think Trump would drain the swamp.
Congress should be the ones that authorize military action against any foreign country. Also,
congress should consist of persons whose allegiance to America cannot be questioned. Our
current congress doesn't come close to that criteria. So, I guess we should do nothing until a
direct attack is made on the U.S.
And even if the Senate votes to convict, who is going to make Trump leave? Maxine Waters? Mitch
McConnell? Trump has the military, the FBI and the Secret Service. If he refuses to leave
office, who will make him?
Congress should be the ones that authorize military actions against any foreign country. Also,
congress should consist of people that have America's best interests at heart. Our current
congress consists, mostly, of politicians that sought the position because they can make lots
of money there -- they don't know much, or care much, about what best serves the country. So, I
guess the best plan is to do nothing until we come under direct attack.
If Trump were to bomb Iran, Congress would be right on board with him. Get a load of this
letter that Congressmen sent to Trump. Scroll down to see all the names.
"And even if the Senate votes to convict, who is going to make Trump leave? Maxine Waters?
Mitch McConnell? Trump has the military, the FBI and the Secret Service. If he refuses to leave
office, who will make him?
I guess the Founders didn't think of that."
If Trump is impeached and convicted, or loses in 2020, on Jan 21 2021 everybody will just
ignore him. He can bluster and harangue and tweet as much as he wants. He will be an
ex-president. Subject to the laws of the land.
And that's why he is acting as he is now. He knows that once his presidency is over he will
be eligible for prosecution of any laws he has broken. DOJ Office of Legal Counsel regulations
will no longer be a shield.
By 2020 I suspect a large number of Republicans will be ready to see him gone.
Trump is not going to war with Iran. Trump is not going to war with North Korea. Trump is not
going to go to war against China. Trump is fully engaged already in his war against the US.
Constitution and the rule of law. That will keep him fully occupied for some time. And yes, no
matter what, his base will stay with him. After all, it is either Trump or the Far Left who are
"baby killers" and "socialists." FOX says so and so does Limbaugh. That is the Holy Scripture,
inspired by Divine influence, circa 2019!
Laughing. I would take this article a bit more seriously if it included nearly every executive
including President Eisehower.
I am certainly not a fan of Iran. And I am certainly not on board the war wagon here as the
case is mighty thin and then thinner than that. And while I have issues with his current
leadership, I could not would not adavance or support impeachnent.
Had he not been electedwe would be in conflicts in multiple arenas. You bet I am ticked
about I'm igrationand his cowardice on the question. You bet I chagrine the saber rattling. You
bet I don't buy WS as the key in7dicator of economic health. You bet I look At trade balances,
part-time vs full timelabor. You bet I voted for this president knowing his leadership
style.
No. I did not anticipate he go as far off the rails as he has.
No. I do not regret my vote. And no, I won't support I parchment for anything less than some
legal betrayal or crime. There's a much better case for his behavior regarding the continued
support for illegal immigration -- and those consequences are immediate and impactful. But then
that would mean I have joined the ranks of those who view impeachmentas mere political
weapon.
If I thought the case against Pres. Nixon was a sham and beyond the pale and it was in all
of its vengeful anti-Vietnam emotionalsm --
You'll need more than rumors of wars or war to make case.
Trump should be held accountable, but let's be honest here -- about Trump, American foreign
police, etc.. Let's simply take a look at these four excerpts from current news articles.
1.) Trump, discussing the pressure he faces:
"President Trump, speaking about hostile foreign powers, Iran especially, told Fox News
that if he can solve tensions economically, he prefers that to a military solution. But he
said he's up against a military-industrial complex in Washington that wants to keep the wars
going:
Well, I'm the one that talks about these wars that are 19 years (long), and people are
just there. And don't kid yourself, you do have a military industrial complex. They do like
war.
You know, In Syria with the caliphate, so I wipe out 100% of the caliphate that doesn't
mean you're not going to have these crazy people going around, blowing up stores and blowing
up things, these are seriously ill people But I wiped out 100 percent of the caliphate.
I said, I want to bring our troops back home -- the place went crazy. They want to keep --
you have people here in Washington, they never want to leave. I said, you know what I'll do,
I'll leave a couple hundred soldiers behind, but if it was up to them they'd bring thousands
of soldiers in.
Someday people will explain it, but you do have a group, and they call it the
military-industrial complex."
***
2.) A respected international group's findings on chemical weapon use in Syria, which has
essentially been censored in the Mainstream Media:
"It has been about a week since the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media (WGSPM)
published a leaked internal document from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) investigation into an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria last year. The
document, whose authenticity the OPCW has confirmed, contends that the official story which
was used to justify an air strike by the US, UK and France about poison gas being dropped on
civilians from Syrian government helicopters is scientifically implausible, saying "In
summary, observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis,
suggest that there is a higher probability that both cylinders were manually placed at those
two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft."
***
3.) America's congress uniting to oppose Trump's attempts at a sane foreign policy:
"Our congress will not come together on anything to help America but they will unite to
defend Israel's interests in Syria.
'Nearly 400 members of Congress signed a bipartisan letter to President Donald Trump
calling on him to safeguard Israel's interests with Syria's civil war coming to an end,"
Haaretz reported Tuesday.'
***
4.)And, lo and behold, right on time: the same ol' government propaganda tactic, dusted off and
thrust at the American people once again:
"The United States sees signs the Syrian government may be using chemical weapons,
including an alleged chlorine attack on Sunday in northwest Syria, the State Department said
on Tuesday, warning that Washington and its allies would respond "quickly and appropriately"
if this were proven."
It is not a case of confiding "war or peace to the legislature" since we are not really talking
"war and peace". We are talking "slaughter with impunity but for profit" as opposed to no
profits. Iran can do little against being on the receiving end of missile target practice.
Ideally The Pentagon should ask Iran for designated areas it can use to stage its missile
strikes, keeping it of course secret from the American tax payer who want blood and devastation
for their money.
Glenn Healy -- known by some over at the Cato Institute as "Mr. Impeachment " (for the sheer
volume of articles he has written favoring the impeachment of presidents) -- has now posted
"Impeachment Should Be on the Table If Trump Bombs Iran -- Without Congress's approval, he has
no legal authority to start a war, no matter what John Bolton seems to think."
As you well know, Mr. Healy, AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby would approve of the
very course of action that you think should be the basis for impeachment.
Given that AIPAC would approve of the US bombing of Iran, Congress would also approve of
the bombing.
Given that AIPAC would approve of the bombing, not only would Trump not get impeached
over the bombing, but we would witness Congressmen and Senators give near-unanimous approval
for the bombing.
This is the same author, Gene Healy, who has spent the last two decades pushing for ANY
President to be impeached.
You might ask yourself why someone would call for a measure so drastic as to try to overturn
the will of the American People. Well, according to Mr. Healy's previous writings, "What's
really obscene is America's record on presidential impeachments. We've made only three serious
attempts in our entire constitutional history."
He doesn't like the fact that it has only happened twice. It's obscene to him. Healy wants
to overturn the will of the American people because he doesn't like the ratio. That's right
impeachment because ratio.
Will of the voters be damned. The act of impeaching is more important than having cause to
do so for Mr. Healy.
If somehow even after reading this article in which Mr. Healy calls for Trump to be
impeached over speculation and conjecture, anyone STILL doubts that cause means nothing to him
then one need look no further than Healy's writings the past two years calling for Trump to be
impeached because Trump tweets things that Healy doesn't like. That's right impeachment because
tweets.
Sounds legit.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad to see someone so deep in the throes of grasping at
conjectural straws trying to fulfill his bizarre obsession of increasing the ratio of
impeachments.
This article is what happens when Trump Derangement Syndrome meets Impeachment Derangement
Syndrome.
If he engages in another regime change war sponsored by Israel and Kushner that he
campaigned against then he's no better than Hillary and perhaps worse.
"... "To watch what happened in the White House would make your jaw drop," Schumer said afterwards, "It's clear this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. It was planned." ..."
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday cut off
infrastructure talks with congressional Democratic leaders, demanding House Democrats to end
their "phony investigations" before talks resume.
"I've said from the beginning that you probably can't go down two tracks ... You can go down
the investigation track or you can go down the investment track ... We're going to go down one
track at a time," Trump told reporters in the White House Rose Garden after the meeting
abruptly ended.
Earlier on Wednesday, after a closed-door meeting with all House Democrats, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi said House Democrats "believe the President of the United States is engaged in a
cover-up."
"I don't do cover-ups," Trump responded during his remarks.
Trump said he was dismayed to learn that Pelosi had convened a meeting before their meeting
on infrastructure "to talk about the i-word," referring to impeachment.
Regarding the bipartisan initial plan to spend 2 trillion U.S. dollars on infrastructure,
Trump said he told Pelosi and Schumer: "You can't do it under these circumstances. So, get
these phony investigations over with."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that Trump was prepared to quickly end the
meeting.
"To watch what happened in the White House would make your jaw drop," Schumer said
afterwards, "It's clear this was not a spontaneous move on the president's part. It was
planned."
House Democratic leaders are facing increased pressure to begin impeachment proceedings
against Trump, which has further raised partisan tensions in Washington.
There is no shortage of challengers seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, with 23 candidates
having announced so far. However, with former vice president Joe
Biden
finally
throwing
his hat into the ring, more moderate Democratic voters have begun to jump on the
Biden
bandwagon
, perhaps without giving him much consideration. Though it's still early to
be tracking the polls,
Biden
is running away at amazing speed in key primary states like South
Carolina, with more than
triple
the support of his next competitor.
One of the main reasons
Biden
is doing so well is that, unlike many of the other
candidates, he doesn't advocate socialist policies (talk about a low standard). Sure, it's promising that
Biden
, supposedly a centrist, doesn't support the
Green
New Deal
or
Medicare-for-All
. But that's no reason to forget all the other questionable and downright dangerous decisions he's
made -- and none more so than on matters of foreign policy.
A six-term senator,
Biden
served many years on the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, including as chairman. He was picked as former president Barack Obama's running mate in part because of his
wide experience in international affairs. But now that he's running for president, it's time to take a closer look at
just what that experience entails.
It includes:
Advertisement
His 2003
vote in favor
of the invasion of Iraq, a thus far
endless
war
that many recognize as the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last 40 years.
His 2011
decision
to advise Obama not to send a military team to kill Osama bin Laden. The mission was successful and is
today seen as one of the biggest foreign policy wins of Obama's presidency.
His support for Obama's intervention in the Yemen civil war, which rages on today, as Saudi Arabia,
backed by the United States,
bombs schools, hospitals, weddings, funeral parties, and, worst of all, a
school bus
that was carrying 38 children.
His 2013 backing of airstrikes on Syria without proper congressional authorization.
His support for sending more troops into our failed conflict in Afghanistan even after Obama
promised
to end the war by 2014.
It's clear that
Biden
is a hawk who still foolishly believes that America can -- and
should -- be a global champion of democracy and the world's policeman.
Whatever you think of Trump's foreign policy and his desire to put "America First," you would be remiss to
think that the best alternative is
Biden
's discredited interventionist mindset. The man is stuck
in a pre-Trump world.
Biden
's position is all too familiar -- he certainly isn't going to start
bringing troops home from these wars.
During the campaign,
Biden
will likely claim that many of the above decisions were
mere mistakes, but even if you dismiss them as such, it is nearly impossible to overlook the mindset
Biden
had when he made those decisions. This kind of attitude is not going to just disappear if he's sitting in
the Oval Office, or, even worse, the Situation Room.
Biden
has
said
that the United States maintains an "obligation to lead" on the global stage and that it is "within our power
to make a better world." As nice as that may sound in principle, it's naive and it's been derailing our foreign policy
for decades.
It is time to seriously consider whether we're ready for another four years of foreign interventions in
places where we aren't wanted and don't belong. Don't let
Biden
's centrist veneer fool you. In
reality, few other candidates have been on the wrong side of history so often.
Natalie Dowzicky is a researcher at a Washington, D.C. think tank and a
Young Voices
contributor. To keep up with her latest work in foreign policy and international relations follow her
on Twitter
@Nat_Dowzicky
.
President Donald Trump has called for a full investigation into former Vice President Joe
Biden and his family's financial connections to China, The New York
Times reports.
"100 percent -- it's a disgrace," Trump said in an interview with Fox News that aired on Sunday, when asked if
allegations that Biden's family improperly made millions off the Chinese government should be
investigated.
Conservative author Peter Schweizer first claimed that Biden's younger son, Hunter Biden,
profited from the Chinese government while his father negotiated a deal with Beijing on
government issues, according to the Times. The Biden family has denied the assertions.
The former vice president recently dismissed China as "not competition" for the United
States.
"No other nation can catch us, including China," Biden said earlier this month, according to
Fox News. "I got criticized for saying that. I've spent as much time with [Chinese President]
Xi Jinping as any world leader has."
Trump told Fox News that Biden "says China's not a competitor of ours. China is a massive
competitor of ours. They want to take over the world. OK?"
War between the United States and Iran looms, even though the latter poses no threat to the
former. President Donald Trump says he doesn't want war but for the Iranians to call him.
Perhaps his entire campaign is an elaborate effort to scare Tehran to the negotiating table. Or
perhaps he hopes to win political support by fomenting a foreign crisis. How ironic that would
be: in 2011, Trump warned via tweet that "Barack Obama will attack Iran in the not too distant
future because it will help him win the election."
However, the president already ran against the Islamic Republic, in 2016. Moreover, his
words have been incendiary, threatening "the official end of Iran." Although U.S. intelligence
officials admit that Tehran's confrontational rhetoric is largely a response to Washington's
aggression, the administration's military moves are sharply increasing tensions as well as the
possibility of a costly mistake or misjudgment.
The War Party is active again in the Imperial City. Before joining the administration,
National Security Advisor John Bolton forthrightly called for an attack on the Islamic
Republic. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo also demanded regime change in Iran. More recently, he
admitted that sanctions were intended to induce the Iranian people to "change the government."
While claiming not to seek war, he threatened retaliation for any attack by Iranian "proxy
forces" and on "American interests."
Tehran has long been a favorite target of influential neoconservatives and ultra-hawks. The
invasion of Iraq almost immediately led to calls for a turn to Tehran. Several years ago,
Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute of Near East Policy suggested staging a false flag
operation: if "the Iranians aren't going to compromise," he said, "it would be best if somebody
else started the war." Today, Senator Tom Cotton predicts an easy American
victory.
Advertisement
The Saudis also openly favor an American war against Iran. (Defense Secretary Robert Gates
once quipped that Riyadh would fight Iran "to the last American.") A newspaper owned by the
royal family last week called on Washington to "hit hard." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu has worked tirelessly to inflate the Iranian "threat" and told a TV interviewer that
he'd convinced Trump to abandon the nuclear deal.
Yet conflict with Iran would be a disaster, far worse than with Iraq. Even the Council on
Foreign Relations' Max Boot, a vocal neoconservative and uber-hawk, has warned against this.
And Americans would not be the only casualties. Jason Rezaian, TheWashington
Post reporter who spent more than a year in an Iranian prison, observed: "those who will
suffer most have little say in the matter. It's the Iranian people who have borne the brunt of
40 years of enmity between the United States and the Islamic republic, and in the current
standoff, they stand to lose the most yet again."
The possibility that the chief executive might rush or be pushed into such a disastrous war
is exactly why the Founders obliged presidents to go to Congress for approval. The Constitution
places the power to declare war in the hands of the legislature.
Yet modern presidents routinely claim monarchical powers, using the military without proper
authority. Legislators often avoid taking responsibility for wars that might turn unpopular.
But neither unconstitutional nor irresponsible behavior justifies chief executives doing the
same.
Trump has proven no more faithful to the Constitution than his predecessors. For instance,
Pompeo refused to commit the administration to going to Congress for the authority to attack
Iran. (The secretary did the same when earlier questioned about the administration's military
threats against Venezuela.) Pompeo suggested that the president might rely on the post-9/11
authorization for use of military force, an even more ludicrous reach than the Obama
administration's appeal to the same measure for its fight against the Islamic State and strikes
on Syria.
The refusal to obey the Constitution is evidence of weakness. In contrast, many of America's
strongest chief executives recognized Congress's authority. George Washington declared: "The
Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition
of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject, and
authorized such a measure."
Abraham Lincoln praised the Founders for recognizing war "to be the most oppressive of all
Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold
the power of bringing this oppression upon us." Dwight Eisenhower was equally insistent on the
need for legislative approval for war.
Delegates to the constitutional convention insisted they were not recreating the king of
England or replicating his powers, especially to start wars. After all, war is the hallmark of
unlimited government. Warned James Madison: "Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is,
perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War
is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes
are the known instrument for bringing the many under the domination of the few."
The Founders knew this problem well, since a succession of European kings and queens had
launched a succession of unnecessary and even frivolous conflicts. The price was paid in blood
and treasure by the common folk. John Jay observed that kings were often led "to engage in wars
not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people." Pierce Butler insisted
that the president not be invested with the authority to start wars, like a monarch who enjoyed
the "opportunity of involving his country in a war whenever he wished to promote her
destruction."
Madison explained the principle incorporated in the Constitution: "Those who are to conduct
a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be
commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great
principle in free governments, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or
the power of executing from the power of enacting laws."
Thus, the Constitution gives to Congress most military powers: raising an army, funding the
military, issuing letters of marquee, approving rules of war, ratifying treaties, and, of
course, taking America into war. Article 1, Section 8 (11) states: "Congress shall have the
power to declare war." Observed Madison: the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the
power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature."
Despite this history, some modern analysts bizarrely contend that Congress only ever gets to
"declare" that the president had started a war. In fact, the Founders changed the operative
word from "make" to "declare" merely to ensure that the commander-in-chief could respond to a
surprise attack. They did not even believe the president could launch a reprisal without legal
authority. They certainly didn't intend to enable the president to wander the globe smiting
nations hither and yon at his sole discretion.
Despite their many disagreements, the Founders agreed on this point. The president commanded
the military but could only prosecute wars authorized by Congress . Said George Mason,
the chief executive "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to start wars, which
required "clogging rather than facilitating war." Thomas Jefferson cited the Constitution's
"effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose." Explained
James Wilson: "It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve
us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is in the legislature at
large."
Even Alexander Hamilton, who leaned toward monarchy, emphasized that the commander-in-chief
was just the "first general and admiral." The president's authority was "in substance much
inferior to" that of Britain's monarch, and "would amount to nothing more than the supreme
command and direction of the land and naval forces while that of the British king extends to
the declaring of war."
Trump is bound by the Constitution when confronting Iran. Indeed, the not insubstantial
possibility of him and his officials lying America into another irresponsible war of choice is
why the Founders placed the decision with Congress. Americans have learned at a high cost that
presidents cannot be trusted to act like kings.
With a presidential election approaching, Americans should seriously ponder whether they
want to entrust the presidency to someone who believes he's empowered to make war without
constraint. It's time to choose a chief executive who's prepared to follow the
Constitution.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon Press). He is a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and
Washington, D.C. bars.
Dems only need few select states to campaign in and they will win elections all the time.
Everybody is playing the racists card when they do not like what is said or done!!
"... The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war." ..."
"... From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we -- not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living in or near Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever). ..."
"... Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers, including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent counted for nothing. ..."
"... Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall," provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help ..."
"... There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.) ..."
"... In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when the USSR existed. ..."
"... I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA) ..."
The Great Power Game is On and China is Winning If America wants to maintain any influence in Asia, it needs to wake
up. By Robert W. Merry •
May 22,
2019
President Donald J. Trump participates in a bilateral meeting with President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People, Thursday,
November 9, 2017, in Beijing, People's Republic of China. (
Official White House Photo
by Shealah Craighead) From across the pond come two geopolitical analyses in two top-quality British publications that lay out
in stark terms the looming struggle between the United States and China. It isn't just a trade war, says The Economist in
a major cover package. "Trade is not the half of it," declares the magazine. "The United States and China are contesting every domain,
from semiconductors to submarines and from blockbuster films to lunar exploration." The days when the two superpowers sought a win-win
world are gone.
For its own cover, The Financial Times ' Philip Stephens produced a piece entitled, "Trade is just an opening shot in a
wider US-China conflict." The subhead: "The current standoff is part of a struggle for global pre-eminence." Writes Stephens: "The
trade narrative is now being subsumed into a much more alarming one. Economics has merged with geopolitics. China, you can hear on
almost every corner in sight of the White House and Congress, is not just a dangerous economic competitor but a looming existential
threat."
Stephens quotes from the so-called National Defense Strategy, entitled "Sharpening the American Military's Competitive Edge,"
released last year by President Donald Trump's Pentagon. In the South China Sea, for example, says the strategic paper, "China has
mounted a rapid military modernization campaign designed to limit U.S. access to the region and provide China a freer hand there."
The broader Chinese goal, warns the Pentagon, is "Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United
States to achieve global pre-eminence in the future."
The Economist and Stephens are correct. The trade dispute is merely a small part of a much larger and even more
intense geopolitical rivalry that could ignite what Stephens describes as "an altogether hotter war."
... ... ..
Russia: Of all the developments percolating in the world today, none is more ominous than the growing prospect of an anti-American
alliance involving Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran. Yet such an alliance is in the works, largely as a result of America's inability
to forge a foreign policy that recognizes the legitimate geopolitical interests of other nations. If the United States is to maintain
its position in Asia, this trend must be reversed.
The key is Russia, largely by dint of its geopolitical position in the Eurasian heartland. If China's global rise is to be thwarted,
it must be prevented from gaining dominance over Eurasia. Only Russia can do that. But Russia has no incentive to act because it
feels threatened by the West. NATO has pushed eastward right up to its borders and threatened to incorporate regions that have been
part of Russia's sphere of influence -- and its defense perimeter -- for centuries.
Given the trends that are plainly discernible in the Far East, the West must normalize relations with Russia. That means providing
assurances that NATO expansion is over for good. It means the West recognizing that Georgia, Belarus, and, yes, Ukraine are within
Russia's natural zone of influence. They will never be invited into NATO, and any solution to the Ukraine conundrum will have to
accommodate Russian interests. Further, the West must get over Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It is a fait accompli
-- and one that any other nation, including America, would have executed in similar circumstances.
Would Russian President Vladimir Putin spurn these overtures and maintain a posture of bellicosity toward the West? We can't be
sure, but that certainly wouldn't be in his interest. And how will we ever know when it's never been tried? We now understand that
allegations of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia were meritless, so it's time to determine the true nature and extent of Putin's
strategic aims. That's impossible so long as America maintains its sanctions and general bellicosity.
NATO: Trump was right during the 2016 presidential campaign when he said that NATO was obsolete. He later dialed back on
that, but any neutral observer can see that the circumstances that spawned NATO as an imperative of Western survival no longer exist.
The Soviet Union is gone, and the 1.3 million Russian and client state troops it placed on Western Europe's doorstep are gone as
well.
So what kind of threat could Russia pose to Europe and the West? The European Union's GDP is more than 12 times that of Russia's,
while Russia's per capita GDP is only a fourth of Europe's. The Russian population is 144.5 million to Europe's 512 million. Does
anyone seriously think that Russia poses a serious threat to Europe or that Europe needs the American big brother for survival, as
in the immediate postwar years? Of course not. This is just a ruse for the maintenance of the status quo -- Europe as subservient
to America, the Russian bear as menacing grizzly, America as protective slayer in the event of an attack.
This is all ridiculous. NATO shouldn't be abolished. It should be reconfigured for the realities of today. It should be European-led,
not American-led. It should pay for its own defense entirely, whatever that might be (and Europe's calculation of that will inform
us as to its true assessment of the Russian threat). America should be its primary ally, but not committed to intervene whenever
a tiny European nation feels threatened. NATO's Article 5, committing all alliance nations to the defense of any other when attacked,
should be scrapped in favor of language that calls for U.S. intervention only in the event of a true threat to Western Civilization
itself.
And while a European-led NATO would find it difficult to pull back from its forward eastern positions after adding so many nations
in the post-Cold War era, it should extend assurances to Russia that it has no intention of acting provocatively -- absent, of course,
any Russian provocations.
Pragmatic isolationalism is a better deal then the current neocon foreign policy. Which Trump is pursuing with the zeal similar
to Obama (who continued all Bush II wars and started two new in Libya and Syria.) Probably this partially can be explained by
his dependence of Adelson and pro-Israeli lobby.
But the problem is deeper then Trump: it is the power of MIC and American exeptionalism ( which can be viewed as a form of
far right nationalism ) about which Andrew Bacevich have written a lot:
From the mid-1940s onward, the primacy of the United States was assumed as a given. History had rendered a verdict: we --
not the Brits and certainly not the Germans, French, or Russians -- were number one, and, more importantly, were meant
to be. That history's verdict might be subject to revision was literally unimaginable, especially to anyone making a living
in or near Washington, D.C.
If doubts remained on that score, the end of the Cold War removed them. With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse
of communism, politicians, journalists, and policy intellectuals threw themselves headlong into a competition over who could
explain best just how unprecedented, how complete, and how wondrous was the global preeminence of the United States.
Choose your own favorite post-Cold War paean to American power and privilege. Mine remains Madeleine Albright's justification
for some now-forgotten episode of armed intervention, uttered 20 years ago when American wars were merely occasional (and therefore
required some nominal justification) rather then perpetual (and therefore requiring no justification whatsoever).
"If we have to use force," Secretary of State Albright announced on morning television in February 1998, "it is because
we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."
Back then, it was Albright's claim to American indispensability that stuck in my craw. Yet as a testimony to ruling class
hubris, the assertion of indispensability pales in comparison to Albright's insistence that "we see further into the future."
In fact, from February 1998 down to the present, events have time and again caught Albright's "we" napping. The 9/11 terrorist
attacks and the several unsuccessful wars of choice that followed offer prime examples. But so too did Washington's belated
and inadequate recognition of the developments that actually endanger the wellbeing of 21st-century Americans, namely climate
change, cyber threats, and the ongoing reallocation of global power prompted by the rise of China. Rather than seeing far into
the future, American elites have struggled to discern what might happen next week. More often than not, they get even that
wrong.
Like some idiot savant, Donald Trump understood this. He grasped that the establishment's formula for militarized global
leadership applied to actually existing post-Cold War circumstances was spurring American decline. Certainly other observers,
including contributors to this publication, had for years been making the same argument, but in the halls of power their dissent
counted for nothing.
Yet in 2016, Trump's critique of U.S. policy resonated with many ordinary Americans and formed the basis of his successful
run for the presidency. Unfortunately, once Trump assumed office, that critique did not translate into anything even remotely
approximating a coherent strategy. President Trump's half-baked formula for Making America Great Again -- building "the wall,"
provoking trade wars, and elevating Iran to the status of existential threat -- is, to put it mildly, flawed, if not altogether
irrelevant. His own manifest incompetence and limited attention span don't help.
There is no countervailing force within the USA that is able to tame MIC appetites, which are constantly growing. In a sense
the nation is taken hostage with no root for escape via internal political mechanisms (for all practical purposes I would consider
neocons that dominate the USA foreign policy to be highly paid lobbyists of MIC.)
In this sense the alliance of China, Iran, Russia
and Turkey might serve as an external countervailing force which allows some level of return to sanity, like was the case when
the USSR existed.
I agree with Bacevich that the dissolution of the USSR corrupted the US elite to the extent that it became reckless and somewhat
suicidal in seeking "Full Spectrum Dominance" (which is an illusive goal in any case taking into account existing arsenals in
China and Russia and the growing distance between EU and the USA)
Provoking a disastrous worldwide confrontation with mighty China by seizing and
imprisoning one of its leading technology executives reminds me of
a comment I made several years ago about America's behavior under the rule of its current
political elites:
Or to apply a far harsher biological metaphor, consider a poor canine infected with the
rabies virus. The virus may have no brain and its body-weight is probably less than
one-millionth that of the host, but once it has seized control of the central nervous system,
the animal, big brain and all, becomes a helpless puppet.
Once friendly Fido runs around foaming at the mouth, barking at the sky, and trying to
bite all the other animals it can reach. Its friends and relatives are saddened by its plight
but stay well clear, hoping to avoid infection before the inevitable happens, and poor Fido
finally collapses dead in a heap.
'Coordinated anti-Trump campaign' on Instagram discovered by data analytics firm Reuters
Researchers have uncovered what they called a "coordinated social media operation"on
Instagram intended to undermine US President Donald Trump, with many identical posts using
hashtags like #ihatetrump and #ImpeachTrump.
Ghost Data, an Italian analytics firm, said the US president has been targeted by fake
profiles created specifically to spread extreme and sometimes even violent anti-Trump
messaging in an organized and coordinated way.
Their study identified a network of 350 anti-Trump Instagram accounts, which used graphic
language to criticize the US president and found that 19 accounts led the way in promoting
the content. Some of the postings could "easily" be regarded as "hate speech," the study
said.
What the team uncovered was a "small operation" that is "very likely part of something
bigger," the head of research at Ghost Data, Andrea Stroppa, told Reuters.
The posts generated from the operation garnered more than 35.2 million interactions, with
3.9 million of them happening within the last two months when the campaign "swelled
dramatically," the researchers said. Interactions for the top 19 accounts are "growing
exponentially," generating nearly 70,000 likes and comments in just the first 10 days of
May.
The accounts posted "similar or identical content" and many of the messages were published
just a few minutes apart, the study noted. More tellingly, the accounts were all "activated
and turned off" on the same day.
U.S. ships are involved in provocative "freedom of navigation" exercises in the South China
Sea and other ships gather ominously in the Mediterranean Sea while National Security Advisor
John Bolton and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo along with convicted war criminal Elliot
Abrams conspire to save the people of Venezuela with another illegal "regime change"
intervention. But people are drawn to the latest adventures of Love and Hip-Hop, the Mueller
report, and Game of Thrones. In fact, while millions can recall with impressive detail the
proposals and strategies of the various players in HBO's latest saga, they can't recall two
details about the pending military budget that will likely pass in Congress with little debate,
even though Trump's budget proposal represents another obscene increase of public money to the
tune of $750 billion.
This bipartisan rip-off could not occur without the willing collusion of the corporate
media, which slants coverage to support the interests of the ruling elite or decides to just
ignore an issue like the ever-expanding military budget.
The effectiveness of this collusion is reflected in the fact that not only has this massive
theft of public money not gotten much coverage in the mainstream corporate media, but also it
only received sporadic coverage in the alternative media. The liberal-left media is distracted
enough by the theatrics of the Trump show to do the ideological dirty work of the elites.
Spending on war will consume almost 70% of the budget and be accompanied by cuts in public
spending for education, housing, the environment, public transportation, jobs trainings, food
support programs like food stamps and Meals on Wheels, as well as Medicare, Medicaid, and
Social Security. Most of the neoliberal candidates running in the Democratic Party's electoral
process, however, haven't spoken a word in opposition to Trump's budget.
The public knows that the Democratic Party's candidates are opposed to Trump's wall on the
southern border, and they expect to hear them raise questions about the $8.6 billion of funding
the wall. But while some of the Democrats may oppose the wall, very few have challenged the
details of the budget that the
U.S. Peace Council indicates . For example:
"$576 billion baseline budget for the Department of Defense; an additional $174 billion
for the Pentagon's Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), i.e., the war budget; $93.1 billion
for the Department of Veterans Affairs; $51.7 billion for Homeland Security; $42.8 billion
for State Department; an additional $26.1 billion for State Department's Overseas Contingency
Operations (regime change slush fund); $16.5 billion for the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration (nuclear weapons budget); $21 billion for NASA (militarizing
outer space?); plus $267.4 billion for all other government agencies, including funding for
FBI and Cybersecurity in the Department of Justice."
The Peace Council also highlights the following two issues: First, the total US military and
war budget has jumped from $736.4 billion to $989.0 billion since 2015. That is a $252.6
billion (about 35%) increase in five years. Second, thesimultaneous cuts in the government's
non-military spending are reflected in the proposed budget.
Here are some of biggest proposed budget cuts:
+ $1.5 trillion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, implementing work requirements as well
as eliminating the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. The budget instead adds
$1.2 trillion for a "Market Based Health Care Grant" -- that is, a block grant to states,
instead of paying by need. It's not clear whether that would be part of Medicaid.
+ An $845 billion cut to Medicare over 10 years. That is about a 10 percent cut .
+ $25 billion in cuts to Social Security over 10 years, including cuts to disability
insurance.
+ A $220 billion cut to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP) over 10 years ,
which is commonly referred to as food stamps, and includes mandatory work requirements. The
program currently serves around 45 million people.
+ A $21 billion cut to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , an already severely
underfunded cash-assistance program for the nation's poorest.
+ $207 billion in cuts to the student loan program, eliminating the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program and cutting subsidized student loans.
+ Overall, there is a 9 percent cut to non-defense programs , which would hit Section 8
housing vouchers, public housing programs, Head Start, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
nutrition program, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program , among others.
The working classes and oppressed peoples of the U.S. and around the world can no longer
afford the unchallenged ideological positions of the Pentagon budget and the associated
expenditures for so-called defense that are considered sacrosanct in the U.S. They cannot
afford that much of the U.S. public is not concerned with issues of so-called foreign policy
that the military budget is seen as part.
The racist appeals of U.S. national chauvinism in the form of "Make America Great" and the
Democrats' version of "U.S. Exceptionalism" must be confronted and exposed as the cross-class,
white identity politics that they are. The fact that supposedly progressive or even "radical"
politics does not address the issue of U.S. expenditures on war and imperialism is reflective
of a politics that is morally and political bankrupt. But it also does something else. It
places those practitioners firmly in the camp of the enemies of humanity.
The objective fact that large numbers of the public accept that the U.S. can determine the
leadership of another sovereign nation while simultaneously being outraged by the idea of a
foreign power interfering in U.S. elections demonstrates the mindboggling subjective
contradictions that exist in the U.S. For example – that an Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez can
assert that she will defer to the leadership of her caucus on the issue of Venezuela or that
Barbara Lee can vote to bring Trump's budget proposal out of committee or that Biden can
proudly support Trump's immoral backing of a neo-fascist opposition in Venezuela and
they will all get away with those positions – reveals the incredible challenge that we
face in building an alternative radical movement for peace, social justice and
people(s)-centered human rights.
So, we must join with
U.S. Peace Council and the other members of the Anti-war, pro-peace, and anti-imperialist
communities in the U.S. to "resist and oppose this military attack on our communities, our
livelihoods and our lives." This is an urgent and militant first step in reversing the cultural
support for violence and the normalization of war that currently exists in the U.S. Now is the
moment to demand that Congress reject and reverse the Trump Administration's military budget
and the U.S. Government's militaristic foreign policy. But now is also the moment to commit to
building a powerful countermovement to take back the power over life and death from the
denizens of violence represented by the rapacious 1%. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Ajamu Baraka
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
Setting the stage for a revival of the White House's warnings about Chinese electoral meddling ahead of the 2020 vote, President
Trump on Monday warned via tweet that the Chinese are already pushing for Joe Biden to become the next American president.
That Beijing would prefer Biden over Trump is hardly a surprise, given Biden's pro-China rhetoric (Biden has insisted that China
isn't a threat,
though he is also extremely conflicted thanks to his son's business dealings).
But according to Trump, the fix is already in (for the primaries, at least), and Biden's rivals - like Bernie Sanders, who consistently
polls second to Biden - are "history."
In what appears to be Trump conceding that Biden's decision not to challenge Hillary played a big part in his rise, Trump added
that he's "only here because of Sleepy Joe and the man who took him off the 1% trash heap, President O!"
Looks like Bernie Sanders is history. Sleepy Joe Biden is pulling ahead and think about it, I'm only here because of Sleepy
Joe and the man who took him off the 1% trash heap, President O! China wants Sleepy Joe BADLY!
We imagine the White House will soon trot out Mike Pence to deliver another sweeping speech warning of Beijing's interference
both electorally, and through its 'neocolonial project', the Belt & Road initiative.
Trump is a master class troller. He is going to whip the democratic candidate field into such a frenzy. He will have them gouging
each others eyes out before the first stage debate.
How about a real anti-establishment candidate period. Trump is not anti-establishment. How do we know? His history and his
actions since taking office. The media and the US regime are hand-in-hand, owned by the same people, who Trump has been serving
religiously from day one. His whole facade crumbles under even slight scrutiny and critical thought. His greatest hope is that
he manages to get enough fools to rush in to the E-vote booths, to create the illusion of support, as the actual vote will have
already been decided(if the zios want him a second term and there's no reason to think they wouldn't, he's been so good to them).
If not, they'll have Biden "I'm proud to be a zionist" or fake *** Sanders, or another choice puppet. It's pathetic really.
The good guys vs the bad guys illusion! Let me tell you something; good politicians do not exist! Both Trump and Biden are
for the Rothschild and the banking cabal.
If you vote and support, you simply deserve the miserable life you are living right
now.
Zerohedge has no intention of ever disclosing the truth to its dumb readers. The entire west, including the US, is a freaking
monarchy ruled by the owners of wallstreet AKA the Rothschild and their zionist buddies.
Trump doesn't give a crap about you,
neither Joe does. Whoever wins the next election, you, the dumb lazy average joe, are guaranteed to lose.
"... Well spoken, knowledgeable, measured, and intelligent. She's got no chance in American politics. ..."
"... Yup 2.5 hours with joe for each candidate. Screw CNN and FOX. ..."
"... Gabbard nails it with her mention of the Congressional/Military/Industrial Complex ..."
"... Bernie claims he's progressive, but a very calculated politician too. He should have run as an Independant after what the DNC did to him in 2016. Plus he said he would "sheepdog" his supporters if he loses to whoever. So i support Tulsi, and I think she's gonna snowball after the debates. Tulsi 2020 ..."
"... Wow. First candidate I have ever thought about contributing money to their campaign. Brilliant woman. She just swayed this libertarian. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard is a 2020 Presidential Candidate of the Democratic Party and is currently
serving as the U.S. Representative for Hawaii's 2nd congressional district since 2013.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/
For me, Tulsi radiates peace and comfort in times of chaos and destruction. Her strength
and bravery give me hope. We the People, who keep up on things, give me hope.
As a conservative I would love if she won the democratic vote. I feel like she is
reasonable enough that I wouldn't have to fear the consequences if she did win the
presidency. We may not agree but she is rational and seems reasonable
iv> Is Tulsi gonna kill it on the debate stage or what? She is soooo presidential in my
opinion,and yes a risk taker for the American people.
Tulsi is a vet of over 12 years
deployed twice to the middle east. Quit the DNC to back Bernie in 2016 and basically put her
own career on hold. The only Democrat at Standing Rock standing with the water protectors.
Went to Syria to learn the truth about that country, and yes meet with Syrian Pres. She is
progressive, and Mike Gravel is a progressive.
Bernie claims he's progressive, but a very
calculated politician too. He should have run as an Independant after what the DNC did to him
in 2016. Plus he said he would "sheepdog" his supporters if he loses to whoever. So i support
Tulsi, and I think she's gonna snowball after the debates. Tulsi 2020
Ugh this is so much better than anything cable news does at any point during the election
cycle. It's not even close. More gets accomplished in a single Rogan podcast than in the
entire two or so years the news spends "covering" candidates. No spin, no going for gotcha
sound bytes, just an unedited, lengthy conversation.
On this episode of Going Underground, we speak to Democratic Presidential candidate Mike
Gravel who discusses why he is joining the race to pull the debate to the left, the nature of
his contenders such as Joe Biden, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders, US regime change attempts
in Venezuela and escalating tension with Iran, Julian Assange's imprisonment in the UK and the
US' extradition request. Next we speak to Chris Williamson MP, in his first international
interview since being suspended by the Labour Party.
He discusses NHS privatisation by stealth with the new GP contracts due to be signed next
week, Israeli oppression of Palestinians, Trump's escalation against Iran and Julian Assange's
on-going imprisonment in Belmarsh Prison.
Love Mike gravel, honest, good, genuine person with pure heart and soul! Donate dollar to
get him on the debates! Love Chris Williamson also a great men we need more people like
these! This channel should have way more subs and views, great show!
The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the largest in the world, totaling
297 billion barrels . They are going to be INVADED by the real world terrorists, the
USA,BRITAIN, and their puppet allies !!!! Need I say more?
Trump promised to get the US out of "stupid wars." But now he and John Bolton are on the
brink of launching us into a very stupid and costly war with Iran. Join me in sending a strong
message to President Trump: The US must NOT go to war with Iran.
I think she could be a perfect President at given times for usa. She would save a lot of
American lives and will leave the white house a lot cleaner when she leaves.
It's a tragedy that Tulsi Gabbert is not number one in the polls right now. She's the only
one consistently right on all the issues. I can't wait for the debates.
NO More Wars! Give Peace a chance. Support Representative Tulsi Gabbard for President. A
True American Patriot and Veteran, fighting for Peace.
Tulsi2020.com
"... After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the better! ..."
"... Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media (MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM headlines. ..."
"... the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other candidate of either party. ..."
"... she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats, possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets? ..."
"... She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed us exactly how correct she was. ..."
"... Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor. ..."
"... It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy. ..."
Tulsi's 2.5 hour interview with Joe
Rogan 6 days ago resulted in a solid attention bump.
The YouTube version of the video has so far garnered more than 1.6 million views, and on
average his podcast downloads are about double that number.
After that interview, Tulsi's Instagram account gained 11,000 new followers and her Twitter
account gained 30,000 new followers. The more people watching her on a regular basis, the
better!
Ever since the Rogan interview, the number of times her name appears in a mainstream media
(MSM) headline has seen a jump. Before the interview, she was getting a maximum of 1, sometimes
rarely 2 headlines per day--often zero. Since the interview she has been in the 4 or 5 per day
range. Today (May 19), she is ranked number 5 for all Democratic candidate name mentions in MSM
headlines.
Finally, Oliver Stone has sent out a Tweet, essentially endorsing Tulsi.
the embedded video are very powerful as to why Tulsi is different from every other
candidate of either party.
Since I was young, I knew I wanted to use my life to serve others. It's why I chose to
serve as a soldier & in politics. I've never had any ambition to "be president" -- it's
always been about doing my best to be of service and how I can make a greater positive
impact. pic.twitter.com/NfTSUhbFXX
...as I post this comment, but I do know--from a professional/political media
standpoint--that this commercial about the Iran situation is, by far and away, the best piece
of political media I've seen since Bernie's "America" commercial in 2016 .
If
she wants to punch through the crowd, right now (for the moment, because the Iran situation
will change, one way or another, and maybe rapidly, going forward), she should push this spot
early and often, as much as possible (as her campaign can afford it, and then maybe even a
little more than it thinks it can afford, too).
She has become my favorite candidate on policies, but being favored by Gravel and Stone
doesn't hurt, either, to say the least. Of the passengers in the Democratic clown car, I like
her and Bernie most. How I will vote may depend upon what polls in my state tell me just
before primary day about her and Bernie. Or, I may go ahead and vote for Tulsi, no matter
what. In that respect, I am undecided at this time.
Just checked my former message board. They are attacking her right and right (sic). (Not
"left and right:" Barely a leftist still posts on that board; and those who still do must
watch themselves.) So, she's a primary target of the DNC and establishment Democrats,
possibly even more so than Bernie this time. Or maybe they're tied as targets?
And, why not? She called out the DNC's unfairness to Bernie well before wikileaks showed
us exactly how correct she was.
a worthy podcaster who often has on interesting, independent thinkers and public figures
who go against the establishment grain. (see e.g. his several interviews with author Graham
Hancock) Not perfect or quite as good as I'd prefer, but far better than most.
Oliver Stone and Stephen Cohen are of course two independent types who are most concerned
about our deteriorated relations with Russia, based on fake news and Russophobic media
hysteria. Cohen has largely been blackballed from the MSM, with the exception of Tucker
Carlson's show and the semi-sane radio conservative John Batchelor.
It was because of the latest McCarthyite smear piece on Tulsi Gabbard in the Daily Beast
that I again donated to her campaign. Unlike Bernie, she is longer than a long shot to get
the nomination, but it's important that her voice on FP be heard. While I also favor Bernie
and Andrew Yang, their comments on FP, sadly, are merely occasional carefully crafted
footnotes designed not to attract much attention or controversy.
Those are pretty strong words from the official agency...
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. side is perhaps narcissistic about its "art of deal," yet its tainted records in failing to keep its own words have alarmed the world. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, China is not the first victim of America's acts of bad faith and trade bullyism. Over more than a year, the U.S. side has wielded a "big stick" of protectionism, and coerced many of its trade partners, including South Korea, Canada and Mexico, into re-negotiating their long-existing trade agreements. ..."
"... When Washington decided to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union (EU) last year, the European Commission rebutted in a tweet, saying that "The EU believes these unilateral U.S. tariffs are unjustified and at odds with World Trade Organization rules. This is protectionism, pure and simple." ..."
"... Since the Trump administration took power, Washington has backed away from a string of major international agreements and multilateral bodies, including the Paris climate accord, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the Universal Postal Union. ..."
"... In the aftermath of the World War II, the United States helped establish the existing global trade and finance order. As a result, Washington has benefited enormously from such a system that is based on the U.S. dollar's supremacy. However, Washington is in no way justified to abuse its superpower status. ..."
"... Instead, it needs to fulfill its duties as an equal member of the international community. It is worth noting that the U.S.-led global order may collapse once Washington's credibility goes bankrupt. This dangerous prospect is in no one's interests. ..."
Source: Xinhua | 2019-05-20 17:11:21 | Editor: Xiang Bo
BEIJING, May 20 (Xinhua) -- Modern international trade relations are based on credibility
and the spirit of the contract. However,in the year-long China-U.S. trade negotiations,
Washington repeatedly reneged on its promises and played "face changing" tricks, leaving stark
stains on its credibility.
During Chinese Vice Premier Liu He's visit to Washington last May, Beijing and Washington
agreed not to engage in a trade war. Only days later, the Trump administration said it will
impose a 25-percent tariff on 50 billion U.S. dollars' worth of Chinese imports which contain
industrially significant technology.
Soon after the recent setbacks in China-U.S. trade consultations, the Trump administration,
in the name of "national security," rolled out measures to hit Chinese tech firms. The White
House's executive order will kill many business contracts between Chinese and U.S. firms.
The U.S. side is perhaps narcissistic about its "art of deal," yet its tainted records in
failing to keep its own words have alarmed the world.
As a matter of fact, China is not the first victim of America's acts of bad faith and trade
bullyism. Over more than a year, the U.S. side has wielded a "big stick" of protectionism, and coerced
many of its trade partners, including South Korea, Canada and Mexico, into re-negotiating their
long-existing trade agreements.
These bullying behaviors have sent a clear signal: one can arbitrarily tamper with the
original contracts regardless of cooperation partners' interests and concerns, as long as it
has the power to do so. That is "the logic of gangsters" and "the law of jungle." Such bullying
tactic has stirred global opposition, including from Washington's allies in Europe.
When Washington decided to impose steel and aluminum tariffs on the European Union (EU) last
year, the European Commission rebutted in a tweet, saying that "The EU believes these
unilateral U.S. tariffs are unjustified and at odds with World Trade Organization rules. This
is protectionism, pure and simple."
Also, America's bullying actions have gone far beyond multilateral economic and trade
realms.
Since the Trump administration took power, Washington has backed away from a string of major
international agreements and multilateral bodies, including the Paris climate accord, the UN
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Human Rights Council, and the
Universal Postal Union.
These self-serving moves have disgraced Washington's credibility as a responsible major
country, and seriously eroded the foundation for international cooperation.
In the aftermath of the World War II, the United States helped establish the existing global
trade and finance order. As a result, Washington has benefited enormously from such a system
that is based on the U.S. dollar's supremacy. However, Washington is in no way justified to
abuse its superpower status.
Instead, it needs to fulfill its duties as an equal member of the international community.
It is worth noting that the U.S.-led global order may collapse once Washington's credibility
goes bankrupt. This dangerous prospect is in no one's interests.
"... There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the truth. ..."
"... There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare. Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out "legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions. The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote against a defense spending increase. ..."
"... Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus. ..."
"... When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed. ..."
"... I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. ..."
"... If the Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global recession is a certainty. ..."
"... These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans. They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others. They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head, MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the president. ..."
"... The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want to puke. ..."
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the
right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a
minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!"" – Bill Hicks
Anyone who frequents Twitter, Facebook, political blogs, economic blogs, or fake-news
mainstream media channels knows our world is driven by the "Us versus Them" narrative. It's
almost as if "they" are forcing us to choose sides and believe the other side is evil. Bill
Hicks died in 1994, but his above quote is truer today then it was then. As the American Empire
continues its long-term decline, the proles are manipulated through Bernaysian propaganda
techniques, honed over the course of decades by the ruling oligarchs, to root for their
assigned puppets.
Most people can't discern they are being manipulated and duped by the Deep State
controllers. The most terrifying outcome for these Deep State controllers would be for the
masses to realize it is us versus them. But they don't believe there is a chance in hell of
this happening. Their arrogance is palatable.
Their hubris has reached astronomical levels as they blew up the world economy in 2008 and
successfully managed to have the innocent victims bail them out to the tune of $700 billion,
pillaged the wealth of the nation through their capture of the Federal Reserve (QE, ZIRP),
rigged the financial markets in their favor through collusion, used the hundreds of billions in
corporate tax cuts to buy back their stock and further pump the stock market, all while their
corporate media mouthpieces mislead and misinform the proles.
There are differences between the parties, but they are mainly centered around social
issues and disputes with little or no consequence to the long-term path of the country. The
real ruling oligarchs essentially allow controlled opposition within each party to make it
appear you have a legitimate choice at the ballot box. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
There has been an unwritten agreement between the parties for decades where the
Democrats pretend to be against war and the Republicans pretend to be against welfare.
Meanwhile, spending on war and welfare relentlessly grows into the trillions, with no effort
whatsoever from either party to even slow the rate of growth, let alone cut spending. The
proliferation of the military industrial complex like a poisonous weed has been inexorable, as
the corporate arms dealers place their facilities of death in the congressional districts of
Democrats and Republicans. In addition, these corporate manufacturers of murder dole out
"legal" payoffs to corrupt politicians of both parties in the form of political contributions.
The Deep State knows bribes and well-paying jobs ensure no spineless congressman will ever vote
against a defense spending increase.
Of course, the warfare/welfare state couldn't grow to its immense size without financing
from the Wall Street cabal and their feckless academic puppets at the Federal Reserve. The Too
Big to Trust Wall Street banks, whose willful control fraud nearly wrecked the global economy
in 2008, were rewarded by their Deep State patrons by getting bigger and more powerful as
people on Main Street and senior citizen savers were thrown under the bus.
When these criminal bankers have their reckless bets blow up in their faces they are
bailed out by the American taxpayers, but when the Fed rigs the system so they are guaranteed
billions in risk free profits, they reward themselves with massive bonuses and lobby for a huge
tax cut used to buy back their stock. With bank branches in every congressional district in
every state, and bankers spreading protection money to greedy politicians across the land, no
legislation damaging to the banking cartel is ever passed.
I've never been big on joining a group. I tend to believe Groucho Marx and his cynical line,
"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The "Us vs. Them" narrative
doesn't connect with my view of the world. As a realistic libertarian I know libertarian ideals
will never proliferate in a society of government dependency, willful ignorance of the masses,
thousands of laws, and a weak-kneed populace afraid of freedom and liberty. The only true
libertarian politician, Ron Paul, was only able to connect with about 5% of the voting public.
There is no chance a candidate with a libertarian platform will ever win a national election.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Bill Hicks somewhat foreshadowed the last
election by referencing another famous cynic.
"I ascribe to Mark Twain's theory that the last person who should be President is the one
who wants it the most. The one who should be picked is the one who should be dragged kicking
and screaming into the White House." ― Bill Hicks
Hillary Clinton wanted to be president so badly, she colluded with Barack Obama, Jim Comey,
John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch and numerous other Deep State sycophants to ensure
her victory, by attempting to entrap Donald Trump in a concocted Russian collusion plot and
subsequent post-election coup to cover for their traitorous plot. I wouldn't say Donald Trump
was dragged kicking and screaming into the White House, but when he ascended on the escalator
at Trump Tower in June of 2015, I'm not convinced he believed he could win the presidency.
As the greatest self-promoter of our time, I think he believed a presidential run would be
good for his brand, more revenue for his properties and more interest in his reality TV
ventures. He was despised by the establishment within the Republican and Democrat parties. The
vested interests controlling the media and levers of power in society scorned and ridiculed
this brash uncouth outsider. In an upset for the ages, Trump tapped into a vein of rage and
disgruntlement in flyover country and pockets within swing states, to win the presidency over
Crooked Hillary and her Deep State backers.
I voted for Trump because he wasn't Hillary. I hadn't voted for a Republican since
2000, casting protest votes for Libertarian and Constitutional Party candidates along the way.
I despise the establishment, so their hatred of Trump made me vote for him. His campaign
stances against foreign wars and Federal Reserve reckless bubble blowing appealed to me. I
don't worship at the altar of the cult of personality. I judge men by their actions and not
their words.
Trump's first two years have been endlessly entertaining as he waged war against fake news
CNN, establishment Republicans, the Deep State coup attempt, and Obama loving globalists. The
Twitter in Chief has bypassed the fake news media and tweets relentlessly to his followers. He
provokes outrage in his enemies and enthralls his worshipers. With millions in each camp it is
difficult to find an unbiased assessment of narrative versus real accomplishments.
I'm happy he has been able to stop the relentless leftward progression of our Federal
judiciary. Cutting regulations and rolling back environmental mandates has been a positive.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement and TPP, forcing NATO members to pay their fair share, and
renegotiating NAFTA were all needed. Ending the war on coal and approving pipelines will keep
energy costs lower. His attempts to vet Muslims entering the country have been the right thing
to do. Building a wall on our southern border is the right thing to do, but he should have
gotten it done when he controlled both houses.
The use of tariffs to force China to renegotiate one sided trade deals as a negotiating
tactic is a high-risk, high reward gamble. If his game of chicken is successful and he gets
better terms from the Chicoms, while reversing the tariffs, it would be a huge win. If the
Chinese refuse to yield for fear of losing face, and the tariff war accelerates, a global
recession is a certainty. Who has the upper hand? Xi is essentially a dictator for life
and doesn't have to worry about elections or popularity polls. Dissent is crushed. A global
recession and stock market crash would make Trump's re-election in 2020 problematic.
I'm a big supporter of lower taxes. The Trump tax cuts were sold as beneficial to the middle
class. That is a false narrative. The vast majority of the tax cut benefits went to
mega-corporations and rich people. Middle class home owning families with children received
little or no tax relief, as exemptions were eliminated and tax deductions capped. In many
cases, taxes rose for working class Americans.
With corporate profits at all time highs, massive tax cuts put billions more into their
coffers. They didn't repatriate their overseas profits to a great extent. They didn't go on a
massive hiring spree. They didn't invest in new facilities. They did buy back their own stock
to help drive the stock market to stratospheric heights. So corporate executives gave
themselves billions in bonuses, which were taxed at a much lower rate. This is considered
winning in present day America.
The "Us vs. Them" issue rears its ugly head whenever Trump is held accountable for promises
unkept, blatant failures, and his own version of fake news. Holding Trump to the same standards
as Obama is considered traitorous by those who only root for their home team. Their standard
response is that you are a Hillary sycophant or a turncoat to the home team. If you agree with
a particular viewpoint or position of a liberal then you are a bad person and accused of being
a lefty by Trump fanboys. Facts don't matter to cheerleaders. Competing narratives rule the
day. Truthfulness not required.
The refusal to distinguish between positive actions and negative actions when assessing the
performance of what passes for our political leadership by the masses is why cynicism has
become my standard response to everything I see, hear or he read. The incessant level of lies
permeating our society and its acceptance as the norm has led to moral decay and rampant
criminality from the White House, to the halls of Congress, to corporate boardrooms, to
corporate newsrooms, to government run classrooms, to the Vatican, and to households across the
land. It's interesting that one of our founding fathers reflected upon this detestable human
trait over two hundred years ago.
"It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental
lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity
of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has
prepared himself for the commission of every other crime." – Thomas Paine
Thomas Paine's description of how moral mischief can ruin a society was written when less
than 3 million people inhabited America. Consider his accurate assessment of humanity when over
300 million occupy these lands. The staggering number of corrupt prostituted sociopaths
occupying positions of power within the government, corporations, media, military, churches,
and academia has created a morally bankrupt empire of debt.
These sociopaths are not liberal or conservative. They are not Democrats or Republicans.
They are not beholden to a country or community. They care not for their fellow man. They don't
care about future generations. They care about their own power, wealth and control over others.
They have no conscience. They have no empathy. Right and wrong are meaningless in their
unquenchable thirst for more. They will lie, steal and kill to achieve their goal of
controlling everything and everyone in this world. This precisely describes virtually every
politician in Washington DC, Wall Street banker, mega-corporation CEO, government agency head,
MSM talking head, church leader, billionaire activist, and blood sucking advisor to the
president.
The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them. The answer to that question
will strongly impact the direction and intensity of the climactic years of this Fourth Turning.
What I've noticed is the shunning of those who don't take an all or nothing position regarding
Trump. If you disagree with a decision, policy, or hiring decision by the man, you are accused
by the pro-Trump team of being one of them (aka liberals, lefties, Hillary lovers).
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the Trumpeteers. I
don't want to be Us or Them. I just want to be me. I will judge everyone by their actions and
their results. I can agree with Trump on many issues, while also agreeing with Tulsi Gabbard,
Rand Paul, Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi on other issues. I don't prescribe to the cult of
personality school of thought. I didn't believe the false narratives during the Bush or Obama
years, and I won't worship at the altar of the Trump narrative now.
In Part II of this article I'll assess Trump's progress thus far and try to determine
whether he can defeat the Deep State.
"The scientific and industrial revolution of modern times represents the next giant
step in the mastery over nature; and here, too, an enormous increase in man's power over
nature is followed by an apocalyptic drive to subjugate man and reduce human nature to the
status of nature. Even where enslavement is employed in a mighty effort to tame nature, one
has the feeling that the effort is but a tactic to legitimize total subjugation. Thus,
despite its spectacular achievements in science and technology, the twentieth century will
probably be seen in retrospect as a century mainly preoccupied with the mastery and
manipulation of men. Nationalism, socialism, communism, fascism, and militarism,
cartelization and unionization, propaganda and advertising are all aspects of a general
relentless drive to manipulate men and neutralize the unpredictability of human nature. Here,
too, the atmosphere is heavy-laden with coercion and magic." --Eric Hoffer
If you don't agree with everything Trump does or says, you are dead to the
Trumpeteers
That's not true. When Trump kisses Israeli ***, most "Trumpeteers" are outraged. That does
not mean they're going to vote for Joe "I'm a Zionist" Biden, or Honest Hillary because of
it, but they're still pissed.
These predators (((them))) need to fear the Victims, us! That is what the 2ND Amendment is
for. It's coming, slowly for now, but eventually it speeds up.
Any piece like this better be littered with footnotes and cited sources before I'm
swallowing it.
I'll say it again: this is the internet, people. There's no "shortage of column space" to
include links back to primary sources for your assertions. Otherwise, how am I supposed to
distinguish you from another "psy op" or "paid opposition hit piece"?
"The question pondered every day on blogs, social media, news channels, and in households
around the country is whether Trump is one of Us or one of Them."
If you still ponder this question, then you are pretty frickin' thick. It is obvious at
this point, that he betrayed everything he campaigned on. You don't do that and call yourself
one of "us".......damn sure aren't one of "me".
If I couldn't keep my word and wouldn't do what it takes to do what is right.....then I
would resign. But I would not go on playing politics in a world that needs some real
leadership and not another political hack.
The real battle is between Truth and Lie. No matter the name of your "team" or the "side"
you support. Truth is truth and lies are lies. We don't stand for political parties, we stand
for truth. We don't stand for national pride, we take pride in a nation that is truthful and
trustworthy. The minute a "side" or "team" starts lying.....and justifying it.....that is the
minute they become them and not one of us.
Any thinking person in this country today knows we are being lied to by the entire
complex. Until someone starts telling the truth.....we are on our own. But I be damned before
I am going to support any of these lying sons of bitches......and that includes Trump.
Dark comedy. All the elections have been **** choices until the last one. Take a look at
Arkancide.com and start counting the
bodies.
Anyone remember the news telling us how North Korea promised to turn the US into a sea of
fire?? Trump absolutely went to bat for every single American to de-escalate that
situation.
Don't tell me about Arkancide or the Clintons. I grew up in Arkansas with that sack of
**** as my governor for 12 years.
NK was never a real threat to anyone. Trump didn't do ****. NK is back to building and
shooting off missiles and will be teaming up with the Russians and Chinese. You are a duped
bafoon.
I don't think anybody thought NK was an existential threat to the US. It has still been
nice making progress on bringing them back into the world and making them less of a threat to
Japan and S. Korea. Trump did that.
Dennis Rodman did that, or that is to say, Trump an extension thereof ..
Great theater..
Look, i thought it was great that Trump went Kim Unning. I mean after all, i had talked
with a few elderly folks that get their news directly from the mainstream of mainstream,
vanilla news reportage. Propaganda central casting. I remember them being extremely
concerned, outright petrified about that evil menace, kim gonna launch nukes any minute now.
If the news would have been announced a major troop mobilization, bombing campaigns, to begin
immediately they would have been completely onboard, waving the flag.
Frankly, it is only a matter of time, and folks can speculate on the country of interest,
but it is coming soon to a theater near you. So many being in the crosshairs. Iran i suspect
.. that's the big prize, that makes these sociopaths cream in their panties.
Probably. In the second term .. and so far, if ones honestly evaluates the "brain trust" /
current crop of dimwit opposition, and in light of their past 2 plus years of moronic
posturing with their hair on fire, trump will get his second term ..
Until the last one? You are retarded, the last election was a masterpiece of Rothschilds
Productions. The Illuminati was watching you at their private cinema when you were voting for
Trump and they were laughing their asses off.
The author does not realize that everyone in America, except Native American Indians, were
immigrants drawn towards the false promise of hope that is the American Dream, turned
nightmare..
Owning your own home, car, & raising a family in this country is so damn expensive
& risky, that you'd have be on drugs or an idiot to even fall for the lies.
I don't see an us vs them, I see the #FakeMoney printers monetized every facet of life,
own everything, & it truly is RENT-A-LIFE USSA, complete with bills galore, taxes galore,
laws galore, jails & prisons galore, & the worst fkn country anyone would want to
live in poverty & homelessness in.
At least in many 3rd world nations there is land to live off of & joblessness does not
= a financial death sentence.
Sure. Lets all go back to living in huts.....off the land....no cars.....no
electricity.....no running water......no roads....
There is a price to pay for things and it is not always in the form of money. We have
given up some of our freedom for the ease and conveniences we want.
The problem is we have gone too far. The "American Dream" has become a grotesque nightmare
because people by the millions sit around and dream about being a Kardashian. Makes me want
to puke.
There is a balance. Don't take the other extreme or we never find balance.
This article is moronic. One can easily prove that Trump is not like all the others in the
poster. Has this author been living under a rock for the last 2.5 yrs? The past 5 presidents
represent a group that has been literally trying to assassinate Trump, ruin his family, his
reputation, his buisness and his future, for the audacity to be an ousider to the power
network and steal (win) the presidency from under their noses. He's kept us OUT of war. He's
dissolved the treachery that was keeping us in the middle east through gaslighitng and a
proxy fake war that is ISIS, the globalists' / nato / fiveys / uk's fake mercenary army
The greatest threat to the USA is its own dumbed down drugged up citizens who cannot
compete with anyone. America is a big military powerhouse but that doens't make successful
countries
Notice how modern narrative is getting manipulated. What is being reported and referenced
is completely different from how things are. And knowing that we can assume that the entire
history is a fabricated lie, written by the ruling class to support its status in the minds
of obedient citizens.
This article is garbage propaganda that proves that they think we aren't keeping score or
paying attention. The gaslighting won't work when it relies on so much counterthink, willful
ignorance, counterfacts and weaponized omissions
The reality is the de-escalation of wars, the stability of our currency and our economy,
and the moral re-grounding of our culture does not occur until we do what over 100 countries
have done over the centuries, beginning in Carthage in 250AD.
The congress are statusquotarians. If they solved the problems they say they would,they'd
be out of a job. and that job is sitting there acting like a naddler or toxic post turtle
leprechaun with a charisma and skill level of zero. Their staff do all the work, half of them
barely read, though they probably can
I still think 1st and 2nd ammedment is predicated on which party rules the house. If a Dem
gets into the WH, we're fucked. Kiss those Iast two dying amendments goodbye for good.
If we rely on any party to preserve the 1st or 2nd Amendments, we are already fucked. What
should preserve the 1st and 2nd Amendments is the absolute fear of anyone in government even
mentioning suppressing or removing them. When the very thought of doing anything to lessen
the rights advocated in these two amendments, causes a politician to piss in their pants,
liberty will be preserved. As it is now citizens fear the government, and as a result tyranny
continues to grow and fester as a cancer.
You may very well be right. I still hold out hope, but upon seeing what our society is
quickly morphing into, that hope seems to fade more each and every day.
If you think the 1st and 2nd amendments are reliant on who is in office, then you are
already done. Why don't you try growing a pair and being an American for once in your
life.
I will always have a 1st and 2nd "amendment" for as long as I live. Life is meaningless
without them.....as far as I am concerned. Good thing the founders didn't wait for king
George to give them what they "felt" was theirs.....by the laws of Nature and Nature's
God.
I hope the democrats get the power......and I hope they come for the guns......maybe then
pussies like you will finally have to **** or get off the pot......for once in your life.
There are worse things than dying.
This country cannot be fixed through the ballot box. Unless we get rid of *** influencing
from abroad and domestically. Getting rid of English King few hundred years ago was a joke!
this would be a challenge because dual-citizens masquerading as locals.
Last revolution (1776) we targeted the WRONG ENEMY.
We targeted King George III instead of the private bankers who owned of the Bank of
England and the issued of the British-pound currency.
George III was himself up to his ears in debt to them by 1776, when the bankers installed
George Washington to replace George III as their middleman in the American colonies, by way
of the phony revolution.
Phony because ownership of the central bank and currency (Federal-Reserve Banks,
Federal-Reserve notes) we use, remains in the same banking families' hands to this day. The
same parasite remains within our government.
It is this strangely incomplete calculus that creates the shifting Loser world of
rifts and alliances. By operating with a more complete calculus, Sociopaths are able to
manipulate this world through the divide-and-conquer mechanisms. The result is that the
Losers end up blaming each other for their losses, seek collective emotional resolution,
and fail to adequately address the balance sheet of material rewards and losses.
To succeed, this strategy requires that Losers not look too closely at the non-emotional
books. This is why, as we saw last time, divide-and-conquer is the most effective means for
dealing with them, since it naturally creates emotional drama that keeps them busy while
they are being manipulated.
"... three major headwinds facing the global economy: Trump's protectionism, stagnation in the Eurozone, and potentially unstable growth in China. ..."
"... He talks about crypto currencies as well, offering his concerns on how they facilitate illegal activities and suggesting authorities ban them altogether. ..."
Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz offers his thoughts on what might cause the next recession from the floor of the
New York Stock Exchange.
He dives into three major headwinds facing the global economy: Trump's protectionism, stagnation in the Eurozone, and potentially
unstable growth in China.
Stiglitz also chimes in on Universal Basic Income, saying he's not "a big UBI guy". He talks about crypto
currencies as well, offering
his concerns on how they facilitate illegal activities and suggesting authorities ban them altogether.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) said on Sunday that reports claiming pro-putin Russophiles giving
her 2020 presidential campaign a boost is
"fake news,"
though she added that
conflict with the Kremlin is not productive.
Speaking to
ABC'
s George Stephanopoulos, Gabbard said that deteriorating relationships
with nuclear-armed countries such as Russia and China "has brought us to a very dangerous point,"
reports
The Hill
. She added that, if elected, she would "end these counterproductive and
wasteful regime change wars
," and would "
work to end this new Cold War and
nuclear arms race.
"
On Friday, the
Daily
Beast
published a story claiming that Gabbard "is quickly becoming the top candidate for
Democrats who think the Russian leader is misunderstood," based on people who had donated to her
campaign. (We somehow missed the
Daily Beast
article on
Hillary's alleged Saudi donors
in 2016, but we digress).
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian
studies professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a
vocal Putin supporter who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and
an employee of the Kremlin-backed broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias
"Goofy Grapes." -
Daily
Beast
On Sunday, Stephanopoulos asked Gabbard about the
Beast
article, and noted that she met
with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, as well as her defense of Russia's military presence in
Syria, and her comments suggesting that Russian election interference was on par with American
election meddling around the world.
"Is Putin a threat to national security?" he asked.
"You now it's unfortunately you're citing that article, George, because
it's a whole lot
of fake news
. What I'm focused on is what's in the best interest of the American people?
What's in the best interest of national security? Keeping American people safe," said Gabbard. "And
what I'm pointing out consistently,
time and time again, is our continued wasteful regime
change wars have been counterproductive to the interests of the American people and the approach
this administration has taken in essentially choosing conflict ... has been counterproductive
I continue to support her for that same reason. If there are
like minded people here on ZH consider donating just $1 as that
donation will help get her on stage where her anti-war thoughts
can be heard.
ditto. Trump said in the debates that "I want to be friends
with everyone, including Russia." The rest is history. The USA
wehrmacht is going after Tulsi now. We cannot have peace.
Have an idea for you on how to show true leadership
and finish what the Orange "six-sided star" liar said he would
pick up (
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/11/14/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/
)
when he began his presidency and then... well...
lied
to
become a treasonous bag of **** just like the ones that preceded
him!...
Even Vlad Putin and the rest of the Russian Federation refuse
to "touch it". And if you did. You would be the only
representative in the U.S. House and Senate let alone the U.S.
Federal, State and local government(s) for that matter to do so.
All you would have to say is "we need an understanding why 2
planes demolished 3 building(s) at "Ground Zero" more then 18
years ago, and why the 9/11 Commission never mentioned the Solomon
Brothers Building 7 in it's official report?... I (Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard) certainly want to know!... Especially wearing the
uniform for what I believed was the reason I was given for
invading Afghanistan and Iraq and murdering over 3 million
people?... And I want to tell the American people ultimately "why"
Building 7 was omitted along with too many other details that
Robert Mueller famously dismissed by saying only that "
mistakes
were made
" ...
I've written to you several times about showing the courage to
be the only politician since Senator Wellstone to pick up where he
left off and support the 13 year endeavors of this organization (
https://www.ae911truth.org/
)
to demand an investigation of the fact(s) now that has the backing
of a Grand Jury by signing it's petition!...
But you won't. Because you are like every other "200lbs of
****" in a 100lbs bag that walks the halls of the Longworth
carrying the water for the "Tribe"!
Keep telling yourself surfer **** that the job will get both
easier and better by lying about that day and what it's done in
it's wake to every institution and business in the United States
of America let alone the laws of the land just like your mentor
the Langley Bath House "boy"!...
Yes, Putin knows that an island of sanity and decency in a
cesspit of bigotry and firearms is bound to be blown to pieces
before she has a chance to deliver. I fear for Tulsi even now.
Yes, the Russia nonsense is FAKE NEWS. So why is Trump allowing
the Israelis, a country that hates the United States, and which
has attacked us at least twice (USS Liberty, 9/11/2001), to
dictate our foreign policy? Israel is the real enemy!!
Let's
look at a quote from one of the former employees of the Mossad
front operation "Urban Moving Systems" (likely also the same
people who planted the explosives at WTC) had to say about his
time there:
In addition to the strange nature of some of the Israelis'
possessions in the van and on their person, the company that
employed them -- Urban Moving Systems -- was of special interest
to the FBI, which concluded that the company was likely a
"fraudulent operation." Upon a search of the company's
premises, the FBI noted that "little evidence of a legitimate
business operation was found." The FBI report also noted that
there were an "unusually large number of computers relative to
the number of employees for such a fairly small business" and
that "further investigation identified several pseudo-names or
aliases associated with Urban Moving Systems and its
operations."
The FBI presence at the Urban Moving Systems search site
drew the attention of the local media and was later reported on
both television and in the local press. A former Urban Moving
Systems employee later contacted the Newark Division with
information indicating that he had quit his employment with
Urban Moving Systems as a result of the
high amount of
anti-American sentiment
present among Urban's employees.
The former employee stated that an Israeli employee of Urban
had even once remarked, "Give us twenty years and we'll take
over your media and destroy your country"
(page 37 of
the
FBI report
).
This kind of thing makes one kind of hope for a war in which
Israel is bombed back to the stone age, which is clearly where
these evil, psychopathic Zionist filth belong!
This is a long article, but read it all the way through. It's
proof that Israel was indeed behind 9/11 and that they had
numerous operatives in the country who were gleeful about it,
having set up video cameras and celebrated the day before by
taking a photo of one of the operatives holding a lit cigarette
lighter up to the horizon....right in front of the still-standing
WTC twin towers.
And look at this. You won't see this in the MSM any time soon:
In addition to Urban Moving Systems, another moving
company, Classic International Movers, became of interest in
connection with the investigation into the "Dancing
Israelis," which led to the arrest and detention of four
Israeli nationals who worked for this separate moving
company.
The FBI's Miami Division had alerted the Newark
Division that Classic International Movers was believed to
have been used by one of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers
before the attack, and one of the "Dancing Israelis" had the
number for Classic International Movers written in a
notebook that was seized at the time of his arrest.
The
report further states that one of the Israelis of Classic
International Movers who was arrested "was visibly disturbed
by the Agents' questioning regarding his personal email
account."
Very negative comments: "Pompeo by his own works is lying, cheating and stealing...... What more to say?", "They sanctioned Russia, pushed a side, demonizing Russia and now they want Russia support
without any shame ???? Unbelievable."
Looks like everybody is waiting for the USA to start to behave like a normal country as opposed to a dictatorship / banana
republic
BEFORE ELECTION Mr Trump has promised to work for US-american interrest BUT since he is
President , he is working for israeli-interrest and has forgotten interrest of
us-americans.
What?!? "You didn't get the war started......You're Fired! WE, the People, Do Not want ANY
Wars with Iran or others. Stay prayerful my friends, very prayerful.
Pumpeo is a sworn evangeliozionist .he admitted recently ( youtube : pumpeo at texas
A&M speech ), he been trained to lie , cheating and steeling and he has a bible on his
desk !!!!! This guy is a professional lier.
The US objective is to sustain US tech prominence by stifling Chinese plans to advance its
economy. Of course China will never agree to that.
from CFR..
The Chinese government has launched "Made in China 2025," a state-led industrial policy
that seeks to make China dominant in global high-tech manufacturing. The program aims to
use government subsidies, mobilize state-owned enterprises, and pursue intellectual
property acquisition to catch up with -- and then surpass -- Western technological prowess
in advanced industries.
For the United States and other major industrialized democracies, however, these tactics
not only undermine Beijing's stated adherence to international trade rules but also pose a
security risk. . . here
"... What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that. But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from." ..."
"... when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election, presumably to assist Trump." ..."
"... After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up . they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument." ..."
"... A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. ..."
"... Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and decisions. ..."
"... The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased "electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which groups. ..."
"... The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign policy. ..."
"... Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's gone on far too long. ..."
An
honest and accurate analysis of the 2016 election is not just an academic exercise. It is very
relevant to the current election campaign. Yet over the past two years, Russiagate has
dominated media and political debate and largely replaced a serious analysis of the factors
leading to Trump's victory. The public has been flooded with the various elements of the story
that Russia intervened and Trump colluded with them. The latter accusation was negated by the
Mueller Report but elements of the Democratic Party and media refuse to move on. Now it's the
lofty but vague accusations of "obstruction of justice" along with renewed dirt digging. To
some it is a "constitutional crisis", but to many it looks like more partisan fighting.
Russiagate has distracted from pressing issues
Russiagate has distracted attention and energy away from crucial and pressing issues such as
income inequality, the housing and homeless crisis, inadequate healthcare, militarized police,
over-priced college education, impossible student loans and deteriorating infrastructure. The
tax structure was changed to benefit wealthy individuals and corporations with little
opposition. The Trump administration has undermined environmental laws, civil rights, national
parks and women's equality while directing ever
more money to military contractors. Working class Americans are struggling with rising
living costs, low wages, student debt, and racism. They constitute the bulk of the military
which is spread all over the world, sustaining continuing occupations in war zones including
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and parts of Africa. While all this has been going on, the Democratic
establishment and much of the media have been focused on Russiagate, the Mueller Report, and
related issues.
Immediately after the 2016 Election
In the immediate wake of the 2016 election there was some forthright analysis. Bernie
Sanders
said , "What Trump did very effectively is tap the angst and the anger and the hurt and
pain that millions of working class people are feeling. What he said is, 'I Donald Trump am
going to be a champion of the working class I know you are working longer hours for lower
wages, seeing your jobs going to China, can't afford childcare, can't afford to send your kids
to college. I Donald Trump alone can solve these problems.' What you have is a guy who utilized
the media, manipulated the media very well. He is an entertainer, he is a professional at that.
But I will tell you that I think there needs to be a profound change in the way the Democratic
Party does business. It is not good enough to have a liberal elite. I come from the white
working class and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people
where I came from."
Days after the election, the Washington Post published an op-ed titled "
Hillary Clinton Lost. Bernie Sanders could have won. We chose the wrong candidate ." The
author analyzed the results saying , "Donald Trump's stunning victory is less surprising
when we remember a simple fact: Hillary Clinton is a deeply unpopular politician." The
writer analyzed why Sanders would have prevailed against Trump and predicted "there will be
years of recriminations."
Russiagate replaced Recrimination
But instead of analysis, the media and Democrats have emphasized foreign interference. There
is an element of self-interest in this narrative. As reported in "Russian Roulette" (p127),
when the Clinton team first learned that Wikileaks was going to release damaging Democratic
National Party emails in June 2016, they "brought in outside consultants to plot a PR
strategy for handling the news of the hack the story would advance a narrative that benefited
the Clinton campaign and the Democrats: The Russians were interfering in the US election,
presumably to assist Trump."
After losing the election, Team Clinton doubled down on this PR strategy. As described in
the book Shattered (p. 395) the day after the election campaign managers assembled the
communication team "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up and up
. they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian
hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."
This narrative has been remarkably effective in supplanting critical review of the
election.
One Year After the Election
The Center for American Progress (CAP) was founded by John Podesta and is closely aligned
with the Democratic Party. In November 2017 they produced an analysis titled "
Voter Trends in 2016: A Final Examination ". Interestingly, there is not a single reference
to Russia. Key conclusions are that "it is critical for Democrats to attract more support from
the white non-college-educated voting bloc" and "Democrats must go beyond the 'identity
politics' versus 'economic populism' debate to create a genuine cross-racial, cross-class
coalition " It suggests that Wall Street has the same interests as Main Street and the working
class.
A progressive team produced a very different analysis titled Autopsy: The Democratic Party in
Crisis . They did this because "the (Democratic) party's national leadership has shown scant interest in addressing many of
the key factors that led to electoral disaster." The report analyzes why the party turnout was less than expected and why
traditional Democratic Party supporters are declining. It includes recommendations to end the party's undemocratic
practices, expand voting rights and counter voter suppression. The report contains details and specific recommendations lacking
in the CAP report. It includes an overall analysis which says "The Democratic Party should disentangle itself – ideologically
and financially – from Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and other corporate interests that put profits ahead of
public needs."
Two Years After the Election
In October 2018, the progressive team produced a follow-up report titled "
Autopsy: One Year Later ". It says, "The Democratic Party has implemented modest reforms,
but corporate power continues to dominate the party."
In a recent phone interview, the editor of that report, Norman Solomon, said it appears some
in the Democratic Party establishment would rather lose the next election to Republicans than
give up control of the party.
What really happened in 2016?
Beyond the initial critiques and "Autopsy" research, there has been little discussion,
debate or lessons learned about the 2016 election. Politics has been dominated by
Russiagate.
Why did so many working class voters switch from Obama to Trump? A major reason is because
Hillary Clinton is associated with Wall Street and the economic policies of her husband
President Bill Clinton. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted by Bill
Clinton, resulted in huge decline in manufacturing jobs in
swing states such as Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of course, this would influence their
thinking and votes. Hillary Clinton's support for the Trans Pacific Partnership was another
indication of her policies.
What about the low turnout from the African American community? Again, the lack of
enthusiasm is rooted in objective reality. Hillary Clinton is associated with "welfare reform"
promoted by her husband. According to this study from
the University of Michigan, "As of the beginning of 2011, about 1.46 million U.S. households
with about 2.8 million children were surviving on $2 or less in income per person per day in a
given month The prevalence of extreme poverty rose sharply between 1996 and 2011. This growth
has been concentrated among those groups that were most affected by the 1996 welfare
reform. "
Over the past several decades there has been a huge increase in prison
incarceration due to increasingly strict punishments and mandatory prison sentences. Since
the poor and working class have been the primary victims of welfare and criminal justice
"reforms" initiated or sustained through the Clinton presidency, it's understandable why they
were not keen on Hillary Clinton. The notion that low turnout was due to African Americans
being unduly influenced by Russian Facebook posts is seen as "bigoted paternalism" by blogger Teodrose
Fikremanian who says, "The corporate recorders at the NY Times would have us believe that
the reason African-Americans did not uniformly vote for Hillary Clinton and the Democrats is
because they were too dimwitted to think for themselves and were subsequently manipulated by
foreign agents. This yellow press drivel is nothing more than propaganda that could have been
written by George Wallace."
How Clinton became the Nominee
Since the 2016 election there has been little public discussion of the process whereby
Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party nominee. It's apparent she was pre-ordained by the
Democratic Party elite. As exposed in the DNC emails, there was bias and violations of the
party obligations at the highest levels. On top of that, it should now be clear that the
pundits, pollsters and election experts were out of touch, made poor predictions and
decisions.
Bernie Sanders would have been a much stronger candidate. He would have won the same party
loyalists who voted for Clinton. His message attacking Wall Street would have resonated with
significant sections of the working class and poor who were unenthusiastic (to say the least)
about Clinton. An indication is that in critical swing states such as Wisconsin and
Michigan Bernie
Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary race.
Clinton had no response for Trump's attacks on multinational trade agreements and his false
promises of serving the working class. Sanders would have had vastly more appeal to working
class and minorities. His primary campaign showed his huge appeal to youth and third party
voters. In short, it's likely that Sanders would have trounced Trump. Where is the
accountability for how Clinton ended up as the Democratic Party candidate?
The Relevance of 2016 to 2020
The 2016 election is highly relevant today. Already we see the same pattern of establishment
bias and "horse race" journalism which focuses on fund-raising, polls and elite-biased
"electability" instead of dealing with real issues, who has solutions, who has appeal to which
groups.
Mainstream media and pundits are already promoting Joe Biden. Syndicated columnist EJ
Dionne, a Democratic establishment favorite, is indicative. In his article "
Can Biden be the helmsman who gets us past the storm? " Dionne speaks of the "strength he
(Biden) brings" and the "comfort he creates". In the same vein, Andrew Sullivan pushes Biden in
his article "
Why Joe Biden Might be the Best to Beat Trump ". Sullivan thinks that Biden has appeal in
the working class because he joked about claims he is too 'hands on'. But while Biden may be
tight with AFL-CIO leadership, he is closely associated with highly unpopular neoliberal trade
deals which have resulted in manufacturing decline.
The establishment bias for Biden is matched by the bias against Democratic Party candidates
who directly challenge Wall Street and US foreign policy. On Wall Street, that would be Bernie
Sanders. On foreign policy, that is Tulsi Gabbard. With a military background Tulsi Gabbard has
broad appeal, an inclusive message and a uniquely sharp critique of US "regime change" foreign
policy. She calls
out media pundits like Fareed Zakaria for goading Trump to invade Venezuela. In contrast
with Rachel Maddow taunting
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to be MORE aggressive, Tulsi Gabbard has been
denouncing Trump's collusion with Saudi Arabia and Israel's Netanyahu, saying it's not in
US interests. Gabbard's anti-interventionist anti-occupation perspective has significant
support from US troops. A
recent poll indicates that military families want complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and
Syria. It seems conservatives have become more anti-war than liberals.
This points to another important yet under-discussed lesson from 2016: a factor in Trump's
victory was that he campaigned as an anti-war candidate against the hawkish Hillary Clinton. As
pointed out
here, "Donald Trump won more votes from communities with high military casualties than
from similar communities which suffered fewer casualties."
Russiagate has distracted most Democrats from analyzing how they lost in 2016. It has given
them the dubious belief that it was because of foreign interference. They have failed to
analyze or take stock of the consequences of DNC bias, the preference for Wall Street over
working class concerns, and the failure to challenge the military industrial complex and
foreign policy based on 'regime change' interventions.
There needs to be more analysis and lessons learned from the 2016 election to avoid a repeat
of that disaster. As indicated in the
Autopsy , there needs to be a transparent and fair campaign for nominee based on more than
establishment and Wall Street favoritism. There also needs to be consideration of which
candidates reach beyond the partisan divide and can energize and advance the interests of the
majority of Americans rather than the elite. The most crucial issues and especially US military
and foreign policy need to be seriously debated.
Blaming an outside power is a good way to prevent self analysis and positive change. It's
gone on far too long.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist who grew up in Canada but currently lives in
the San Francisco Bay Area of California. He can be reached at [email protected] . Read other articles by Rick .
"... Negotiating with countries is different from the wheeling and dealing world of New York real estate. This should be especially clear with a nation-first politician like Donald Trump. ..."
"... Where making maximum demands on other parties might work in New York, it's much less likely if one is dealing with proud, independent nations - that should have been the lesson from the North Korea fiasco. ..."
"... Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. ..."
by: Shareholders Unite
Shareholders
Unite Small-cap, macro, value, momentum Shareholdersunite
(11,300 followers) Summary It is difficult to see the Chinese caving to the demands of the Trump government, which seem to involve
a wholesale change of China's economic model.
Either some middle ground is found or we risk a serious escalation with multiple risks to the state of the world economy, with
many known and unknown facilities.
The end state could be a wholesale decoupling of the American and Chinese economies, and while some would applaud such an outcome,
it's unlikely to be better than what we've got.
The Trump administration seems to have the illusion that if you raise the stakes high enough, other countries will cave to US
demands. There might also be an element of creating foreign adversary in order to unite the domestic front, we don't know.
Trade tensions have been taken way too far when the government slapped tariffs on Canadian steel exports because of national security
concerns, but in the case of China, there are some legitimate concerns. Mind you, these concerns don't involve:
China's mercantilism - its trade surplus has all but vanished (see below).
The bilateral trade deficit the US has with China that's way overstated (much of the value added comes from other countries,
most notably the US), meaningless and not amenable to change from deliberate policy measures (the US trade deficit is caused by
a lack of savings with respect to investments; in so far as policy manages to reduce the bilateral trade deficit with China, the
deficit will simply reappear elsewhere as long as the saving/investment balance isn't changed).
While China has "manipulated" its currency in the past in order to keep it low, in recent years they've done exactly the opposite,
trying to keep their currency from falling.
China isn't paying for the tariffs, US importers and consumers are.
Negotiating with countries is different from the wheeling and dealing world of New York real estate. This should be especially
clear with a nation-first politician like Donald Trump.
Where making maximum demands on other parties might work in New York, it's much less likely if one is dealing with proud,
independent nations - that should have been the lesson from the North Korea fiasco.
Just as there is one thing worse than a severe economic recession, which is caving to US pressure for the Iranian ayatollas, the
same holds for Chinese politicians in charge of policy.
It's true that the pain from the escalation in the trade war is probably significantly larger in China compared to the US, but
that doesn't make them more likely to be the first to cave, especially considering that what the US administration seems to demand
is a wholesale
change of China's economic model . That's never going to happen. Since there are no free elections, they can endure the pain
for longer, and much fewer people own stocks, so even while the sell-off in China might be worse, it's hitting much fewer people.
In fact, caving to US demands, or even being seen to be caving, might well be a one-way ticket to political oblivion. Which is
why China's leaders called President Trump's bluff. Contrast this with the situation in the US.
Trade experts like Krugman
argue that the short-term economic impact as such on the US economy is fairly moderate, and who are we to disagree? However,
a further escalation isn't likely to go by unnoticed, and there is this ephemeral concept called "confidence", of which the stock
market might be one of the best indicators:
The market is already reeling, and this could become uncomfortable pretty soon for a president who prides himself on the rally
in the markets.
The real danger
The risk is that this becomes a protracted conflict with each party digging in, egged on by heated domestic rhetoric. The longer
this lasts, the greater the following risks:
Sentiment spilling over in the real economy
A large yuan depreciation
Collateral damage
A wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies
Sentiment is turning, and at a certain point, this can very well start to affect consumption, investment, and lending decisions
in the real world. We're not there yet, but look how the sell-off at the end of last year cowered the Fed into one of the more spectacular
retreats in policy. This wasn't because of the market sell-off itself but because of the increasing signs that sentiment could hit
the real economy, even if much of the more immediate risks were abroad.
Moreover, in a highly leveraged financial system, you never know what you're going to find when the investor flows recede. Things
can go very fast here. Look how Argentina was able to sell a 100-year bond in 2016, only to be hit by the receding flows pretty soon
after.
Another real risk is a substantial yuan depreciation . It's the most effective way the Chinese can absorb the direct tariff cost
on their competitiveness, but it runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The markets have already twice succumbed to yuan depreciation scares, in 2015 and at the start of 2016, and the PBoC spent $1
trillion of its $4 trillion reserves plus draconian capital controls to stop the rot.
We're not talking hypotheticals here - guess when that gap-up happened? On the day of the Trump tweets announcing the 25% tariffs:
A substantial yuan depreciation will risk inserting a major deflationary blow to the world economy as it exports the effects of
the US tariffs on China to the rest of the world.
Given the shaky state of the eurozone, we're not relishing this prospect at all. We have long argued that the eurozone is one
downturn away from disintegration, with Italy as its focal point.
Italy is already in a recession and has a dysfunctional government consisting of a left-wing and right-wing populist party which
are constantly bickering. What's more, it has unsustainable debt dynamics and a potential banking doom loop, should the debt dynamics
trigger a market selloff, and has no lender of last resort.
With all the debt and leverage in the world economy, it's a bit like riding a bicycle - you have to keep cycling to stop falling
over.
Decoupling
While the direct monetary impact of the tariffs is fairly moderate (it's a modest, albeit highly regressive, tax increase), another
likely consequence is a further relocation of supply chains and decoupling of the US and Chinese economies.
We have already read numerous company CCs which described rerouting supplies from China, albeit not usually back to the US, and
we're not imagining stuff. From Monday's issue of DigiTimes:
If 10% tariffs can do that, 25% of tariffs will accelerate this and the next round, where the US levies tariffs on all Chinese
imports even more.
Some within the US administration seems to relish this, as it weakens China economically, but a hard Chinese landing won't pass
the US unnoticed, and the end result could very well be two competing economic blocks and a new sort of cold war.
One of the very first economic measures the Trump government took was to get the US out of the TPP, which not only gave up a lot
of leverage over China, but the mostly ASEAN countries who are part of the TPP (without the US) are now firmer in China's orbit as
a result, and they will have unenviable choices to make in terms of their future alignment.
It's also unfortunate that Trump has been waging trade wars on multiple fronts (see
here for an overview ), alienating many partners in the process.
Now might be as good a time as any to remind people of the unpopular thesis that trade isn't a zero-sum game and that both the
US and China have greatly benefited from their economic integration the past couple of decades.
The US got increased exports as well - not as spectacular as the Chinese exports to the US, but this is in part an optical illusion.
Much of China's exports to the US contain value added produced elsewhere, even from the US itself:
You see that less than half of the value added of Chinese electronics export to the US is actually produced in China itself. The
iPhone is a classic example:
In the case of the Apple iPhone, this means that China's
exports balance accounts for the full $500 iPhone value, when China adds only approximately $15 to $30 of the value to the phone.
Most of the iPhone value accretes to Samsung in Korea ($150) and to Apple - the brand owner and engineer. This highlights how
the normal accounting of trade flows is inherently distorted under the current trade-deficit estimates.
Yes, the US has lost manufacturing jobs as a result, but it failed to compensate those who lost from trade like other countries
have (via massive active labor market policies, for instance in the Nordic countries, where there is little in the way of an industrial
waste land as a result).
The US has also gained. It found willing buyers for its Treasuries, keeping interest rates low, cheap consumer goods, keeping
inflation low - which allowed the Fed to keep low interest rates, and which in turn increased economic growth and employment.
It's not perfect, and we're not blind to China's IP theft and the conditions it places on American companies operating in the
country. But China's rise has propelled half a billion people out of poverty and turned them into eager consumers of US agricultural,
cultural and high-tech products.
Conclusion
While a number of American grievances are right, the Trump administration seems to want a wholesale sellout of China, abandoning
its economic model. That's not going to happen, and even less so because they also antagonized potential allies, like ASEAN countries,
the EU and Canada.
There are two choices here: either some middle ground is found or this could spiral out of control, with major economic risks
involved and a wholesale decoupling of the Chinese and American economies. Economics 101 argues quite clearly that that world is
unlikely to be better than the one we have, despite all the imperfections of the latter.
Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72
hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from
Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
"If President Trump had ever read Mackinder -- and there's no evidence he did -- one might
assume that he's aiming at a new anti-Eurasia integration pivot centered on the Persian Gulf.
And energy would be at the heart of the pivot.
If Washington were able to control everything, including "Big Prize" Iran, it would be
able to dominate all Asian economies, especially China. Trump even said were that to happen,
"decisions on the GNP of China will be made in Washington."...
...Arguably the key (invisible) takeaway of the meetings this week between Foreign
Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi, and then between Lavrov and Pompeo, is that Moscow made
it quite clear that Iran will be protected by Russia in the event of an American showdown.
Pompeo's body language showed how rattled he was.
What rattled Pomp: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it
small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our
country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,"
Trump may not have read Mackinder but Kissinger sure would have.
What we need is a true and functional global community of nations and people, where
governments truly work together to balance out the stronger world powers.
The US national security state which enjoys a huge military budget and 800 overseas bases
necessarily sees the world in a masculine competitive sense, not in a feminine cooperative
sense. So winning the competition takes precedence over working together, and diplomacy is
reduced to making and enforcing US demands.
from the recent US National Defense Strategy. . .
We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing
rules-based international order -- creating a security environment more complex and
volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition,
not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security. China is a strategic
competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing
features in the South China Sea. . .
here
During the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, Mitt Romney claimed that he would not
make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu.
Romney blatantly pandered to the pro-Israel Lobby, including both Jewish Zionists and
evangelical Christian Zionists.
In a telling exchange during a debate in December 2011, Romney criticized Newt Gingrich
for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: "Before I made a statement of
that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: 'Would it help if I
say this? What would you like me to do?' "
Netanyahu met with Romney in 2011. The two men had worked together in the 1970s.
Martin S. Indyk, a leading figure in the pro-Israel Lobby who served as United States
ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not,
Romney's statement implied that he would "subcontract Middle East policy to Israel."
"That, of course, would be inappropriate," added Indyk, a former director for the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who also served eight years as the founding
Executive Director of the notorious pro-Israel warhawk "think tank" Washington Institute for
Near East Policy (WINEP).
For years, Netanyahu has mobilized pro-Israel Lobby groups and Congressional Republicans
to pressure successive US administrations into taking a more confrontational approach against
Iran.
"To the extent that their personal relationship would give Netanyahu entree to the Romney
White House in a way that he doesn't now have to the Obama White House," Indyk said, "the
prime minister would certainly consider that to be a significant advantage."
In March 2012, Romney spoke via satellite to a meeting of the AIPAC. Like other
politicians backed by the pro-Israel Lobby, Romney vehemently criticized the Obama
administration over its policies toward Israel.
Romney worked at at Boston Consulting Group from 1975 to 1977; Mr. Netanyahu was involved
from 1976 to 1978. But a month after Netanyahu arrived, he returned to Israel to start an
antiterrorism foundation in memory of his brother, an officer killed while leading the
hostage rescue force at Entebbe, Uganda. An aide said he sporadically returned to the company
over the rest of that two-year period.
Romney later decamped to Bain & Company, a rival of Boston Consulting. They did,
however, maintain a significant link: at Bain, Mr. Romney worked closely with Fleur Cates,
Netanyahu's second wife. (Cates and Netanyahu divorced in the mid-1980s, but she remained in
touch with Romney.)
Netanyahu paid him a visit to Romney when the latter became the governor of Massachusetts.
Netanyahu, who had recently stepped down as Israel's finance minister, regaled Romney with
stories of how he had challenged unionized workers over control of their pensions and
privatized formerly government-run industries. He encouraged Romney to look for ways to do
the same.
"Government," Romney recalled Netanyahu saying, "is the guy on your shoulders."
As governor, Mr. Romney said, he frequently repeated the story to the heads of various
agencies.
A few years later, Romney had dinner with Mr. Netanyahu at a private home in central
Jerusalem. Before he left Israel, Romney set up several meetings with government officials in
the United States for his old colleague. "I immediately saw the wisdom of his thinking,"
Romney claimed. Back in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney sent out letters to legislators requesting
that the public pension funds they controlled sell off investments from corporations doing
business with Iran.
Netanyahu maintained contact with Romney during the presidential campaign. When Newt
Gingrich leaped to the top of the polls, an article in January 2012 explored why billionaire
oligarch Sheldon Adelson was devoting millions of dollars to back Gingrich. It described
Netanyahu and Adelson as close friends. Netanyahu's office quickly relayed a message to a
senior Romney adviser, Dan Senor claiming that the Israeli prime minister had played no role
in Adelson's decision to bankroll a Romney rival.
Fast forward to the 2016 US presidential election.
Trump's purported deviation from US foreign policy orthodoxy was a propaganda scam
engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning.
Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3
February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering
American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in
Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided
capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Stage management of both the Trump administration and its Republican and Democratic
"opposition" continues apace.
The Israeli government, via the machinations of the pro-Israel Lobby, is an ever more
aggressively warmongering "guy on your shoulders".
"Russia-gate" really is about an immense conspiracy to "do things".
The primary "thing", the key pretext that Lazare and other CN contributors steadfastly
ignore:
The "Russia-gate" fiction was specifically designed to divert attention from the reality
of "Israel-gate".
Let it not be left unsaid that Johnny Freedom McCain was the U.S. Senator who encouraged
Saakashvili to attack in South Ossetia (which led to Russian intervention on behalf of
resident Russian ethnic/nationals) all the while saying "We got your back"and blaming Russia.
His two amigos Lieberman and Graham of course were all aboard in that precursor to his
further next act in Ukraine where Little Amy Klobuchar took Lieberman's place in the trio in
inciting Poroshenko and his troops to "ATTACK!, ATTACK!, ATTACK!" a few years back.
Lil' Amy was sharpening her Hillary chops for having drawn blood for her ludicrous
Presidential run this year, of course.
"The extent of McCain's involvement in the military conflict in Georgia appears remarkable
among presidential candidates, who traditionally have kept some distance from unfolding
crises out of deference to whoever is occupying the White House. The episode also follows
months of sustained GOP criticism of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, who was accused of acting
too presidential for, among other things, briefly adopting a campaign seal and taking a trip
abroad that included a huge rally in Berlin.
"We talk about how there's only one president at a time, so the idea that you would send
your own emissaries and really interfere with the process is remarkable," said Lawrence Korb,
a Reagan Defense Department official who now acts as an informal adviser to the Obama
campaign. "It's very risky and can send mixed messages to foreign governments. . . . They
accused Obama of being presumptuous, but he didn't do anything close to this."
Great plan! From your mouth to Tulsi's ears! She needs to make a dramatic exit from the
Dems, preferably on national TV, with the message "stop the senseless regime change wars!"
That alone would make her a contender.
Rob Roy , May 16, 2019 at 17:09
Skip, notice that Tulsi scares the hell out of the MSM. Therefore, she will be vilified,
lied about, left out of poll line-ups, shoved to the side in debates, accused of being
Putin's or Assad's puppet and God knows what else by the major newspapers, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,
NBC, PBS, CNN etc., and this will spread even overseas. You can't be against war, corruption
and US Monroe Doctrine as our foreign policy and expect to get fair coverage. Personally, I
will counter the propaganda wherever I can.
Skip Scott , May 17, 2019 at 08:22
I had a "back and forth" with dailykos about not listing Tulsi on their straw polls with
her being the only candidate against "regime change" wars. I shamed them a bit by calling
them a bunch of latte-sippers who reek of the arrogance of privilege while our MIC goes all
around the planet killing poor people. Maybe I am giving myself too much credit, but they did
in fact include her name on the last poll.
John on Kauai , May 17, 2019 at 13:53
I can't reply to skip about his argument with KOS so it's here.
There is nothing to be gained by arguing with KOS other than to be banned from their website
as I was.
They are supporting a National Guard pilot to run against her in the 2020 HI-2 election.
I would not be surprised to find that they were instrumental in producing tulsigabbard.guru,
a site that has been recently taken down but which repeated (and I think originated) many
slurs against Tulsi that have now been picked up by the media.
I encourage you and everyone to publicize tulsigabbard.org which goes into great detail on
her positions on almost anything. Also, the Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan interviews with Tulsi
that are available on YouTube.
Tulsi is my congresswoman. She is wildly popular here.
The HSTA (hawaii state teachers association) hates her. When challenged they repeat the lies that are on the .guru site
that was taken down. When you point out that they are lies, they cover their ears and chant "nah, nah, nah".
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 16:29
Skip. this is re. to your re. to Rob Roy.
WaPo confirmed today that Tulsi is one of the 11 guaranteed a debate spot. She's making
solid progress, including major bumps from the Joe Rogan interviews. If she has hopes of
actually getting the Dem nomination, of course there will be no dramatic exit until that's
been decided. OTOH, an outside call for her to run as an Indy would be authentic, but also a
threat to the Dems, give her fair play OR ELSE !
So, maybe the movement for an independent run has to start at the bottom? I'd like to
bounce this off people who know more about politics than I do. There's also the implied
question, how could an Independent function if elected. Would there be support in Congress?
Would new ["Coalition"] candidates arise?
People talk about the populist movement in Mexico as represented by MORENA, however the
coalition was actually Juntos Haremos Historia ("Together We'll Make History"), which
included right wing evangelicals as well as leftists. Pretty remarkable, but a similar
cooperation has arisen in Unity4J (for Julian Assange) where journalists with radically
different ideologies focus on a single unifying principle.
Any thoughts?
John Zwiebel , May 17, 2019 at 18:19
Ask Nick Branna. He says "yes"
b.grand , May 17, 2019 at 21:10
John Z. –
Are you already familiar with Branna and the People's Party? Are they backing specific
candidates? What do you think I should ask him? Would he and the PP join a coalition? Or do I
misunderstand your suggestion?
All of the endorsers are leftists. The platform is all about wages and healthcare, but war
isn't mentioned. Maybe it's there, but it's not on the front page.
Here's what they say: "Together we're building a coalition of working people, unions, and
progressive groups for a nationally viable people's party."
Also, "We are working to build a coalition of groups on the left in order to create a new
party for working people."
This just seems like typical 'Progressives' who are fed up with Dems. Some of the
endorsers – Sheehan, Hedges, Martin and others – are known to be anti-war, but
it's concerning that peace and FP aren't prominent. Besides, we need to build bigger bridges
than "groups on the left." There are many – surprisingly many – on the right who
oppose constant militarism. And what about the center? There's a vast untapped demographic,
whether apathetic or genuinely discouraged by evidence that it makes no difference who you
vote for, the Deep State wins. Why approach them from a left-only perspective? Would you like
to clarify?
If I could figure out long ago Russia-gate was going to lead to Trump's reelection (see
above link), you would think Brennan/ Clinton/ Pelosi could figure it out too. Which begs the
questions:
Is Trump good for business for the Democratic party financial patrons? Do they really want
him impeached? Did the Pied Piper strategy ever end? Does Bernie Sanders scare them so much
they'd rather promote Trump than have Sanders in the Oval Office?
Realist , May 15, 2019 at 10:35
Your last explanation is the one that Jimmy Dore seems to favor. The party string pullers
are obviously desperate when they back one near-octogenarian (Crazy Joe Biden) for the
nomination against another near-octogenarian (Sanders). Counter move by the GOPers may be to
run Tricky Dick Nixon's head-in-a-bottle for the office, like in Futurama.
A used crack pipe, two DC driver's licenses, multiple credit cards, a Delaware Attorney
General badge and a US Secret Service business card belonging to Hunter Biden were found in a
rental car returned to an Arizona Hertz location in the middle of the night, days before the
2016 presidential election, according to
Breitbart , which obtained an exclusive copy of the police report.
Reminds me of Bill Clintons medical records. They were sealed during his presidency... one
reason was because he was sterile from youth and was shooting blanks (re: Chelsea
Hubbell)...
Another reason was that he had burned out his nasal septum from snorting cocaine...
-that's why he talked in that whining, nasally voice.
"My brother's got a nose like a vacuum cleaner..."
"used crack pipe, two DC driver's licenses, multiple credit cards, a Delaware Attorney
General badge and a US Secret Service business card", Ukraine Prosecutor fired, $500,000
contract and board position all for a guy who has name recognition and NOTHING ELSE. When are
the Dimwits going to wise up to their failed party leaders? BTW thought old sleepy Joe was a
crack Dad raising those kids all by himself...well we're finding out what kind of crack Dad
he was.
Hard core coke users have been shoving it up their asses since the '70s. It burns through
the thin skin and gets right into the blood stream. This was one of the main ways that AIDS
spread through the "gay" community so fast. The colon lining was already raw from the
coke.
Remember, Hunter Biden's deceased brother was attorney general of Delaware.
He was that famous dood who publicly justified why a serious pedophile shouldn't serve any
time in prison (a member of the duPont family who sexually assaulted his 2-year-old and
3-year-old children).
Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian Interference
Claims
Lavrov responded first to the question. He said that there is no evidence that shows any
Russian interference in the U.S. elections. He continued:
Speaking about the most recent US presidential campaign in particular, we have had in
place an information exchange channel about potential unintended risks arising in cyberspace
since 2013. From October 2016 (when the US Democratic Administration first raised this issue)
until January 2017 (before Donald Trump's inauguration), this channel was used to handle
requests and responses. Not so long ago, when the attacks on Russia in connection with the
alleged interference in the elections reached their high point, we proposed publishing this
exchange of messages between these two entities, which engage in staving off cyberspace
incidents. I reminded Mr Pompeo about this today. The administration, now led by President
Trump, refused to do so. I'm not sure who was behind this decision, but the idea to publish
this data was blocked by the United States. However, we believe that publishing it would
remove many currently circulating fabrications. Of course, we will not unilaterally make
these exchanges public, but I would still like to make this fact known.
The communication channel about cyber issues did indeed exist. In June 2013 the Presidents
of the United States and Russia issued a Joint Statement about "Information and
Communications Technologies (ICTs)". The parties agreed to establishing communication
channels between each other computer emergency response teams, to use the direct
communication link of the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers for cyber issue exchanges, and to
have direct communication links between high-level officials in the White House and Kremlin
for such matter. A Fact Sheet published by the Obama White House detailed the implementation
of these three channels.
One inference from Lavrov's statement is that the "fundamental understanding on this
matter" between the two presidents that has "not been fully implemented" is the release of
the communications about cyberspace incidents. The Russians clearly think that a release of
the communications with the Obama administration would exculpate them. That would also
exculpate Trump from any further collusion allegations. Why then does the Trump
administration reject the release? Who is blocking it?
Cont. reading: Trump Administration Withholds Information That Could Debunk Russian
Interference Claims
So, what is the representative of Allmighty Nation doing un Russia? Why bothering to hint
on better relations? Noted in the press conference was the absence of Pompeo's moralizing,
limiting itself on US position on issues. What is the point in this flying back and
forth?
Yes, Iran -- and arms control. Venezuela -- and arms control. North Korea -- and arms
control. I think they are paranoid about Russian weapons. And if Iranians by any chance have
some of the new weaponry, providing perfect testing ground, would Russia own to that? What
was obvious, no concessions on any issue from Moscow. Not even softened language.
This time,
it is different. The economic and military power has shifted east, Europeans forever without
a spine this time are spineless in all directions, and it will come as a shock to the
establishment that the presumed animosity towards Iran in Gulf, will nowhere to be found. Wil
Saudis host US troops against Iran, Doubt that deeply.
Trump might lose some supporters in 2020 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... Unlike immigration, the Chinese retaliatory tariffs were felt acutely by some of Trump's most fervent supporters. Take farmers. As I documented last spring , the 30 congressional districts most reliant on soybeans for economic activity all voted for Trump in 2016. Since then, their pain has only intensified. This week, soybean prices fell to the lowest level in 12 years. ..."
President Trump has spent the last few days furiously tweeting false claims about who is
bearing the cost of his trade war with China. Trump insists -- wrongly
-- that China is paying billions of dollars in tariffs, rather than U.S. consumers and
businesses. Nearly every expert, including his top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow,
disagrees.
... ... ...
By design, its effects are spread throughout the U.S. economy. A new Goldman
Sachs report makes clear that U.S. consumers are shouldering the entirety of the economic
burden:
New evidence on the effects of the 2018 tariff rounds from two detailed academic studies
points to larger effects on U.S. consumer prices than we had previously estimated, for two
reasons. First, the costs of U.S. tariffs have fallen entirely on U.S. businesses and
households, with no clear reduction in the prices charged by Chinese exporters. Second, the
effects of the tariffs have spilled over noticeably to the prices charged by U.S. producers
competing with tariff-affected goods.
Unlike immigration, the Chinese retaliatory tariffs were felt acutely by some of Trump's
most fervent supporters. Take farmers. As I documented
last spring , the 30 congressional districts most reliant on soybeans for economic activity
all voted for Trump in 2016. Since then, their pain has only intensified. This week, soybean
prices fell to the lowest level in 12 years.
But if Trump follows through on his threat to impose a broad new round of tariffs, the
number of Americans affected would grow dramatically. The initial wave of $250 billion focused
on intermediate or capital goods: the sorts of materials businesses use to make finished
products. The next round will focus on $300 billion of consumer goods, everything from iPhones
to golf clubs to coffee makers to t-shirts and sweaters. As Bloomberg News
put it on Monday, anyone who shops at a mall will become a victim of the trade war. One
estimate puts the annual cost at $500 per U.S. family. Collectively, it's enough of a hit that
Goldman Sachs estimates inflation could rise by half a percentage point, while Moody's
Analytics
says it could shave 0.8 percentage points of U.S. growth by late next year.
In other words, there will be no ducking the effects.
Trump can still get away with his riffs on murderous immigrants because the crowd he's
appealing to isn't likely to encounter evidence that would contradict his claims. But plenty of
Trump supporters can see that his trade war is worsening their lot. If he pushes ahead with
another $300 billion of tariffs, the number of people who find themselves worse off will grow
to include just about everybody. And Trump will have a hard time peddling the notion that China
is showering the U.S. with an economic windfall because their own lives will tell them
otherwise.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is being underwritten by
some of the nation's leading Russophiles.
Donors to her campaign in the first quarter of the year included: Stephen F. Cohen, a Russian studies
professor at New York University and prominent Kremlin sympathizer; Sharon Tennison, a vocal Putin supporter
who nonetheless found herself detained by Russian authorities in 2016; and an employee of the Kremlin-backed
broadcaster RT, who appears to have donated under the alias "Goofy Grapes."
Gabbard is one of her party's more Russia-friendly voices in an era of deep Democratic suspicion of the
country over its efforts to tip the 2016 election in favor of President Donald Trump. Her financial support
from prominent pro-Russian voices in the U.S. is a small portion of the total she's raised. But it still
illustrates the degree to which she deviates from her party's mainstream on such a contentious and
high-profile issue.
Data on Gabbard's financial supporters only covers the first three months of the year. In that time, her
campaign received just over $1,000 from Cohen, arguably the nation's
leading intellectual apologist
for Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Tennison donated to Gabbard no fewer than five times, eventually reaching the per-cycle individual
contribution limit in mid-March. Tennison and her group, the Center for Citizen Initiatives, have long
worked to improve U.S.-Russia relations, in part by organizing junkets to the nation both before and after
the fall of the Soviet Union. She's also been an outspoken Putin supporter, dubbing him a "straightforward,
reliable and exceptionally inventive man" in a column last year. Tennison wrote that column in spite of her
detention in Russia
two years earlier, when she was accused of attempting to covertly advance U.S.
foreign policy interests in the country.
Gabbard also got a $1,000 contribution from "Goofy Grapes," who listed his or her occupation as
"comedian" and employer as Redacted Tonight, a current events comedy show on Russian state-backed
broadcaster RT. That show's host, comedian Lee Camp, told The Daily Beast that the person who made the
donation "is no longer an active member of Redacted Tonight. And separately, it is company policy to not
donate to political campaigns."
Camp, for his part, routinely promotes the Russian government line on major world affairs, most
notably the invasion of Ukraine, political unrest in Venezuela, and the Syrian civil war.
To the extent that those donors toe the Kremlin line on issues such as Syria, they're more squarely in
line with Gabbard's own views than those of any other Democratic presidential candidate. As a member of
Congress, she has
personally met
with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and
cast doubt
on widely accepted reports that he deployed nerve gas weapons against his own people.
Gabbard has also been one of the few prominent Democrats in the country to downplay the findings of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. The report found
no evidence of a conspiracy by the Trump campaign to support that meddling. But it did provide extensive
details of that malicious influence campaign, and of the Trump administration's efforts to impede the
special counsel's investigation.
But while her House colleagues ramp up their own investigations, in part based on those findings, Gabbard
has called for the country -- and her party -- to move on. "The conclusion that came from that Mueller report was
that no collusion took place," she told Fox News last month. "Now is the time for us to come together as a
country to put the issues and the interests and the concerns that the American people have at the forefront,
to take action to bring about real solutions for them."
That reflects the attitude of a small set of the American left wing, a non-interventionist faction that
eyed collusion allegations with suspicion. And that's very much the school of thought from which Cohen and
other Gabbard donors hail.
But the list of controversial donors to Gabbard, as detailed by her filings with the Federal Election
Committee, doesn't end there.
Susan Sarandon, the famous actress who earned the enduring wrath of Democrats for her support of Green
Party candidate Jill Stein in the 2016 election, gave Gabbard $500.
Ali Amin, the president of Primex International, wrote two checks of $2,800 to Gabbard's campaign. Amin,
who runs the international food distribution company, pleaded guilty in 2015
to charges that
he'd transferred more than $17 million between Iran and the United States as part of an
unlicensed business transaction.
After being asked about those donations, Cullen Tiernan, a spokesperson for Gabbard, said the campaign
would be returning them. Tiernan also noted that Amin had given to fellow 2020 contender Sen. Kamala Harris'
(D-CA) Senate campaign in 2018. Ian Sams, a spokesman for Harris, said the Senator refunded Amin's donation
in July 2018.
Gabbard's campaign did not return a request for comment. Her election effort raised nearly $4.5 million
in the first quarter of 2019, but that included hefty transfers from her House campaign committee. She has
used that money to mount a rather unorthodox bid for the Democratic nomination. Gabbard had only one paid
staffer during that same three month period, choosing instead to hire consultants for key posts on her
campaign -- a staffing decision that seemed likely done to avoid making hefty payments for things like health
care coverage and payroll taxes.
Gabbard's media strategy has also been counterintuitive for a national Democrat. She has made several
appearances on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which, while being one of the most popular platforms on
that medium, is a haven for Trump-supporting guests. Gabbard also is among the few Democrats who has a
captive audience on Fox News, owed largely to her willingness to criticize Barack Obama, as well as her
party's planks on both Russia and foreign policy in general. Tucker Carlson, a primetime host on that
network, has publicly defended her.
Though she has not courted their support, some prominent figures in the white nationalist community have
flocked in Gabbard's direction. David Duke, the former KKK leader, has heaped praise on her. And on several
occasions, Richard Spencer, the avowed white supremacist, has tweeted favorably about her, including once
again this week.
US foreign policy under President Trump is remarkably similar to what it would have been
under Hillary...
except even she wouldnt have put a Chabad Orthodox *** in charge of a mideast 'peace'
plan, let alone a 'solution' for the illegal immigration crisis which Trump did nothing about
when the GOP controlled both House and Senate
I do not think Putin is an idiot...he has consistently made good decisions and judgements
and outsmarted both Obama and Trump on every occasion. For some reason I am worried that he
is palling up to the wrong guy. Trump and the US cannot be trusted to observe any agreement
or treaty and have displayed this over and over again.
Putin should be aligning with China who can be trusted to honour deals made. A military
alliance between Russia and China with mutual aid of attacked by a third party would make the
best strategic sense. If Putin doesn't;t do this he will get weakened economically and then
when he is weak, the US will invade.
As quoted by the Moon Of Alabama Lavrov claimed there were back channels between the US
and Russia from 2013 to Trumps taking office. Lavov claims these communications would shed
lots of light on the Russians not interfering in the election and other stuff the Russians
have been falsely accused of. Russia wants to release these communications and will only do
so if the US agrees which they have not. Pompeo was silent.
Can Biden keep that up? House Minority leader Kevin McCarthy
doesn't think so . If Harris is Jan Brady, then McCarthy thinks Biden will be Happy
Days ' disappearing brother Chuck Cunningham:
House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy on Thursday panned Joe Biden's prospects in the 2020
Democratic presidential race, calling the former vice president the "Jeb Bush of this
cycle."
"I think Biden, no disrespect, is the Jeb Bush of this cycle," the California Republican
said at an Axios event. "I think he could have run at a different time and he would have been
the nominee. I think he has too much to apologize for."
McCarthy argued that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has trailed Biden in recent national
polls, "has a much better chance" of winning the Democratic nomination. He noted that
candidates need an energized base to sustain and fund their campaigns, saying Sanders "has a
bigger base for a longer duration of the time."
"... United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom,
we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical
literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old,
it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a
system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the
nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be
fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are
voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding
Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against
the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be
a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the
elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of
capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of
elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made
possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of
political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of
Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out
of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then
found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea
Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a
politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill
3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still
dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front
of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist
agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a
zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under
President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign
warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd
Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No,
just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The
world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time
in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq
War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil
wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with
the same events. Obama talked peace too.
It's sad to know that Tulsi bought Russiagate nonsense hook line and sinker. In a sense, she is also a compromise candidate as
her domestic platform is weak and inconsistent. She shines in foreign policy issues only.
But this compromise might still make sense. At least she is much better then Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head. ..."
"... "If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government." ..."
"... "The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda." ..."
"... She may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit. ..."
"... She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. ..."
"... The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA) illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support. ..."
"... Hold the cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will – by impeachment or something more sinister. ..."
"... No matter who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins. ..."
( stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman ) Tulsi 2020 is the official
website of her candidacy for US president – so far with no information other than saying:
"When we stand united, motivated by our love for each other and for our country, there is no
challenge we cannot overcome. Will you stand with me?" On Friday, she said "I have decided to
run and will be making a formal announcement within the next week," adding:
"There are a lot of reasons for me to make this decision. There are a lot of challenges
that are facing the American people that I'm concerned about and that I want to help
solve."
Besides access to healthcare for all Americans, criminal justice reform, and
climate change, (t)here is one main issue that is central to the rest, and that is the issue of
war and peace," she stressed. More on this below.
"I look forward to being able to get into this and to talk about it in depth when we make
our announcement."
Gabbard's record is mixed at best, things to like, others of concern, including
her Dem affiliation. She formerly served as DNC vice chair, resigning in February 2016 to
support Russophobe undemocratic Dem Bernie Sanders over Hillary. Throughout his political
career, he's been progressive in name only, his rhetoric and voting record most often at odds
with each other. He'll likely run again in 2020. After Hillary used dirty tricks in primary
elections to steal the Dem nomination, Gabbard supported her candidacy – a figure I
called the most ruthlessly dangerous presidential aspirant in US history, backing it up with
cold, hard facts about her deplorable record as first lady, US senator and secretary of state.
Elizabeth Warren already announced her 2020 candidacy. She's con man Sanders clone with a
gender difference.
A consumer rights champion in name only, she did nothing to oversee
predatory banking practices responsibly, nothing to urge prosecution of Wall Street crooks as
Obama's interim Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (BCFP) head.
She failed to criticize
his wars on humanity at home and abroad, terror-bombing seven countries in eight years,
force-feeding neoliberal harshness on America's most disadvantaged, letting protracted main
street Depression conditions fester – supporting what demanded condemnation. She
one-sidedly supports Israel, failing to denounce its apartheid ruthlessness, its Gaza wars on
defenseless civilians.
Like Sanders and other undemocratic Dems, she considers naked aggression
humanitarian intervention and democracy building. Her agenda is all about perpetuating dirty
business as usual – based on going along with the imperial, neoliberal GOP and Dem
agenda, supported by the vast majority of officials in Washington.
Gore Vidal explained how the
dirty system works, saying no one gets to be presidential material unless they've "been bought
over 10 times." The same goes for top congressional posts. Gabbard is suspect for similar
reasons, voting along party lines too often since elected to represent Hawaii's 2nd
congressional district in November 2012.
After the Obama regime's coup in Ukraine, replacing
democratic governance with fascist tyranny, she supported supplying the illegitimate,
Nazi-infested, putschist regime with military assistance, shamefully saying America can't stand
"idly by while Russia continues to degrade the territorial integrity of Ukraine." No "Russian
aggression" existed then or now. Yet Gabbard disgracefully claimed otherwise, urging "more
painful economic sanctions" on Moscow, pretending the regime in Kiev is a "peaceful, sovereign
neighbor." In July 2017, she unjustifiably supported legislation imposing illegal unilateral US
sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. She's for US phony war on terrorism, the scourge
Republicans and most Dems support while claiming otherwise.
She's against what she called
"counterproductive wars of regime change," including in Syria. She earlier said targeting Bashar al-Assad for regime change was "a thinly veiled attempt to use the rationale of
'humanitarianism' as a justification to escalate our illegal, counterproductive war," adding:
"Under US law, it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS
or other terrorist groups."
"If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we
would be thrown in jail. Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, quietly
supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist
groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian
government."
"The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey,
Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda."
She
may be the only congressional member boldly stating the above remarks publicly to her credit.
In January 2017, she met with Assad in Damascus, toured parts of Syria, seeing firsthand how US
aggression harmed millions of civilians. She called all anti-government forces terrorists,
saying so-called moderate rebels don't exist, stressing "(t)hat is a fact," on return home
expressing "even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government."
She considers US wars not authorized by Congress impeachable high crimes. She should have
explained that only Security Council members may authorize war by one or more countries on
other sovereign states – not US presidents, Congress or the courts. That's the law of the
land under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Clause 2). All treaties,
conventions, and other international agreements to which the US is a signatory automatically
become binding US law.
To her credit in October 2017, Gabbard opposed reimposing sanctions on
Iran, at the time saying the Islamic Republic is fully complying with JCPOA provisions. At the
same time, she co-sponsored legislation opposing Iran's legitimate ballistic missile program,
imposing illegal sanctions on the country,
In 2015, she supported legislation endorsing extreme
vetting of Syrian and Iraqi war refugees, designed to deny them refugee status. The measure
failed to get enough Senate support for passage.
She opposed the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY 2019, 2018, and earlier, opposed reforming US border security and immigration,
opposed a proposed constitutional balanced budget amendment, opposed the GOP great tax cut
heist, supported CATSA.
The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CATSA)
illegally imposed sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea. It passed the House and Senate
near-unanimously – shameful legislation demanding opposition, not support.
Hold the
cheers on Gabbard and all other Republican and Dem presidential aspirants with a chance to be
party standard bearers. The bottom line on them all is simple, no exceptions. If nominated and
elected, either go along with the dirty system or be replaced by someone else who will –
by impeachment or something more sinister.
Washington's deeply corrupted system is too
debauched to fix. The only solution is popular revolution, voting a waste of time.
No matter
who's elected president and to key congressional posts, dirty business as usual always wins.
Stephen
Lendman was born in 1934 in Boston, MA. In 1956, he received a BA from Harvard University.
Two years of US Army service followed, then an MBA from the Wharton School at the University
of Pennsylvania in 1960. After working seven years as a marketing research analyst, he joined
the Lendman Group family business in 1967. He remained there until retiring at year end 1999.
Writing on major world and national issues began in summer 2005. In early 2007, radio hosting
followed.
Lendman now hosts the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network
three times weekly. Distinguished guests are featured. Listen live or archived. Major world
and national issues are discussed. Lendman is a 2008 Project Censored winner and 2011 Mexican
Journalists Club international journalism award recipient.
Neoliberal "International for financial oligarchy" start showing cracks. Davos crowd no
longer can control ordinary people. Both Trump and Brexit are just symptoms of the large problem
-- the crisis of neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets. ..."
"... As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo. ..."
"... We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. ..."
"... The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed. ..."
"... Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no business still presiding over the country ..."
"... French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France. And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy. ..."
"... Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by one. ..."
"... More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change the political landscape across the west for decades to come. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
There is a realignment coming in electoral politics. It began with Ron Paul in 2008 and has
been building for more than a decade. We know this story well.
That realignment will be about restoring not just national sovereignty but also personal
autonomy in a world the rulers of which are desperate to clamp down their control over.
The thing is I don't think we've quite come to terms with the rapidity with which change
comes. It builds slowly, simmering below the surface and then one day just explodes into a
maelstrom of chaos.
This is where things stand in Britain with the betrayal of Brexit. It is also where things
stand with Trump's daily betrayal of his pledge to end the needless wars and regime change
operations.
Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy
destroying the lives of millions, draining our spirit and emptying our pockets.
You can see it happening, slowly and then all at once.
The signs of the chaos as we approach next week's European Parliamentary elections were
there if we were willing to look closely. More often than not, our being distracted or, worse,
our normalcy bias keeps us ignorant of what's happening.
Raising goats I've unfortunately witnessed this first hand and in a devastating way. Their
entire digestive tracts are simply big fermentation vessels, chocked full of different bacteria
working on what they've eaten.
When they're healthy, it's all good. The good bacteria digests the food, they absorb it and
they are vibrant, alert and annoying.
But, if one of those other bacteria begin to get out of control, they can go from healthy to
frothing at the mouth and dying overnight. The goat is the Taoist symbol for 'strong on the
outside, fragile on the inside.' Our political system is definitely a goat at this point.
Which brings me back to politics.
As long as the political class maintains 1) the illusion of choice as to who are leaders
are and 2) keep things running smoothly a small minority of us will complain, simmer and stew
but we won't be able to convince anyone else it's worth upsetting the status quo.
We'll stay below critical mass, until we don't. And the important point here is
that, like my goats, they can can act and vote perfectly normally one day and then in open
revolt the next and you have a very small window of time to make the right decisions to save
the situation.
The original Brexit vote was that opportunity for the power elite to get it through
their thick skulls that Britons didn't want to go where the EU was headed.
Theresa May, Dominic Grieve and the rest of those in the Westminster bubble refused to
accept that they no longer had control over the situation. Theresa May like an autistic monkey
keeps putting forth vote after vote to get her Withdrawal Treaty past a parliament that has no
business still presiding over the country .
She hopes by making her treaty legal it will stop Farage's revolution. I have news for her
and the technocrats in Brussels. If Farage wins the next General Election he will nullify her
treaty under
Article 62 of the Vienna Conventions on the Laws of Treaties.
French Poodle Emmanuel Macron cannot get control of the Yellow Vest Protests in France.
And the EU itself cannot get control over Matteo Salvini in Italy.
And they will only get it through their heads after Nigel Farage and the Brexit party unite
the left and the right to throw them all out in the EP elections but also the General one as
well.
The same thing happened in 2016 here in the U.S., both on the left and the right.
Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were the vessels for our deep dissatisfaction with the D.C.
corruption. The realignment was staring us in the face in 2016.
The Davos Crowd haven't gotten the message. And they won't listen until we force them
to.
Trump is compromised because of his vanity and his weakness. There is not much hope
going into 2020 unless Tulsi Gabbard catches fire soon and begins taking out contenders one by
one.
More likely she is, like Ron Paul, setting the table for 2024 and a post-Trump world. I
fear however it will be far too late for the U.S. by then. Both she and Farage, along with
Salvini and many others across Europe, represent the push towards authenticity that will change
the political landscape across the west for decades to come.
And that is what the great realignment I see happening is. It isn't about party or even
principles. It is about coming together to fix the broken political system first and then
working on solutions to specific problems later.
Here's hoping Trump doesn't destroy the world by mistake first.
Trump has been limited by the Deep State bogus Russia collusion investigations aided by
MSM propaganda. If this author thinks Bernie or Tulsi Gabbard will not face special
prosecutors if they try and Rock the boat then he is naive.
Bernie rolled over and supported Hillary after it was proven she rigged the nomination
process, so to believe he could take on the swamp to any degree is laughable.
And Tulsi doesn't have the deep pockets like Trump to hire the lawyers needed to wage war
against The Swamp.
Voting for a woman because "it's time" or because she's a woman etc., has become a thing.
Those reasons seem stupid but that's the "logic." I see a lot of dem women jumping on the
bandwagon, trying to get lucky.
Tulsi to me is like Ron Paul was in 08. A sane voice pointing out the stupidity of US
foreign policy.
She aint no Ron Paul for sure but is at least the only one this cycle who supports as her
main position getting the US out of foreign entanglements.
She is never going to win just like rp coud never win. But Im sending her a few bucks
every month just to keep the message going.
xxx, 1 hour ago
"Tulsi Gabbard will collect a lot of voters sick to death of our foreign policy destroying the lives of millions, draining our
spirit and emptying our pockets."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom, we don't select our candidates, they're
chosen for us for our own good.
yyy,
2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism).
Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is
a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class
of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That’s it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding Father that the primary goal of government
is to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that
there will be a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority’s decision making
is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination
made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can’t be subordinated to any form of Democracy.
zzz,
2 hours ago
Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage
achieved his goal (Brexit), then found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted
to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea Party.
bbb,
3 hours ago
Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy
charlatan opportunistic populist shill
ccc,
3 hours ago (Edited)
I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in
August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front of Congress. And anyone standing full-square
behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist agenda?
Do me a favour.
ddd,
1 hour ago (Edited)
Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member.
eee,
3 hours ago
Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign warmongering, only to turn around and incite
civil war here by further raping the 2nd Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul?
No, just...no!
fff,
3 hours ago
Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before
the assassination).
ggg, 4 hours ago
By this time in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq War.
Thus far Trump has
ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya’s civil wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don’t know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with the same events. Obama talked peace
too.
So in the past she was Obama style warmonger. Interesting... She is not stupid enough not to understand that this was a US
sponsored color revolution.
Does this mean that she is a fake like Obama was?
Notable quotes:
"... "We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training -- to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in the future." ..."
Press Release Calls for U.S. to offer weapons, military training
assistance
Washington, DC – Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) today released the following
statement after the President's announcement of expanded sanctions against Russian
officials:
"Russia has violated the sovereignty and independence of the Ukrainian people, in direct
contravention of its own treaty obligations and international law," said Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, an Army combat veteran and member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "I support
the sanctions announced today, and I strongly urge the President to go further and consider a
broader range of consequences. If Russia is allowed to continue its aggressive push for control
in Ukraine, there will be long-term, serious, and costly security risks for the United States
and Europe. Russia must face serious consequences for their actions; the U.S. must consider
options that truly isolate Russia economically and diplomatically -- not just sanction a
handful of oligarchs -- and send a message of unity and strength from the international
community.
"We cannot stand by while Russia unilaterally degrades Ukraine's territorial integrity. We
must offer direct military assistance -- defensive weapons, military supplies and training --
to ensure Ukraine has adequate resources to respond to Russia's aggressions and defend
themselves. We cannot view Ukraine as an isolated incident. If we do not take seriously the
threat of thinly veiled Russian aggression, and commit to aiding the people of Ukraine
immediately, we will find ourselves in a more dangerous, expensive and disastrous situation in
the future."
In a House Foreign Affairs Committee mark-up of H.Res. 499 recently, the congresswoman
gained unanimous approval on including amendments on anti-corruption, and protection of civil
and political rights throughout Ukraine. She also supported the House passage of H.R. 4152,
which authorized loan guarantees for Ukraine.
"Biden's $1.2 million in total ad spending on the two platforms is topped in the Democratic
field only by Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), all of whom have been on the campaign trail for months longer than Biden.
Biden's spending in the days after launching his presidential campaign nearly matches that
of Sanders, who has spent roughly $1.22 million advertising on the two platforms since his
February campaign announcement.
Last week, the Vermont senator spent about $57,000 on Facebook and Google ads."
Warren (D)(1): "Trump backers applaud Warren in heart of MAGA country" [
Politico ].
West Virginia: "It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen
supporters of the president -- some wearing MAGA stickers -- nodding their heads, at times
even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren . LeeAnn Blankenship, a 38-year-old
coach and supervisor at a home visitation company who grew up in Kermit and wore a sharp pink
suit, said she may now support Warren in 2020 after voting for Trump in 2016.
'She's a good ol' country girl like anyone else,' she said of Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma. 'She's
earned where she is, it wasn't given to her. I respect that.'"
Also: "The 63-year-old fire
chief, Wilburn 'Tommy' Preece, warned Warren and her team beforehand that the area was 'Trump
country' and to not necessarily expect a friendly reception. But he also told her that the town would welcome anyone, of any party, who wanted to address the opioid
crisis ." ( More on West
Virginia in 2018 .
Best part is a WaPo headline: "Bernie Sanders Supporter Attends Every
DNC Rule Change Meeting. DNC Member Calls Her a Russian Plant." • Lol. I've been saying
"lol" a lot, lately.)
Warren (D)(2): "Our military can help lead the fight in combating climate change"
[Elizabeth Warren,
Medium ]. "In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is
undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is
ignoring it -- and making it worse . That's why today I am introducing my
Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act to harden the U.S. military against the threat
posed by climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate
solution.
It starts with an ambitious goal: consistent with the objectives of the Green New
Deal, the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and
infrastructure by 2030 .. We don't have to choose between a green military and an effective
one . Together, we can work with our military to fight climate change -- and
win." • On the one hand, the Pentagon's energy footprint is huge, and it's a good idea
to do something about that. On the other, putting solar panels on every tank that went into
Iraq Well, there are larger questions to be asked. A lot of dunking on Warren about this. It
might play in the heartland, though.
"... MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda about "national security ..."
"... Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time. ..."
"... The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. ..."
"... Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army or terrorist organisation. ..."
CNN rigged a poll to censor out nearly everyone under 45 years of age. Based on this nonsensical false sampling they claim Biden
is now in the lead.
MSNBC was caught making up false numbers to report, increasing Biden from an actual 25% approval to a magical 28%, just enough
to edge out Bernie Sanders. But this is a fraud, deliberate journalistic malfeasance at the highest levels. How could such a thing
happen?
MSNBC is also that bastion of journalistic integrity that hired an exposed CIA mole, Ken Dilanian, to feed its viewers propaganda
about "national security."
MSNBC also made hysterical, highly dangerous, and false claims about the Russians' ability and intention to shut down America's
electrical grid, a completely false story that was retracted as soon as it went out by the Washington Post. This kind of unhinged
war propaganda could lead the world straight to Armageddon.
Now, the parties truly "meddling in America's democracy" should be very clear, although I can only scratch the surface here
concerning the long history of media corruption and outright lies broadcast all the time.
Grafter
The criminal behaviour continues unabated. Lies and fraud abound. American behaviour worldwide is an embarrassment to any
free thinking individual. They are a danger to all of us. We can start by removing them from Europe along with their so called
"allies". Here in the disunited UK T.May and her little gang of Tory millionaires should be top priority for political oblivion.
People worldwide urgently need to wake up to the sick joke that goes under the name of "American democracy".
mark
Organisations like the BBC and all the rest of the corporate media are a greater threat to democracy than any foreign army
or terrorist organisation.
They need to be constantly exposed for what they are rather than actually suppressed or controlled. They can be safely left
to wither on the vine and decline into irrelevance. Social media and sites like this are a powerful antidote.
"... The REAL REASON behind the TRADE WAR: Israhell: "I want Iran embargoed and starved to death." China: "I will buy Iran's oil." BAM! Trade War! ..."
The 'play of the day' above comes against a backdrop of markets trying to accentuate the
positive in the latest US-China trade war deterioration. Indeed, Moody's has declared a trade
deal will still be done and a Bloomberg survey of US economists shows around two thirds think a
deal will be signed by year-end, a fifth by 2020, and only 13% don't see a deal for at least
five years. Field Marshall, please take these men and women out and have them shot, there's a
good chap.
The rhetoric from China has turned starkly, aggressively nationalist. The Global Times is
calling for a "People's War", a 1930's Mao reference to repelling Japanese imperialism; "trade
war" now fills Chinese media, having been largely absent for months; and Tuesday's People's
Daily mouthpiece posted an image of the Chinese flag with "Talk -- fine! Fight -- we'll be
there! Bully us -- delusion!" superimposed on it. US President Trump is also not backing down
in a further set of trade-related tweets, again stating tariff revenues will support 'patriot'
farmers and adding: "China will be pumping money into their system and probably reducing
interest rates, as always, in order to make up for the business they are, and will be, losing.
If the Federal Reserve ever did a "match," it would be game over, we win! In any event, China
wants a deal!"
A huge fiscal deficit; trade tariffs; a rapid increase in military expenditure; 'Patriot'
farmers; and a political call for lower interest rates for a national struggle. It all sounds
very Chinese, doesn't it? But that shouldn't be a surprise. Last year's ' The Rise and Fall and
Rise of the Great Powers (and Great Currencies)' argued the historical lessons of the economics
of past power struggles are that one must have low borrowing costs, spend a lot on a large
military, and be mercantilist if your enemy is. True, one also needs to be economically
vibrant, and that isn't assured with mercantilism, militarism and large fiscal deficits. Yet
real free trade, pacifism, and austerity is *ruinous* for Great Power . Which is why the EU is
not a Great Power but a Great Whinger.
Some in the markets are starting to get this.
Regular Bloomberg commentator Noah Smith yesterday published an article --'The Grim Logic
Behind Trump's Trade War With China'-- that admits he was wrong to expect a trade deal, that
Trump is doubling down, and concludes "There may be a grim sort of logic to this approach If
Trump wants to slow China's ascent as a superpower, a trade war might be an effective way to do
it. If the harm to the US is modest and the costs for China are severe and lasting, Trump might
conclude that the former are acceptable losses. Geopolitical primacy, not maximum prosperity
for Americans, might be the president's true objective . if weakening China really is the goal,
then this could be just the opening rounds of a long and grinding trade war." That's' what I
argued back in November 2017's 'On Your Marx' special reports, which stressed a New Cold War
was likely ahead.
However, many in markets are still acting like a Treasury clerk telling Churchill that
Badolf Hissler can offer him a great deal on cut-price bullets, ships, and planes .
On a related front, we see reports of an alleged Iranian drone attack on Saudi oil
pipelines(!); also hear Iran's leader say there will be no war with the US; and Trump has
stated reports of 120,000 US troops moving to the region are fake news -- because if he were to
send troops it would " a hell of a lot more ." Mixed messages to put it mildly.
for 40 years, western liberals and capitalists have had a nebulous idea of China
developing, opening and "liberalizing." It hasn't usually occurred in the ways they wanted,
but China certainly has become a big market and has moved towards a more open economy and
somewhat, more open society overall, while still maintaining a "fascist" structure.
But we can all agree - that process is done. China's economy, society and politics are
what they are. The country is "grown-up." Do not ever expect the communist party to change
the tight, top-down structure it has. Do not expect changes to politics, do not expect anyone
in China to give up control, and certainly don't expect foreigners to have any say or
influence within China. China will always do exactly what benefits China and the CCP.
Trump is merely being a realist. So accept that, and trade/invest/exchange
accordingly.
Is it any surprise that a "Noah Smith" of Bloomberg would attribute all the wrong
motives and strategy behind President Trump's and America's trade dispute with China's
totalitarian regime?
That he sees the Chinese Communist Party as honest, good faith partners in this
scenario?
There is nothing Trump could ever do to please the internationalist media.
I seriously doubt if "weakening" China is Trump's primacy here. Perhaps a by-product but
let's finally admit one thing: The US-China trade arrangement is egregious at best. What no one is willing to discuss yet is the fact that this "philosophy" of evening out
trade with China will soon take on a life of its own: With the US consumer. We need to bring back a lot of jobs back to the US economy and that's not rocket science.
It won't happen overnight but it will indeed happen.
What is the point of this piece? To demonstrate the author’s wit and historical
knowledge (was that entire little playlet not invented)?
To maximize American prosperity long term, should the US simply allow China to cheat,
manipulate and intimidate its way to the top? China has proven that, unlike the US, its
growth is a zero sum game. It adds nothing to the equation of global growth except cheap
labor, which subtracts wealth from other nations by taking away their well-paid manufacturing
jobs. It contributes almost no raw materials, imports its food and energy, and has stolen
most of its technology at enormous cost to Western innovators.
The US has always provided net inputs to the system of global growth. Natural resources,
renewable materials (crops, renewable energy), and the relentless innovation and productivity
increases of its workforce. China is an extractor. Thus it needs to expand its borders
through exploitative economic imperialist initiatives under their One Belt One Road scam, and
their militaristic imperialism in the South China Sea. The US is a machine that puts out far
more than it takes in. China is the opposite. If the US directs its economic output away from
China’s vast and relentless maw, China’s machine will slow and sputter.
The real point of the trade war is to end the vacuum of Western and Asian prosperity by
China’s greedy and imperialist machine of economic destruction. China knows and
implements that its economic growth by definition comes at the cost of others’
prosperity. That the US took 20 years to wake the **** up is astonishing.
Joe Biden was a part of this Obama mafia who was trying to take down Trump ...
Graham still buying Russiagate nonsense, so it is only half-right.
Notable quotes:
"... Who are the idiots now? Will, since this report has been revealed, like the Democrats screamed about, saying it that would expose Trump. It actually exposes Hillary and several others....and now is heading Obama's way. Put them behind Barrs! ..."
Who are the idiots now? Will, since this report has been revealed, like the Democrats
screamed about, saying it that would expose Trump. It actually exposes Hillary and several
others....and now is heading Obama's way. Put them behind Barrs!
No Senator Graham, you're not going to find out that Russia provided the
dossier. You are going to find out that Nellie Ohr (who is a CIA agent, one of Brennan's
corrupt crew), and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, constructed the dossier.
They then took it
and washed it through the Ohr's buddy Christopher Steele. That was to give it a cache of
foreign provenance. And then they got other willing participants like John McCain, and the
lying media to do their part in forwarding the pretense that the dossier had some sort of
legitimacy and the corrupt FBI leadership put it in front of a FISA judge to deceive them
into granting the FISA warrant which allowed the FBI to spy all through the entire Trump
campaign, and even to keep spying on Trump when he was seated in the Oval Office.
They
participated in sedition and treason. ALL OF THEM should be hanged for this crime against the
American people.
Bob Mueller is an Establishment STOOGE who, Along with James Comey, have been covering up
for the Deep State and Shadow Government (SES) Cronies for over 20 years!!!
Joann Tague, 2 weeks ago
The man that bleached the computers and the lady that physically destroyed 2 computers with a hammier needed to be
arrested......That is a start! Hillary Clinton is guilty of all the charges Trump was investigated for. President Trump is
totally innocent.
So it's back to the Clinton Emails to start. Lets see how the news media reports that. The democrats are truly evil and
dishonest.
darlingUSA, 12 weeks ago
Strzok and Page - those two people are your typical Clinton and Obama supporters. What does that say about her supporters.
Only those two knew that as POTUS, Trump was going to do what was best for the People, not pay for play and not cover tracks
of corrupt politicians. That's what they hated. That and the People of the U.S.A.
Jen X, 2 weeks ago
Dems want Barr to resign because he didn't give them the results they wanted. If Mueller and Barr found collusion, the
Dems would say they did their job, and they did a fine job, and would say that we should accept it and move on.
kens 616, 1 week ago (edited)
Obama their coming after you.. This Russian hoax did not start at the bottom...it came from the top. You OBAMA..
Stop calling it the "Democratic" party - it's the "Democrat" party... "Democrat" is a NAME
. "Democratic" is a description; and doesn't describe them at all
Days before Trump's escalation of his illegal war in Syria, Congresswoman & war veteran
Tulsi Gabbard confronts Defense Secretary James Mattis on the unconstitutionality of such
missile strikes!
This Woman, whent against Hillary-establishement, Dems, She is smart & strong, I want
her running for Presidency, even some Republicans, would support Her, Right?? :-)
A brilliant statement by Tulsi Gabbard. Beto O'Rourke appears bored, unconcerned and
vaguely gormless when he rocks back and forth, bites his nails and extends his lower
lip.
"... I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on it. ..."
"... It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from Libertarians. ..."
I have high respect for Dr Paul especially on his foreign policies and I'm so glad that he
has recognized Tulsi stances on ending these regime change wars and over stepping our bounds
constitutional overseas. Please keep spreading the word on Tulsi our Republic depends on
it.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that Ron Paul feels well about Tulsi Gabbard - mostly
in regards to her foreign policy. Tulsi can expect considerable support from
Libertarians.
"... Tulsi continues to stack up very reputable endorsements. This time from a three time Presidential Candidate. ..."
"... Tulsi's momentum is going for critical mass, Its time for a true maverick! #Rogue2020 ..."
"... Ron Paul's endorsement is surprising and interesting, in that it seems sincere. Most repubs give bad-faith assessments of the dem candidates. ..."
"... It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. ..."
I am as unlikely to vote republican as anybody but I admired Ron Paul's honesty when he
ran for the presidency. Admired enough that I actually voted for him although his economic
policies and gold standard kept me asking more questions than getting answers. I am stoked
that my favorite republican voice gives his support to Tulsi. It is yet another confirmation
of my choice for 2020.
It really should be seen as a general election endorsement if it came down to a run
between Tulsi and Trump, why the hell there was not a follow up question asking Dr Paul who
he would endorse Tulsi and Trump I am sure Paul would endorse Tulsi. At any rate this is a
big deal a lot of people respect Dr Paul and this endorsement will help Tulsi.
I hope that might be interesting to Tulsi supporters.
In this interesting speech "Fascism in the Age of Trump" Chris Hedges predicts 20 years to the US empire. So somewhere
around 2040 or when the age of "cheap oil" approximately ends and/or come under considerable stress.
He does not understands neoliberal social system well and does not use the term "neoliberarism" in his speak (which is
detrimental to its value) , but he manages to provide a set of interesting arguments, although the speech is full of exaggerations
and inconsistencies.
It also can explains the current Trump stance toward China as "Hail Mary" attempt top preserve the global hegemony by
suppressing China even at considerable cost for the USA population.
I really feel for Chris Hedges on a personal level. Unlike say Blyth, or Chomsky, whom
seem to revel in being intellectual bad boys, Hedges seems to be at heart a very conservative
man in the true sense of the word, driven to the extremes by the rabid greed and sociopathic
nature of mainstream politics. The corruption of it seems to visibly torture him. It takes a
special kind of courage to take an unpopular stand like he does.
President Eisenhower stated that the largest threat to our Democracy was/is the Military
Industrial Complex. He quickly terminated the Korean War that he inherited then kept us out
of foreign conflict. He believed in a strong Middle Class and promoted our economy with a
massive highway system. He kept the highest progressive tax rate at 90% discouraging CEO's
from massively overpaying themselves.
Biden (D)(1): "Biden's Nafta Vote Is a Liability in the Rust Belt" [
Bloomberg ]. "Biden is the only one of the 22 Democrats running for president who voted
for NAFTA 'NAFTA still resonates in the industrial Midwest and Rust Belt,' says Stanley
Greenberg, a veteran Democratic pollster who recently conducted focus groups on trade in
Michigan and Wisconsin. 'There's still a lot of anger because it symbolizes, for many people,
the indifference about the outsourcing of jobs and the favoring of elite economic interests
in international trade agreements." • "Symbolizes," forsooth.
I'd speculate this was implicitly an opioids/deaths of despair question. Either way, Biden
slipped a cog answering it.
.........
Realignment and Legitmacy
"Democrats: Trump's GOP Is a Threat to Democracy -- So We Better Play Nice" [
New York Magazine ]. "Joe Biden says that Donald Trump
represents an unprecedented threat to our republic's bedrock values -- and that, if
Trump wins a second term, congressional Republicans will allow their standard-bearer to
"forever and fundamentally alter the character of this nation," not least by destroying
'our very democracy.'
Her call for impeachment procedures is a blunder. She is trying to play the dominant mood of the Dems crowd, not
understanding that in this case Biden will be the winner.
Notable quotes:
"... Beto O'Rourke, the rich-kid airhead who declared shortly before the Mueller report was released that Trump, "beyond the shadow of a doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government," will not fare much better. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren meanwhile seems to be tripping over her own two feet as she predicts one moment that Trump is heading to jail , declares the next that voters don't care about the Mueller report because they're too concerned with bread-and-butter issues, and then calls for dragging Congress into the impeachment morass regardless. ..."
Besides Fox News – whose ratings have soared while Russia-obsessed CNN’s have plummeted – the chief beneficiary is Trump.
Post-Mueller, the man has the wind in his sails. Come 2020, Sen. Bernie Sanders could cut through his phony populism with ease.
But if Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post succeeds in tarring him with Russia the same way it tried to tar Trump, then the Democratic
nominee will be a bland centrist whom the incumbent will happily bludgeon.
Former Vice President Joe Biden – the John McCain-loving, speech-slurring, child-fondler who was for a wall along the Mexican
border before he was against it – will end up as a bug splat on the Orange One’s windshield.
Beto O'Rourke, the rich-kid airhead who
declared shortly before the Mueller report was released that Trump, "beyond the shadow of a
doubt, sought to collude with the Russian government," will not fare much better.
Sen.
Elizabeth Warren meanwhile seems to be tripping over her own two feet as she predicts one
moment that Trump is
heading to jail , declares the next that voters
don't care about the Mueller report because they're too concerned with bread-and-butter
issues, and then calls for dragging Congress into the
impeachment morass regardless.
Such "logic" is lost on voters, so it seems to be a safe bet that enough will stay home next
Election Day to allow the rough beast to slouch towards Bethlehem yet again.
"... You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of Democracy. Alongside The New York Times and The Washington Post , whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little regulars Rachel Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler. ..."
"... We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to. ..."
"... All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi has a book out on hate, Hate Inc, and has done an excellent interview with Chris Hedges on RT. ..."
"... Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019: ..."
"... Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the Russians?" Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-" Matthews: "Agent?" Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that he's not." Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?" Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes." ..."
"... One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper, Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in hindsight. ..."
"... @MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion << ..."
"... These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short, the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class. ..."
"... Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long ago. ..."
"... "Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier. ..."
"... These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. ..."
"... Lynch, Holder, Obama as silent as church mice. i:e who gave Comey his marching orders ? ..."
"... What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless leftist Dems. ..."
"... On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse? * Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and 9/11. ..."
You know the ones: articles predicting whatever the news of the day will be The End of
Democracy. Alongside TheNew York Times and TheWashington Post ,
whose op-ed pages are pretty much a daily End of Days, practitioners include Chicken Little
regulars Rachel
Maddow , Lawrence Tribe, Malcolm Nance, David Corn, Benjamin Wittes, Charles Pierce, Bob
Cesca, and Marcy Wheeler.
You'd have thought after almost three years of wrong predictions (no new wars, no economic
collapse, no Russiagate) this industry would have slam shut faster than a Rust Belt union hall.
You would have especially thought these kinds of articles would have tapered off with the
release of the Mueller Report. It turned out to be the opposite -- while Mueller found no
conspiracy and charged no obstruction, the dang report turns out to be chock-a-block with
hidden messages, secret road maps, and voices speaking in tongues (albeit only to Democrats)
about obstruction.
We've gone from thinking the president is literally a Russian agent (since 1987, the last
year your mom and dad dated!) to worrying the attorney general is trying to obstruct a House
committee from investigating a completed investigation into obstruction by writing a summary
not everyone liked of a report already released. But the actual content is irrelevant. What
matters is there is another crisis to write about! The op-ed industry can't keep up with
all the Republic-ending stuff Trump and his henchworld are up to.
Help has arrived. Now anyone can write their own fear-mongering article, using this handy
tool, the op-ed-o-Matic. The GoFundMe for the AI-driven app version will be up soon, but for
now, simply follow these simple steps to punditry!
Start with a terrifying cliche. Here are some to choose from: There is a clear and
present danger; Dark clouds gather, the center cannot hold; It is unclear the Republic will
survive; Democracy itself is under attack; We face a profound/unique/existential
threat/crisis/turning point/test. Also, that "First they came for "
poem is good. Be creative; The Washington Post
calls the present state of things "constitutional nihilism." Snappy!
Be philosophical and slightly weary in tone,
such as "I am in despair as I have never been before about the future of our experiment in
self-rule." Say you're
sad for the state of the nation. Claim time is short, but there just may be a chance to
stop this. Add " by any means necessary."
Then choose a follow-on quote to reinforce the danger, maybe from: The Federalist Papers,
especially Madison on tyranny; Lincoln, pretty much anything about "the people, government,
test for our great nation, blah blah;" the Jack Nicholson character about not being able to
handle the truth; something from the neocons like Bill Kristol or Max Boot who now hate Trump.
Start with "even" as in " even arch conservative Jennifer Rubin now says "
After all that to get the blood up, explain the current bad thing Trump did. Label it "a
high crime or misdemeanor if there ever was one." Use some legalese, such as proffer, colorable
argument, inter alia, sinecure, duly-authorized, perjurious, and that little law book squiggly
thingy (18 USC § 1513.) Be sure to say "no one is above the law," then a dramatic hyphen,
then "even the president." Law school is overrated; you and Google know as much as anyone about
emoluments, perjury, campaign finance regulations, contempt, tax law, subpoenas, obstruction,
or whatever the day's thing is, and it changes a lot. But whatever, the bastard is obviously
guilty. Your standard is
tabloid-level , so just make it too good to be true.
Next, find an old Trump tweet where he criticized someone for doing just what he is doing.
That never gets old! Reference burning the Reichstag. If the crisis you're writing about deals
with immigration or white supremacy (meh, basically the same thing, right?), refer to
Kristallnacht.
Include every bad thing Trump ever did as examples of why whatever you're talking about must
be true. Swing for the fence with lines like "seeks to destroy decades of LGBTQIXYZ progress"
or "built concentration camps to murder children." Cite Trump accepting Putin's word over the
findings of "our" intelligence community, his "very fine people" support for Nazi cosplayers,
the magic list of 10,000 lies, how Trump has blood on his hands for endangering the press as
the enemy of the people, and how Trump caused the hurricane in Puerto Rico.
And Nixon. Always bring up Nixon. The context or details don't matter. In case Wikipedia is
down, he was one of the presidents before Trump your grandpa liked for awhile and then didn't
like after Robert Redford showed he was a clear and present danger to Saturday Night Live, or
the Saturday Night Massacre, it doesn't matter, we all agree Nixon.
Focus on the villain, who must be unhinged, off the rails, over the edge, diseased, out of
control, a danger to himself and others, straight-up diagnosed
mentally ill , or under Trump/Putin's spell. Barr is currently the Vader-du-jour. The
New York Timescharacterized him as
"The transformation of William Barr from respected establishment lawyer to evil genius
outplaying and undermining his old friend Robert Mueller is a Grand Guignol spectacle." James
Comey went as far as
describing Trump people as having had their souls eaten by the president. That's not
hyperbole, it's journalism!
But also hold out for a hero, the Neo one inside Trumpworld who will rise, flip, or leak to
save us. Forget past nominees like the pee tape, Comey, Clapper, Flynn, Page, Papadopoulos,
Manafort, Cohen, Mattis, Kelly, Barr, Linda Sarsour (replace with Ilhan Omar,) Avenatti, and
Omarosa to focus on McGahn. He's gonna be the one!
Then call for everyone else bad to resign, be impeached, go to jail, have their old statues
torn down, delete their accounts, be referred to the SDNY, be smited by the 25th Amendment, or
have their last election delegitimized by the Night King. Draw your rationale from either the
most obscure corner of the Founding Founders' work ("the rough draft, subsection IIXX of the
Articles of Confederation addendum, Spanish language edition, makes clear Trump is unfit for
office") or go broad as in "his oath requires him to uphold the Constitution, which he clearly
is not doing." Like Nancy Pelosi, mention how Trump seems unlikely to voluntarily cede power if
he loses in 2020.
Cultural references are important. Out of fashion: Godfather memes especially about
who is going to be Fredo, 'bots, weaponize, Pussy Hats, the Parkland Kids, Putin homophobe
themes, incest "jokes" about Ivanka, the phrases the walls are closing in, tick tock, take to
the streets, adult in the room, just wait for Mueller Time, and let that sink in.
Things you can still use: abyss, grifter, crime family, not who we are, follow the money.
Also you may make breaking news out of Twitter typos. Stylistically anyone with a
Russian-sounding name must be either an oligarch, friend of Putin, or have ties to the Kremlin.
Same for anyone who has done business with Trump or used the ATM in the Deutsche Bank lobby in
New York. Mention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somewhere because every article has to mention AOC
somewhere now.
Finally, your op-ed should end either with this House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler
faux Kennedy-esque
quote, "The choice is simple: We can stand up to this president in defense of the country
and the Constitution and the liberty we love, or we can let the moment pass us by. History will
judge us for how we face this challenge" or, if you want to go old school, this one from
Hillary Clinton
saying, "I really believe that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis. We are in a
crisis of confidence and a crisis over the rule of law and the institutions that have weathered
a lot of problems over so many years. And it is something that, regardless of where you stand
in the political spectrum, should give real heartburn to everybody. Because this is a test for
our country."
Crisis. Test. Judgment of history. Readers love that stuff, because it equates Trump's dumb
tweets with Lincoln pulling the Union together after a literal civil war that killed millions
of Americans in brother-to-brother conflict. As long as the rubes believe the world is coming
to an end, you might as well make a buck writing about it.
Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil genius.
These views are oppositional, but many liberal journalists seem to hold both of them.
I pretty much lost all respect for the Washington Post during the last election. Each WaPo
anti-Trump op ed became increasingly apocalyptic until you imagined that the universe would
implode should he be elected. It was that silly.
But other media promote "end of the world as we know it "scenarios also. TAC included.
Seriously, if I read one more article about how flyover America is a drug infested,
impoverished wasteland inhabited by those not intelligent or ambitious enough to move to the
coasts.
Drama draws readers and online traffic.
I guess it's up to the reader to sift through the competing narratives for the truth.
On the one hand, I agree that it's laughable and ridiculous -- this flood of apocalyptic
predictions and articles, wherein Trump, a juvenile buffoon who in fact does not even control
the government he nominally heads, is depicted as some kind of unprecedented threat to
democracy and Everything We Hold Dear.
I mean, OK, the judgment of the libs and neocons writing this stuff is clearly addled by
their irrational and rabid hatred for Trump. Still, are they really that stupid or is it just
that they are hopelessly dishonest? I lean toward the latter explanation.
That said, the abiding irony is that there is in fact a deepening crisis in this country.
It's about an increasingly dysfunctional democracy, a bitterly alienated and divided
citizenry, a set of ruling elites who despise a large percentage of their countrymen and have
contrived an economic and political system that enriches themselves while consigning the
despised percentage to permanent struggling status, a cultural establishment that rejects the
traditional Judeo-Christian values that built Western civilization and, Jacobin-style, is
busily overturning and replacing those values with their own would-be New Moral Order.
And so forth.
So yeah, there most definitely is a crisis and it might even be apocalyptic in dimension
and character. (Heck, it put Trump in the White House.) But the actual crisis is not the one
the fools are writing about. In fact, not only are they not writing about it -- they're in
large part responsible for it.
Like I said: an abiding irony. One for the history books.
All persons with Russian-sounding names are Kremlin Agents(tm) *except* the alleged sources
for The Dossier(tm). Those anonymous Russians can be trusted implicitly.
Van Buren has apparently chosen to forget the apocalyptic rants from the right during the
Obama administration. As for today's alarmists, as I write this the Dow is down over 700
points due to Trump's foolish trade war, his administration is ignoring two centuries of
tradition by stonewalling Congress' legitimate oversight authority and John Bolton is trying
to provoke a war with Iran. Now tell me again it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D, California), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, before
Mueller finished his investigation, on Hardball on MSNBC, Jan. 2019:
Matthews: "Do you believe the president, right now, has been an agent of the
Russians?"
Swalwell: "Yes, I think there's more evidence that he is-"
Matthews: "Agent?"
Swalwell: "Yes. and I think all the arrows point in that direction, and I haven't seen a
single piece of evidence that he's not."
Matthews: "An agent like in the 1940s where you had people who were 'reds,' to use an old
term, like that? In other words, working for a foreign power?"
Swalwell: "He's working on behalf of the Russians, yes."
The same congressman, who makes Joseph McCarthy look moderate, after Mueller completed his
investigation, on Fox News, Mar. 2019:
Cavuto: "Would you say the president is not a Russian agent?"
Swalwell: "The president acts on Russia's behalf, I don't need to see the Mueller report for
that."
And this month, after he had annouced his presidential bid, on Face the Nation:
Brennan: "But I know you have been talking because you are also in an intelligence role on
that House committee saying a number of things that I want to quote back to you. Up until
this point you said when you were asked in January, 'do you believe the president right now
has been an agent of the Russians?' You said, 'yes,' you were asked again at the end of that
month by a questioner, 'I'm still not hearing any evidence that he's an agent of Russia.' And
you said, 'Yeah I think it's pretty clear it's almost hiding in plain sight.' The Mueller
report did not substantiate any conspiracy or coordination with Russia. Do you regret
prejudging the outcome?"
Swalwell: "No, actually I- I- I think I should have been louder."
And people say Denin Nunes politicized the House Intelligence Committee?
One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some of his
opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion: Brennan, Clapper,
Clinton, Comey, McCabe, the list goes on and on, often merely to make a buck. Even Watergate
figures like Carl Bernstein and John Dean have demolished their own reputations, or what was
left of them to begin with. If they only knew, or cared, how badly they look in
hindsight.
"Liberal journalists seem to think that Trump is either an ignorant oaf or an evil
genius."
You're missing the point, it's Trump's ignorance, his extreme sense of entitlement and
limitless ego that are a danger to our democracy. He doesn't understand the norms of
democracy, otherwise known as American principles. All he understands is what he wants and
his notion of American greatness, which has nothing to do with true American principles.
@MM: >>One of the best things to come from Trump's election has been the lengths some
of his opponents will go to discredit themselves in the court of public opinion <<
These people don't care about "public opinion." They operate inside a circle-jerk echo
chamber whose membership includes the powers dominating the culture, the media (both
mainstream and social), the government, and, increasingly, the major corporations. In short,
the bulk of what some call the Ruling Class.
In their minds, public opinion can be suppressed or at least controlled by their near
monopoly on major media. The stories they want told will get told. The stories they don't
want told will not get told. Except at more or less isolated right-wing websites and such
whose audience and reach are limited.
Facts, evidence, and truth have nothing to do with it. So an investigation, rigged though
it was, nonetheless clears Trump of conspiring with Moscow, but the story becomes how Trump
is guilty anyway. Orwell, a man well ahead of his time, had the whole thing figured out long
ago.
jhawk: "As I write this the Dow is down over 700 points."
This is the same Dow Jones that, even with today's drop is still 40% higher than it was
right before the 2016 election, correct?
"Now tell me again it's all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing.'" On the issue of Trump/Russia collusion, it is, and always was, because we now know it
started with the Clinton campaign and a now-discredited dossier.
These are the people who we elect to "govern" us. If one looks back upon the 230 years or
so during which this thing of ours has been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our
elected officials (federal, state and local) have probably been, to one degree or another,
narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents. It seems that it's only
when we hit rock bottom and the country's very survival is at stake that the cream rises to
the top and the very best step to the plate, so given what we have in Washington now, maybe
we haven't reached that point–at least not yet.
This is a hoot. Little Pettie strikes again! Projecting his own myopia as always! His Greater
Leader, The Trumpster, and the sycophants who worship him daily (for a fee, of course) daily
tweets or shouts from a podium the impending doom of our nations due to hoards of the "other"
spreading disease and violence nationwide while supported by the great love of Evangelical
"Christians" who faith not merely predicts but yearns for the end of the world!!!
Can't quite tell. It is hypocrisy or grand delusions blooming brightly at TAC!
CT Farmer: "If one looks back upon the 230 years or so during which this thing of ours has
been in existence, the overwhelming majority of our elected officials have probably been, to
one degree or another, narcissistic, mendacious and just generally dishonest incompetents."
No doubt, I only picked on him because he represents the crappiest district in the Bay
Area, which I have personal experience on, and he's running for president on the "Trump is a
Russian agent" platform, which even Joseph McCarthy was too timid to attempt.
That's either saying something, or it's nothing. I could've quoted another presidential candidate who's claimed that law enforcement and
criminal justice in America is racist from top to bottom and front to back. Or I could've quoted a different presidential candidate who's stated unequivocally that
every human being, not just American citizen, is entitled to free education and health care,
without regard to cost or need.
Just a few thoughts about comments above: Who "yearns for the end of the world"?? Give names
please, stop slandering. What "illegal things" were revealed in the Mueller report? Trump was
trying to obstruct an INJUSTICE, i.e. the "soft coup" done by the anti-American, lawless
leftist Dems. The fact is that we are a nation of laws and illegals (no matter where they are
from, Mars, Supitor; whether they are green, purple, whatever color) are a threat to our
country. I heard report that about a third of the crimes in the USA are done by illegals, at
a cost of billions. Well, more crap from brain washed boobs above, but I'm done trying to
point them out ..
" you know, we're all at it, breathing apocalyptic fire and brimstone, left and right. No
point throwing stones at each other on this subject."
**************
My thoughts, too. It's difficult to sift through the hype on all sides & find anything
solid. Outrage generates traffic, thoughtful discussion-not so much. So we end up with
clickbait & tabloids.
Maybe the Dems and their supporters should spend more time trying to understand why they lost
and less time complaining about it. But then that's not nearly as much fun.
Thanks for the voice of reason. A couple of complaints on Trump: he hasn't accomplished much
on the border; budgets continue to bleed red ink. He at least could have vetoed the budgets.
Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016? How long have
Limbaugh, Coulter, Ingraham, Levin, Hannity, .. been milking the Republican multiverse.
Sean: "Isn't it a bit rich to suggest that the outrage media started in 2016?"
That's a bit like saying because my neighbor ran over my dog, I'll then bulldoze his
house. Besides, the left and the press are supposed to be superior to the right and the unwashed
masses. They always fact-based, logical, reasonable, non-ideological, and consistent.
On the Big Ugly Lie*, what's their excuse?
* Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election, an attack on par with Pearl Harbor and
9/11.
Good domestic policy suggestions and debate skills. Horrible understanding of foreign policy
(he completely subscribes to the Russiagate hoax)
His capitulation to Hillary in 2016 still linger behind his back despite all bravado. he
betrayed his followers, many of who put money of this while being far from rich. he betrayed them
all. As such he does not deserve to run.
Warren and Tulsi are definitely better options then Sanders for 2020.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., became a household name in 2016 when he ran a progressive
campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination -- and came close to securing it. He's back
in the 2020 race, but this time up against more than 20 other candidates. Sanders sits down
with Judy Woodruff to discuss trade with China, health care, student debt, Russian election
interference and more.
Gene McCarthy back in the 60s said the media was like a flock of blackbirds -- when one lands on the line they all do, and
when one leaves the line they all leave. They arrived and left for Beto, and now Bootajudge is probably going to experience the
same thing.
What might actually happen is that DNC will declare that "no one" got enough votes and summarily pick whoever they want as
candidate possibly ByeDone (Biden-Harris combination is also in the cards). In any case DNC has history of dirty games and
that will persist.
Remember Beto? The guy who managed to
lose to Ted Cruz - a senator that even Republicans don't like? Did he ever feel like a
manufactured candidate to you?
Then you'll like the
New And Improved Beto .
Beto O'Rourke is reportedly planning to relaunch his 2020 presidential bid less than two
months after his record-breaking campaign launch.
In an acknowledgement that his campaign is stalling, the former Texas congressman is said to
be planning a "reintroduction" ahead of next month's Democratic presidential debate.
Nothing says "forgettable" like "reintroduction".
Speaking of forgettable, people have already
forgotten that they once supported him.
You can see O'Rourke's struggles most clearly in the polls. In an average of national polls
taken since Biden entered the race, O'Rourke has fallen to just below 5% support. That's the
lowest he has been since at least December.
But it's not just that O'Rourke has seen his numbers decline nationally -- it's that his
polls look even worse in the early caucus and primary states. I could not find a single poll
in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina conducted after Biden entered in which O'Rourke
polled above 3%. These, of course, are the states that O'Rourke has been visiting over and
over again throughout the last few months. It apparently hasn't done any good.
Another flavor-of-the-day candidate is Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
Mayor Pete came along months after Beto, so he is still in the getting-to-know-you stage for
most of the country.
However, people in
Indiana are already familiar with him.
Though Buttigieg is viewed favorably among voters in his party, the poll says former Vice
President Joe Biden "would cruise to a comfortable victory in Indiana." One-third of the
self-identifying Democrats who indicated they'd vote in next year's Democratic primary for
president said they'd vote for Biden, compared to 23% for Sanders and 20% for Buttigieg. An
additional 15% are undecided.
The margin of error for the entire poll was 3.46 percentage points. A spokesman for the
Buttigieg campaign declined to comment Thursday on the poll.
Coming in 3rd in your home state isn't very impressive.
Pete Buttigieg is
polling at 0% among black voters in South Carolina.
The third centrist on my list is Kamala Harris.
Her numbers might be the worst of
all .
Recent polls show Harris has dropped several points since her strong start to the race
earlier this year. Her support among nonwhite voters is relatively low at 4%, according to a
late April CNN poll, after former Vice President Joe Biden's entrance into the race late last
month. The CNN poll found Biden has 50% support among nonwhite voters.
When a woman-of-color can't get the support of women-of-color, she is sunk.
Gov. Gavin Newsom appears to have already jumped ship .
Newsom endorsed Harris on a Friday night in February. Most politicians dump bad news on
Friday nights. The two share the same political advisers, but Newsom delivered his nod
unceremoniously during an MSNBC interview. Now, he's cozying up to her rivals.
Why the hedging? For one thing, Newsom's an experienced politician. He knows it's smart to
keep a wide network of options. But Newsom's outburst of public praise for Harris' rivals
also reflects the fact that her White House campaign has encountered serious turbulence.
By the time the debates come around they may no longer be candidates anymore.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding
Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term
anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and
saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
It has become a cliché to quote William Butler Yeats’s poem “The
Second Coming,” written almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of World War I. But no one has said it better: “Things fall
apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, /
Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”
Donald Trump's decision to raise duties on Chinese goods from ten to 25 percent of additional $200 billion of China exports
came into force. It is unclear how this will work and how much the US consumers will pay. Probably half of this raise
so from 5% to 10% which might be not very noticeable outside such items as shoes and clothing. The cost of Chinese's shoes already
is quite high -- plastic regular $60-30 with discounts on holiday. Leather -- $100-$50 and almost no discounts.
Trump uses his favorite "bully in the schoolyard" style, a typical the American foreign policy tactic to direct, lawless
pressure. First, they accuse partners of violations, to introduce restrictions on this basis (and at the same time to plunge world
markets into panic), and then to agree on the resumption of negotiations. But the previous decisions about tariffs were left, of
course, in force.
His gambit to conclude a deal with North Korea collapsed in failure in Hanoi in February, and
it is a huge blow to his self-styled image of a master dealmaker. Trump also faces a flurry
of congressional subpoenas at home from Democrats who now control the House of
Representatives. Hence with mounting legal and political troubles, Trump is cornered and
desperately needs a conclusion to the prolonged trade war with China, which has netted zero
benefits for him.
The prospect of a trade deal with China remains as elusive as ever, despite Trump's
increased tariffs to pressure China to come to the negotiating table with the list of
concession that he wants. It is highly unlikely that China will grant Trump the concessions
he wants. China remembers clearly the deal that Tokyo concluded with Washington in the 1990s
that caused Japan to slip into economic stagnation for many years. That period has now been
dubbed Japan's "lost decade."
China is not dumb and it will not concede to Trump.
Worse still, the move to increase tariffs took place while Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He was
in Washington to negotiate with the Trump administration.
It is a blunder by Trump and will be perceived by the Chinese as a cheap shot against
President Xi Jinping. The tariffs hike came despite Xi's
"beautiful letter" to Trump, and it is a massive loss of face for the Chinese leader to
see his group of officials return home from Washington with no deal to conclude the trade
war.
Xi could not afford to look weak in front of his people and he knows that millions of
Chinese netizens access information about the outside world by using virtual private networks
(VPNs) to circumvent the Great Firewall. Many ordinary Chinese know about the trade war's
latest developments and should any deal with Trump infringe on China's core interests, it
will be political suicide for Xi.
One of the main reasons the US-China trade talks broke down was that Washington's demands
were unpalatable to China. Some of the demands from the US, such as an end to government
support for state companies in specific industries and a streamlined approval process for
genetically engineered US crops, are a direct challenge to the Communist Party of China's
control of the economy.
Since Xi took office, he has extended the party's reach into every corner of Chinese
society, and every businessman in China who aspires to reach the top of the hierarchy knows
that they must receive the blessing of the party. It is not surprising that even Jack Ma, who
is one of China's most internationally recognizable figures, has been revealed to be a member
of the CPC after years of denial.
Hence in the face of renewed pressure from Trump, Xi and the Chinese government have
reached the conclusion that it is better to bear the consequences of increased tariffs than
to concede to US demands.
Xi is in for the long haul and can well afford to ride out the storm. And based on Trump's
past negotiations such as his failed bid to pressure House Democrats to fund his wall on the
Mexican border, which led to the longest government shutdown in US history, Xi knows that the
chances are good that Trump will blink first.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Russian counterpart Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov discussed a broad number of security
related issues in Sochi on Tuesday ranging from nuclear arms control to ratcheting US tensions with Iran to Venezuela to Ukraine.
Importantly, the two top diplomats traded warnings against election meddling and interference in their respective countries -- though
we might add that Lavrov's message was packed with more sarcasm following the Mueller report clearing Trump of "collusion".
In response to Pompeo's reportedly warning Russia to never interfere in what he described as America's "sacred" elections, specifically
warning against any 2020 presidential election interference, Lavrov shot back with: "We can discuss this topic forever, but until
we have cold hard facts on the table, we cannot have a grown-up discussion about it," according to Russia's
RT .
Speaking to reporters afterward, Lavrov said proudly that he had handed Pompeo a "memorandum" on US interference in Russia but
didn't reveal its precise contents, only saying, "we're prepared to talk on this topic."
Though both expressed hope for improved ties between Washington and Moscow, Reuters characterized it as a testy and impatient
exchange :
Visiting Russia for the first time as secretary of state, Pompeo publicly clashed with Lavrov on issues from Ukraine to Venezuela.
After their meeting, both men said they had been far apart on many issues .
"I made clear to Foreign Minister Lavrov... that interference in American elections is unacceptable. If the Russians were engaged
in that in 2020 it would put our relationship in an even worse place than it has been ," he said.
"I'd encourage them not to do that. We would not tolerate that."
However, soon after the summit, Russian President Putin in public statements indicated his belief that "Trump is in the mood to
restore ties with Russia."
He also indicated it's his own desire to "fully restore" Russia-US ties, according to the AP, and interestingly also praised the
"quite objective" Mueller report in statements to reporters
.
"As you know, just a few days ago, I had the pleasure of talking with the US president on the phone," Putin told Pompeo during
the Tuesday summit in Sochi. "I got the impression that the [US] president was inclined to re-establish Russian-American relations
and contacts to resolve together the issues that are of mutual interest to us."
Pompeo, for his part, appeared to say as much following the meeting, saying, "The United States stands ready to find common ground
with Russia as long as the two of us can engage seriously on those issues."
President Trump has made clear that his expectation is that we will have an improved relationship between our two countries.
This will benefit each of our peoples. And I think that our talks here today were a good step in that direction.
However, Pompeo still went through a litany of disagreements he had with Russia, especially centering on multiple hot spots around
the globe where the Trump administration has exercised a big stick approach.
At Lavrov-Pompeo presser, around 28:30, Lavrov says something significant: Russia recently offered to publish info from a US-Russia
channel on cyberspace that he claims would address the allegations of Russian election meddling. He says the US declined:
https://t.co/o4MbqQlwCy
Below is a brief run-down of key points to the two briefed reporters on afterwards.
Nuclear treaty
At the top of the agenda, Lavrov signaled Russia could be open to a new arms control treaty after the recent US withdrawal from
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, countered by Russia suspending its obligations under the Reagan-era pact which
crucially served to keep missile build-up out of Europe.
Pompeo stressed China had to be part of any future sweeping deal, also considering rapid advances in defense technology. Lavrov
expressed hope that any future agreements will be "positively received by both nations."
The New START nuclear arms reduction treaty will expire in February of 2021, giving greater impetus for both sides to work through
the current impasse.
No common ground on Venezuela
Predictably the Venezuela hawk Pompeo slammed Russia's "interfering" in the Latin American country's internal affairs, adding
also to that list China, Cuba and Iran.
"Maduro has brought nothing but misery to the Venezuelan people," Pompeo stated. "We hope that Russian support for Maduro will
end." Lavrov defended the right of Venezuelans to choose their own president and refused to recognize US-declared "Interim President"
Juan Guaido.
"Democracy cannot be done by force," Lavrov told reporters. "The threats that we hear against the Maduro government, threats that
come from the mouths of US officials this has nothing in common with democracy."
* * *
No desire for war with Iran
"We fundamentally do not see a war with Iran," Secretary of State Pompeo said, but added: "We've made it clear to the Iranians
that if American interests are attacked, we will certainly respond in an appropriate fashion."
On Tuesday President Trump denied a prior
New York
Times report which alleged the White House was planning to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East should conflict erupt
between Iran and the United States. The president called the report "fake news" but still added that should war actually break out
he would send "a hell of a lot more," according to Reuters.
Lavrov stated that Russia hopes "reason will gain the upper hand," and added that Moscow opposed the US pullout of the 2015 Iran
nuclear deal (JCPOA), and further that Europe is right in attempting to stick to the deal.
Ukraine standoff
Pompeo informed Lavrov that the US hadn't budged in its position regarding Moscow's "illegal" annexation of the Crimea in 2014,
saying economic sanctions would remain in place until Russia reverses course.
Following the Ukrainian election of comedian turned unlikely politician Volodymyr Zelensky, Pompeo said Russia should now "work
with Ukraine's new president-elect to bring peace to eastern Ukraine," according to a paraphrase of Pompeo's words by Reuters, and
further that Russian authorities should release Ukrainian sailors captured in last year's dangerous
Kerch Strait incident .
In the midst of an interesting and wide-ranging discussion on the Joe Rogan Experience , Democratic
congresswoman and presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard said that if elected president she would
drop all charges against NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian
Assange.
"What would you do about Julian Assange? What would you do about Edward Snowden?"
Rogan asked in the latter
part of the episode.
"As far as dropping the charges?" Gabbard asked.
"If you're president of the world right now, what do you do?"
Rogan noted that Sweden's preliminary investigation of rape allegations
has just been re-opened , saying the US government can't stop that, and Gabbard said as
president she'd drop the US charges leveled against Assange by the Trump administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fNuZWQgkgc4
"Yeah," Gabbard said when asked to clarify if she was also saying that she'd give Edward
Snowden a presidential pardon, adding,
"And I think we've got to address why he did things the way that he did them. And you hear
the same thing from Chelsea Manning, how there is not an actual channel for whistleblowers
like them to bring forward information that exposes egregious abuses of our constitutional
rights and liberties. Period. There was not a channel for that to happen in a real way, and
that's why they ended up taking the path that they did, and suffering the consequences."
This came at the end of a lengthy
discussion about WikiLeaks and the dangerous legal precedent that the Trump administration
is setting for press freedoms by prosecuting Assange, as well as the revelations about NSA
surveillance and what can be done to roll back those unchecked surveillance powers.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
"What happened with [Assange's] arrest and all the stuff that just went down I think poses
a great threat to our freedom of the press and to our freedom of speech," Gabbard said.
"We look at what happened under the previous administration, under Obama. You know, they
were trying to find ways to go after Assange and WikiLeaks, but ultimately they chose not to
seek to extradite him or charge him, because they recognized what a slippery slope that
begins when you have a government in a position to levy criminal charges and consequences
against someone who's publishing information or saying things that the government doesn't
want you to say , and sharing information the government doesn't want you to share. And so
the fact that the Trump administration has chosen to ignore that fact, to ignore how
important it is that we uphold our freedoms, freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and
go after him, it has a very chilling effect on both journalists and publishers. And you can
look to those in traditional media and also those in new media, and also every one of us as
Americans. It was a kind of a warning call, saying Look what happened to this guy. It could
happen to you. It could happen to any one of us."
Gabbard discussed Mike Pompeo's arbitrary designation of WikiLeaks as a hostile non-state
intelligence service, the fact that James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance as
Director of National Intelligence yet suffered no consequences and remains a respected TV
pundit, and the opaque and unaccountable nature of FISA warrants.
Some other noteworthy parts of Gabbard's JRE appearance for people who don't have time to
watch the whole thing, with hyperlinks to the times in the video:
Rogan gets Gabbard talking
in depth about what Bashar al-Assad was actually like when she met him and what he said
to her, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone bother to do before.
The two discuss
Eisenhower's famous speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, and
actually pause their dialogue to watch a good portion of it. Gabbard points out that in the
original draft of the speech, Eisenhower had intended to call it the
"congressional-military-industrial complex".
Rogan asks Gabbard what
she thinks happens to US presidents that causes them to fail to enact their campaign promises
and capitulate to the will of the warmongering establishment, and what as president she'll do
to avoid the same fate. All presidential candidates should have to answer this question.
Rogan asks Gabbard how
she'll stand against the billionaires for the American people without getting assassinated.
All presidential candidates should have to answer this question as well.
I honestly think the entire American political system would be better off if the phoney
debate stage format were completely abandoned and presidential candidates just talked
one-on-one with Joe Rogan for two and a half hours instead. Cut through all the vapid posturing
and the fake questions about nonsense nobody cares about and get them to go deep with a normal
human being who smokes pot and curses and does sports commentary for cage fighting. Rogan asked
Gabbard a bunch of questions that real people are interested in, in a format where she was
encouraged to relax out of her standard politician's posture and discuss significant ideas
sincerely and spontaneously. It was a good discussion with an interesting political figure and
I'm glad it's already racked up hundreds of thousands of views.
* * *
Everyone has my
unconditional permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I've
written) in any way they like free of charge. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying
my new book Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . The best way to get around the internet censors
and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I'm
trying to do with this platform,
click here .
Attorney general 'should make this call' over Ukraine ties Schiff says president targeting
'most formidable opponent'
Giuliani told the Guardian he and Trump agreed that the attorney general should decide
whether US investigators ought to look into a lucrative business deal in Ukraine obtained by Biden's son while
Biden was vice-president.
"I believe the president has the same view that I have – that the attorney general
should make this call," Giuliani said.
Hailing Barr as "independent, brilliant and honest", Giuliani added: "I can't tell Attorney
General Barr what to do. He's a very, very fine lawyer. My experience with him is that he's a
very honorable man, and he will do the right thing."
... ... ...
Giuliani has been working to resurface allegations that Biden improperly used
his position as Barack Obama's "point man" on Ukraine to help the business career of his
younger son, Hunter, a corporate lawyer and former reservist in the US navy.
Biden has publicly boasted that in 2015 he threatened to withhold US aid to Ukraine, as a
way to help oust the country's top prosecutor. Giuliani claims Biden did so because the
prosecutor had been investigating a gas company that was paying Hunter Biden as a director. The
investigation was dropped.
The Bidens strenuously deny any connection. They are
supported by prominent anti-corruption campaigners in Ukraine, who say the prosecutor,
Viktor Shokin, was simply failing to thoroughly investigate corruption among the country's
elite and deserved to be fired.
In 2015 , when questions about the situation first arose, a spokeswoman for the Bidens
said: "Hunter Biden is a private citizen and a lawyer. The vice-president does not endorse any
particular company and has no involvement with this company."
Here's a summary of the day thus far: Donald Trump praised attorney
general William Barr for opening what appears to be a broad investigation of the Russia
counterespionage investigation that swept up the Trump campaign. Barr appointed a US attorney
to lead the inquiry and reportedly has got the CIA and DNI involved.
Senator Elizabeth Warren took a "hard pass" on an offer to do a Fox News town hall event,
calling the network "hate-for-profit".
"... While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena. ..."
"... Jewish writer David Cole recently questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism. He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters ..."
"... In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations. ..."
Despite the Jewish domination of the American Left in the post-War period, Mendes notes that "most Americans do not appear to
have adhered to the same anti-Semitic assumptions about Jewish links with communism that dominated public opinion in parts of Europe."
[80] Ibid .,
229.
(Philip Mendes, Jews and the Left: The Rise and Fall of a Political Alliance (Melbourne, Victoria; Palgrave MacMillian, 2014),
250.) As evidence of this, Mendes cites the decidedly muted public response to the conviction and execution of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg for selling atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Despite the recognizably Jewish identity of the couple (given their name)
and of all of their co-conspirators (David Greenglass, Ruth Greenglass, and Morton Sobell), and the fact the Rosenberg spy network
consisted almost exclusively of Jews from the Lower East Side of Manhattan, the case "provoked remarkably little overt anti-Semitism."
[81] Ibid .,
230. Nor, he observes, did the "significant number of Jews -- including teachers and Hollywood actors -- who were victims of anti-communist
purges" and the prominence of Jews amongst those subpoenaed by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, lead to a significant
reaction. All public opinion polls conducted during this period showed a consistent decline in "anti-Semitism," and only a small
minority of those surveyed (about 5 percent) identified Jews with communism.
[82] Ibid .
The lack of any real backlash to Jewish prominence in the New Left is ascribed to various factors: that many members of the public
were not aware of the Jewish background of many of the radical leaders; that these Jewish radicals were ostensibly "not campaigning
about any specifically Jewish issues that would have focused attention on Jews per se;" and to the "general decline in anti-Semitism
since World War Two."
[83] Ibid .,
257. This latter shift in public opinion (unsurprisingly) coincided with the Jewish seizure of the commanding heights of American
(and Western) culture in the 1960s, and the growing emergence of the culture of "the Holocaust." The combined effect was to banish
overt critical discussion of Jewish power to the margins of public discourse. While Americans rejected communist activities during
the Cold War, unlike in Europe, they did not widely equate communism with Jews (at least publicly), or view Jewish participation
in leftist politics with particular concern.
Neoconservatism
Neoconservative leaders were among those who feared that the Jewish prominence in the New Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s
would fuel a conservative backlash against Jewish radicalism. For example, Norman Podhoretz, the editor of
Commentary magazine, attacked leading Jewish
leftists as alleged self-hating Jews and completely unrepresentative of the Jewish community.
[84] Ibid .,
22.
Mendes ascribes the defection of many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism in the 1970s to a growing misalignment between
modern Leftist politics and Jewish ethnic interests: the key factor being "the creation of the State of Israel which transformed
Jewish dependence from international to national forces."
[85] Ibid .,
viii. With the advent of the state of Israel, Jewish interests were no longer exclusively represented by the universalistic agendas
of the Left. According to Mendes: "Most Jews have lost their faith in universalistic causes because they do not perceive the Left
as supportive of Jewish interests, and have turned instead to nationalist solutions."
[86] Ibid .,
235.
The creation of a Jewish national entity featuring (thanks to US taxpayers) a strong and powerful army meant that Jews all over
the world could look to the Zionist state to safeguard their interests, rather than depending on internationalist movements and ideologies
(i.e. communism and the Soviet Union) which had often proven to be unreliable allies. Even many left-wing Jews, who might have been
anti-Zionist prior to World War Two, shifted their position after the birth of Israel. For example, the long-time Austrian Jewish
leftist Jean Amery commented in 1976:
There is a very deep tie and existential bond between every Jew and the State of Israel Jews feel bound to the fortunes and
misfortunes of Israel, whether they are religious Jews or not, whether they adhere to Zionism or reject it, whether they are newly
arrived in their host countries or deeply rooted there The Jewish State has taught all the Jews of the world to walk with their
head high once more Israel is the virtual shelter for all of the insulted and injured Jews of the earth.
[87] Ibid
., 236-37
The perceived anti-Zionism of the New Left from the 1967 onwards served to alienate many Jews and confirm their commitment to nationalist,
rather than internationalist solutions. An additional factor was the 1967 Six Day War in the Middle East, which provoked fears of
"another Holocaust," and galvanized even non-Zionist Jews in support of Israel. There were rallies in support of Israel throughout
the Western world accompanied by large donations. American Jews held massive fundraising campaigns and reportedly raised 180 million
dollars. Numerous volunteers travelled to Israel to support the Jewish State. In Australia, more than 20 per cent of a total Jewish
population of 34,000 in Melbourne -- attended a public rally to express their support for Israel, and 2500 attended a youth rally.
750 young Jews volunteered to go to Israel. According to Taft,
there was a widespread, almost universal, absorption in the Middle East Crisis of June among the Jews of Melbourne. This absorption
took the form of extreme concern about the safety of Israel, emotional upsets, obsessive seeking of news, constant discussion
of events and taking spontaneous actions to support Israel's cause.
[88] Ibid
., 238.
The rise of left-wing anti-Zionism after the Six Day War furthered alienated sections of Western Jewry from the social democratic
Left. Another factor that pushed American Jews in a neoconservative direction, identified by Mendes, was the decline in Black–Jewish
relations. The emergence of the Black Power movement in the mid-1960s led to the removal of Jews from the leadership of organizations
like the NAACP. Black hostility was viewed by some Jews as evidence of the failure of the strategy of courting non-White groups to
advance Jewish interests. This ostensible failure prompted many Jews to concentrate on a narrower ethnic self-interest in the future.
[89] Ibid .,
243.
This, in turn, contributed to the creation of "pragmatic alliances" with conservative political parties such as the Republicans
and evangelical groups such as Christians United for Israel which "have been consistent supporters of Israel in the USA." An associated
factor was that pro-Israel perspectives within Western countries increasingly emanated from mainstream conservatives, rather than
from the moderate or radical Left. This occurred despite "many in these groups hold socially conservative views on issues such as
abortion, homosexuality, the environment, multiculturalism, state support for the poor and disadvantaged, and refugees, which are
anathema to many Jews."
[90] Ibid .,
287.
Mendes makes the point that "These alliances were based solely on the latter's position of support for Israel, irrespective of
their conservative views on social issues such as abortion, homosexuality and the welfare state, which were often sharply at odds
with the more liberal opinions of most Jews."
[91] Ibid .,
239.
Despite the defection on many Jews from the radical left to neoconservatism, the great majority of American Jews still see their
ethnic interests as basically aligning with the Democratic Party. Their willingness to prioritize their ethnic interests over their
personal economic interests is reflected in the fact that "high numbers of affluent Jews compared to others of the same socioeconomic
status still vote for moderate left parties that do not seem to favor their economic interests." Today, the structural factors which
historically drew many Jews to the Left no longer exist. Most Jews sit comfortably in middle- or even higher-income categories. This
"middle-classing" of Jews throughout the West has meant that the "Jewish proletariat that motivated Jewish identification with left-wing
beliefs no longer exists."
[92] Ibid .,
239. Consequently, "the specific link between Jewish experience of class oppression and adherence to left-wing ideology has ended."
[93] Ibid .,
241.
Most Western Jews still support parties on the Left
Despite the widespread break with the radical Left over support for Israel, Jews nevertheless remain
a “massively significant presence” in the Left in terms of their numbers and fundraising, their organizational capacity, and their
impact on popular culture.[94]Ibid.,
287. It was estimated that about a quarter of the world’s leading Marxist and radical intellectuals in the 1980s
were still Jews, including Ernest Mandel, Nathan Weinstock, Maxime Rodinson, Noam Chomsky, Marcel Liebman, Ralph Miliband, and the
founder of deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. Despite continuing to comprise much of the intellectual and financial backbone of
the Left, today’s Jews, “an influential and sometimes powerful group, with substantial access to politics, academia and the media,”
no longer must “rely on the Left to defend their interests and wellbeing.”[95]Ibid.,
286.
The primary reason most Western Jews still vote overwhelmingly
for parties on the left is the perceived threat posed by the “social conservatism” of parties further to the right of the political
spectrum in nations whose majorities are European-derived and nominally at least Christian:
With the possible exception of ultra-orthodox groups, Jews
seem to prefer social liberal positions on issues such as religious pluralism, abortion, feminism, illicit drugs, same-sex marriage,
the science of climate change and euthanasia. Another significant factor is the long history of Christian anti-Semitism has led
Jews to remain suspicious of any attempts by Christian religious groups to undermine the separation of church and state. This
fear of organized religion [and of the White people who practice it] seems to explain the continued strong support of American
Jews for the Democratic Party in presidential elections. A further complicating factor is the growing universalization of Jewish
teachings and values, including the lessons of the Holocaust, in support of social liberal perspectives. … For example, Berman
(2006) presents evidence that the younger Jewish generation in Australia have been influenced by the experience of the Holocaust
into taking a strong stand against any forms of racial or religious discrimination. Many are active in campaigns for indigenous
rights, and to support refugees from Afghanistan, Sudan, and Middle Eastern countries seeking asylum in Australia.[96]Ibid.,
288-89.
This advocacy is, of course, entirely hypocritical and cynical.
While promoting pluralism and diversity and encouraging the dissolution of the racial and ethnic identification of Europeans, Jews
have simultaneously endeavored to maintain precisely the kind of intense group solidarity they decry as immoral in others and the
great majority support an ethno-nationalist Israel. They have initiated and led movements that have discredited the traditional foundations
of Western society: patriotism, the Christian basis for morality, social homogeneity, and sexual restraint. At the same time, within
their own communities, they have supported the very institutions they have attacked in Western societies. This is ruthless, uncompromising
Darwinian group competition played out in the human cultural arena.
The ideological preoccupations of organized Jewry today are
reflected in comments by
Boston Globe writer, S.I. Rosenbaum, who insisted the main lesson of “the Holocaust” is “that white supremacy could
turn on us at any moment,” and the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in
Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” The central question of Jewish political
engagement in Western societies, she insists, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American
Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.”
Presiding over a coalition of non-Whites groups to actively oppose White interests is the Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If
Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”
Jewish writer David Cole recently
questioned the wisdom of this strategy of using non-Whites as “golem” to protect the Jews from a recrudescence of National Socialism.
He notes that many of the Jews’ non-White pets (like Ilhan Omar) have a disconcerting tendency to turn on their Jewish masters:
For decades, leftist Jews have been flooding the West with
Third World immigrants, “Hey here’s a plan—lets dump a hundred thousand Somalis in the whitest parts of the U.S.
That’ll
save us from Fargo Hitler!” Inundating the West with non-White immigrants is seen by Jews as an insurance policy against “white
supremacy.” The idea is that these immigrants will act as a wedge, diluting “white power” while remaining small enough to be manageable.
Jews have done this everywhere—playing two groups against
each other as a way of assuring Jewish security. Let’s play Hamas against the Palestinian authority. Let’s play ISIS against Assad.
… But today we live in a world in which even the lowliest bark-eater in the Kalahari can have internet access. It’s not as easy
to fool entire groups anymore (individuals, sure, but not an entire race, ethnicity or faction). …
And now we Jews, so worried that Minnesota might become the
Frozen Fourth Reich if left in the hands of evil whites, have created for ourselves a good old-fashioned golem in Ilhan Omar (and
a bunch of the other Third World freshman congressthingies). Yeah, Omar hates whites. Yeah, she thinks white supremacy lurks behind
every glass of milk and “OK” finger sign. But she hates Jews a hell of a lot more…
In a perfect world, the Rabbinical Rain Men would finally
get the fuck over the Holocaust and end their war of hostility against the West. They’d see that whites are no longer the enemy,
but indeed the opposite. They’d see that importing foreign mud to mold golem in traditionally white regions of the U.S is bad
strategy.
In the minds of Jewish leaders and activists nurtured since birth on the cult of “the Holocaust,” White nationalism
is still the most ominous threat to Jewish survival. This is reflected in the unquestioning commitment of the vast majority of Jewish
activists and intellectuals (Cole excepted) to mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism in all historically White nations.
Conclusion
While Jews and the Left offers a useful catalogue
of Jewish involvement in radical political movements throughout the world over the last two centuries, it recycles many of the same
apologetic tropes that permeate the work of other Jewish historians and intellectuals. Mendes mischaracterizes the Jewish identity
and affiliations of important Jewish communist leaders (like Lazar Kaganovich), and offers no examination of their often-murderous
actions. He provides feeble apologies for the Jewish practices that engendered hostility among the native peasantry in the Pale of
Settlement. The inherent weakness of his position necessitates specious argumentation and desperate resort to that evergreen of Jewish
apologetic historiography: the innate irrationality and malevolence of the European mind and character. This is the invariable fallback
position in any quest to exculpate Jews from responsibility for the crimes of communism in the Soviet Union and throughout Eastern
Europe. Though less inclined than Brossat and Klingberg in Revolutionary Yiddishland to glorify Jewish communist militants,
Mendes is equally keen to evade, whitewash and excuse disproportionate Jewish involvement in some of the worst crimes of the twentieth
century.
Trump provided to be another Obama -- master of "bait and switch". His promise to disengage from foreign wars remains an
unfulfilled promise. Due to thefact that he is owned by pro-Israel lobby he broung into his administrations such rabid neocons as
chickenhawk Bolton and smug ruthless careerist masquerading as
far-right zealot as Pompeo (and before them Haley). His promises to raise the standard of living of middles
class (which is impossible without cutting the military budget) remains fake. He is a fake. The second fake after obama --
Republican Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April 2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military budget was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for 72 percent of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come. ..."
"... According to The Guardian, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and allocates $750bn to the military. In other words, out of every taxpayer dollar, 62 cents go to the military and Department of Homeland Security and seven cents to Veterans affairs. It leaves just 31 cents for all the rest: education, job training, community economic development, housing, safe drinking water and clear air, health and science research and the prevention of war through diplomacy and humanitarian aid. ..."
"... In 2017, US spent US$ 685,957 billion with 3.6 of its GDP on military spending while the UK stood second at US$ 55,237 billion with 2.1 per cent of GDP. France and Germany allocated US$ 45,927 billion and 45,472 billion respectively with 1.8 and 1.2 percent of their GDPs. The NATO member states are pressured for raising their defense spending to 2 percent and gradually up to 4 percent in five years. ..."
While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April
2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit
pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military budget
was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for 72 percent
of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come.
According to The Guardian, Trump takes more than $1tn in taxpayer money and allocates $750bn
to the military. In other words, out of every taxpayer dollar, 62 cents go to the military and
Department of Homeland Security and seven cents to Veterans affairs. It leaves just 31 cents
for all the rest: education, job training, community economic development, housing, safe
drinking water and clear air, health and science research and the prevention of war through
diplomacy and humanitarian aid.
The Trump budget finds vast billions for militarization, while it cuts "smaller" poverty
alleviation projects and other programs, claiming the goal is to save money.
Rutherford Institute's founder and director John W. WhiteHead writes in his institute's
website that the American nation is being preyed upon by a military industrial complex that is
propped up by war profiteers, corrupt politicians and foreign governments. He remarks:
"Don't be fooled into thinking that your hard-earned tax dollars are being used for
national security and urgent military needs".
He writes "you know what happens to tax dollars that are left over at the end of the
government's fiscal year? Government agencies – including the Department of Defense
– go on a 'use it or lose it' spending spree so they can justify asking for money in the
next fiscal year".
"We are talking about $97 billion worth of wasteful spending"
He maintains that the nation's educational system is pathetic, the infrastructure is
antiquated and growing more outdated by the day and the health system is overpriced and
inaccessible to those who need it most.
The tax cuts on super-rich, outflow of huge sums in interest payment for debt and more
spending are plunging the US economy into a new crisis, according to many authors. The US
economy faces a deficit which means the spending especially on military and defence is far
exceeding the tax revenues.
In 2017, US spent US$ 685,957 billion with 3.6 of its GDP on military spending while the UK
stood second at US$ 55,237 billion with 2.1 per cent of GDP. France and Germany allocated US$
45,927 billion and 45,472 billion respectively with 1.8 and 1.2 percent of their GDPs. The NATO
member states are pressured for raising their defense spending to 2 percent and gradually up to
4 percent in five years.
According to a study regarding world powers' overseas military bases
China retains twelve military bases;
France runs nine military bases including in Germany, Lebanon and UAE;
Germany has two military bases in France and United States;
India has seven bases including in Tajikistan and Maldives;
Israel possesses one military base in Syria's Golan Heights;
Pakistan has a military center with 1,180 personnel in Saudi Arabia;
Russia runs eight military facilities including in Armenia, Georgia, Syria and some
Central Asian countries;
UK controls ten military bases including in Bahrain, Canada, Germany, Singapore and
Qatar;
t he US is leading nearly 800 military bases across the world that run in full swing with
the highest budget.
In other words, the US possesses up to 95 per cent of the world's military bases . The
Department of Defense says that its locations include 164 countries. Put another way, it has a
military presence of some sort in approximately 84 percent of the nations on this
planet.
The annual cost of deploying US military personnel overseas, as well as maintaining and
running those foreign bases, tops out at an estimated US$ 150 billion annually. The US bases
abroad cost upwards of US$ 50 billion only for building and maintenance, which is enough to
address pressing needs at home in education, health care, housing and infrastructure.
In 2017 and 2018, the world's largest military spenders were the United States, China, Saudi
Arabia, Russia and India. The UK took over France as sixth largest spender in 2018 while Japan
and Germany stood at eighth and ninth positions.
In early 2018, Pentagon released a report saying that Afghan war costs US$ 45 billion to
taxpayers in the preceding year. Of this amount, US$ 5 billion has been spent on Afghan forces,
US$ 13 billion towards US forces in Afghanistan and the rest on economic aid.
But these costs are far lower than the time when the US military was highly engaged in
Afghanistan. With nearly 100,000 soldiers in the country from 2010 to 2012, the price for
American taxpayers surpassed US$ 100 billion each year. For now, there are around 16,000 US
troops in Afghanistan. Despite hundreds of billions of dollars have gone into Afghanistan, the
US admits it failed in war against militants in Afghanistan.
In November 2018, another study published by CNBC reported that America has spent US$ 5.9
trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001 including in Afghanistan, Iraq and
Syria. The study also reveals that more than 500,000 people have been killed in the wars and
nearly 10 million people have been displaced due to violence.
The US has reportedly spent US$ 1.07 trillion in Afghanistan since 2001 which include
Overseas Contingency Operations funds dedicated to Afghanistan, costs on the base budget of the
Department of Defense and increase to the budget of the Department of Veteran Affairs.
In Afghanistan, the US costs of war in 2001 commenced with US$ 37.3 billion that soared to
US$ 57.3 billion in 2007 and US$ 100 billion in 2009. The year with record spending was 2010
with US$ 112.7 billion that slightly plummeted to US$ 110.4 billion in 2011 but took downwards
trend in the later years.
Due to skyrocketing military costs on the US government, Trump Administration recently
decided to pack up some of its military bases in Afghanistan and Middle East to diminish
expenditures, though it doesn't mean the wars would end at all.
According to Afghanistan Analysts Network, the US Congress has appropriated more than US$
126 billion in aid for Afghanistan since financial year 2002, with almost 63 percent for
security and 28 percent for development and the remainder for civilian operations, mostly
budgetary assistance and humanitarian aid. Alongside the US aid, many world countries have
pumped millions of dollars in development aids, but what is evident for insiders and outsiders
is that a trickle of those funds has actually gone into Afghanistan's reconstruction.
With eighteen years into Afghan war, the security is deteriorating; Afghan air force is
ill-equipped; poppy cultivation is on the rise; roads and highways are dilapidated or
unconstructed; no mediocre hospital and health care has been established; weekly conflict
causalities hit 150-250; electricity is still imported from Central Asian countries; economy
remains dependent upon imports; unemployment rate is at its peak; more than three quarters of
population live under poverty line and many, many more miseries persist or aggravate.
The US boasts of being the largest multi-billion dollar donor for Afghanistan, but if one
takes a deeper look at the living standards of majority and the overall conditions, it can be
immediately grasped that less than half of that exaggerated fund has been consumed. The US-made
government of Afghanistan has deliberately been left behind to rank as the first corrupt
country in the world. Thanks to the same unaddressed pervasive corruption, a hefty amount of
that fund has been either directed back to the US hands or embezzled by senior Afghan
officials.
Afghanistan's new Living Conditions Survey shows that poverty is more widespread today than
it was immediately after the fall of Taliban regime, or in other words, in the early days of US
invasion.
Next month, Kabul will host a Consultative Loya Jirga attended by around 2,000
representatives from Afghanistan which will cost the Afghan Ministry of Finance AF 369 million
(equivalent to five million US$). Even as the past has proved that these events are only
symbolic and further complicating the achievement of peace, a country with great majority under
poverty line doesn't deserve to organize such costly gatherings.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Masud Wadan is a geopolitical analyst based in Kabul. He is a frequent contributor to
Global Research.
Important interview with Tucker (this video contain a large fragment) and an interesting discussions.
Notable quotes:
"... Left or Right, you cannot question Gabbard's patriotism and intelligence and in-depth knowledge on war issues. Great candidate. ..."
"... She is an amazing diplomat - I support her 100% ..."
"... The way she conducts herself is an inspiration. I really like her. ..."
"... Just donated to Tulsi. We need her anti-imperialism on the mainstream debate stage. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard is the only one I have seen who isn't an overly hyberbolic shill. She embodies the concept of "speak softly and carry a big stick". ..."
"... Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this? Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House. ..."
Wow!! The sound of the voice of common sense & truth, for a change. I don't care if
she is Democrat or Republican ... this lady is voicing what the majority of people actually
think & believe.
Holly shit, I've never seen anyone on Fox News let their guest talk as much this?
Especially Tucker being so calm, this makes me feel good. It must be Tulsi's vibe, someone as
diplomatic and disciplined as her must be running the White House.
Warren definitely have the courage to put forward those important proposals. Lobbyists like
Cory Booker of course attack them.
Notable quotes:
"... It's called Anti-Trust laws not her "opinions"... ..."
"... Let's be honest, Booker isn't fit to shine Warren's shoes! I wonder if Cory's ass is jealous of all the shit that just came out of his mouth!! SMDH ..."
"... CB bought and paid for by drug companies. Of course he doesn't like Warren. But ask him about Americans right to free speech and he puts after the needs of any foriegn country ..."
"... He who looks like a slick bouncer for the big money monopolies, is looking to get a piece of it ..."
Cory- .Most Americans will NOT think you are Presidential Caliber.Where's the MONEY coming
from? Small donor contributions? I don't even think you'll get the Black & hispanic
vote.Why do this?
You are stealing the votes from way more qualified candidates. Bad idea if
you want to have Democratic POTUS in 2020
CB bought and paid for by drug companies. Of course he doesn't like Warren. But ask him
about Americans right to free speech and he puts after the needs of any foriegn
country
After that Trump remark, Cory can bite my butt. Whatever disagreements I may have with
Warren, she has some very daring, intelligent, and discussion-worthy policies. We need her in
the next administration, whether as potus or in the cabinet. Sheesh, Cory, burn your bridges,
sir.
Tulsi found an interesting way to stress he foreign policy credential -- The US President is
the Commander in Chief of the Nation.
Notable quotes:
"... Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid, and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement. ..."
"... I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the shining light that makes it happen. ..."
Ever since Tulsi Gabbard was first elected to Congress in 2012, she has been assertively
independent, heterodox, unpredictable, and polarizing. Viewed at first as a loyal Democrat and
guaranteed future star by party leaders -- due to her status as an Iraq War veteran, a
telegenic and dynamic young woman, and the first Hindu and Samoan American ever elected to
Congress -- she has instead become a thorn in the side, and frequent critic, of those same
party leaders that quickly anointed her as the future face of the party.
Gabbard's transformation from cherished party asset to party critic and outcast was rapid,
and was due almost entirely to her insistence on following her own belief system and evolving
ideology rather than party dogma and the long-standing rules for Washington advancement.
Glenn Greenwald sat down with Rep. Tulsi Gabbard to discuss a wide range of issues,
including the reasons she is running for president, her views on Trump's electoral appeal and
what is necessary to defeat it, the rise of right-wing populism internationally, the
Trump/Russia investigation, criticisms she has received regarding her views of Islam and
certain repressive leaders, and her unique foreign policy viewpoints.
This interview is intended to be the first in a series of in-depth interviews with
influential and interesting U.S. political figures, including but not limited to 2020
presidential candidates, designed to enable deeper examinations than the standard cable or
network news format permits.
I am Norwegian. I want to interfere in the next american presidential election. I want
Tulsi Gabbard as the next president of the USA. Love from Norway!
I'm a 70+ veteran who has never voted for a Democrat in my life. Tulsi Gabbard is the
best, most qualified, most eloquent and thoughtful presidential candidate of my lifetime. She
will catch on, and the MSM which hates her (they all get tons of money and support from war
industry, Big Pharma, Big Ag, etc.), will try to ignore her or smear her, but in the end they
will fail. She makes sense, and they don't. Regime change wars must end. Tulsi will be the
shining light that makes it happen.
How many presidential candidates have the guts to sit down for an interview with Glenn
Greenwald? Only one. Tulsi Gabbard. Excellent (and very challenging) questions from Greenwald
-- great responses from Gabbard.
Any candidate the Intercept finds worth interviewing is worth my time to look into. Still
a bit nervous about her glorification of military service but overall...
Great interview! Asked many questions I wanted to hear answers to. Gives a great sense of
Tulsi and where she stands on many issues with emphasis on foreign policy that seems to be
ignored everywhere else. Thank you Glenn.
Thank you for asking the tough questions Glenn. I really like Tulsi but the Modi questions
had been long in the waiting. I'm glad she answered them the way she did.
Tulsi is one in a generation natural born diplomat !!! She found an interesting way to stress the value of her foreign policy
credentials (which in general are not valued much by the US voters, who concentrate on internal problems) -- The US
President is the Commander in Chief of the Nation.
For the majority of Americans Tulsi stands out. There's no one coming even close. Bernie is a good talker, but totally
untrustworthy against DNC (folded in 2016 without a fight) as well as Israel's military aid and wars in ME.
Tulsi represents profiles in courage. She makes establishment candidate like Kamala look wanting. Of course the have support
of neoliberal MSM, while Tulsi is ignored. Even Democratic establishment (read neocons) are hostile toward Tulsi. Implicitly they
behave like "we don't want her muddying the waters".
Unfortunately there is a strong possibility that Tulsi will not be given a fair chance, the DNC under chairman Perez will
stick to party hierarchy even if he claims otherwise....
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi is the only candidate in my lifetime who has had an actual demeanor worthy of global leadership. ..."
"... I LOVE her demeanor. She handles herself so well. She is calm & wise & fair. She will run circles @ the debates & not break a sweat! ..."
"... i am 76 and have never seen a politician of her caliber! ..."
"... So much capital was wasted on RussiaGate, but a totally legit SaudiGate scandal went ignored. 😔 ..."
"... TuIsi is in a league of her own. We are blessed. ..."
Democrats don't want auditable elections because they're in on election fraud in the
districts of the party elites. Wasserman-Schultz is the queen of the sleazes.
Niko- I have a line of questions I'm hoping you will address with Kulinski tomorrow &
if it doesn't align with your perspective I respect that it's not something you want to ask
& I'd be interested in hearing from you directly why you view it differently: I'm
increasingly concerned over the weak opposition by many Sanders supporters over many of his
positions these last few years.
It appears to me that Medicare for All has taken precedent
over fighting the military industrial complex & the millions of lives abroad affected by
it. This is not a trade-off for voters like me. It is true that he is better than most &
he has a strong background but he used to push for 3rd parties. This has changed along with
many other issues & I think anyone being honest with themselves know this to be true.
Beyond the excuses for his endorsement of Kissinger's proTPP Clinton, he has whitewashed
Bush/Cheney, called Mad Dog Mattis "the adult in the room", gone along with Russiagate &
even suggested some of his followers on Facebook were Russian trolls, given lipservice to the
Venezuelan "humanitarian aid", been silent on Assange, & repeatedly ignored his base on
all of the above. My questions are: How can progressives like this honestly trust Sanders to
fight for truth on these fronts?
Why is getting Medicare for All more important than fighting
against endless war? Is it possible that progressive media has done a disservice to electoral
progress by framing it as Sanders being cheated in 2016 & not emphasizing that it was a
greater betrayal of the VOTERS who were cheated? Saying that they will continue to push back
on him in these areas where he is wrong strikes me as completely baseless given their
inability to sway him these last few years. I'm tired of excuses & hoping for better
answers than "it's his turn", "he had to tow the line", or "that's for Tulsi as VP/Secretary
of State to do". Please & thank you!
Do a 1 to 2 minute setup, show the main piece/clip, then pontificate/summarize. I got so
bored I left the PC, made coffee, came back and you still hadn't got to the point of the
video 5 mins in. If you're doing a long-form stream then go with whatever. For these shorter
topical videos you need a shorter intro or need to cut out the filler in the edit process.
The long setup and unnecessary dramatic effect pauses will only irritate people that just
want the important part of what you're presenting.
I think support for Tulsi and Bernie can (and should) be congruent, especially since
ideally for me, they are both on that ticket. Not gonna lie, I want him on the helm of it,
but that's because then she gets a shot at a 10-year presidency. We need them both in that
admin ASAP. Their policies are complimentary, not juxtaposed. They only make each other
stronger. It's not a binary. I would be emphatic to vote for either one of them.
If she is
still competitive on super Tuesday, she has my vote. Otherwise, I think if she does not carry
the torch to the end, we need to be prepared to aggressively throw our weight behind Bernie
Sanders in a stronger way than 2016. (I also like Marianne Williamson, but I don't think
that's gonna happen.She got my dollar.)
We cannot roll over again. If they nominate Beto or
Kamala or Booker, we have to walk. In droves. Bearing in mind 4 more years of Trump is better
than 40 more years of being exploited by the democratic party for votes while not being
heard. It's effectively (and literally) taxation without representation. It's aristocracy.
It's bullshit. And if they nominate a moderate, we're gonna know they didn't fucking get it
before.
Commentators like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson appeal to people who don't have the
intellectual capacity to know that they're being lied to by pseudo-intellectuals. I knew
Jordan Peterson was one of these, when I first heard his analysis of Dostoevsky's "Notes From
Underground," one of my favorite novels.
I love your show brother. I found #Tulsi2020 because of Bari
smearing her on jre. That led me to your show. Thanks for the help! Keep up the hard work.
#Tulsi2020
John
Doe1 day ago
What a true patriotic compassionate leader. Easily has my vote
111 112
View 15 replies Hide replies John Doe1 day
ago She can show the world how to lead. Tulsi 2020!!!!
58 59
View reply Hide replies Merwin ARTist1 day
ago Tulsi is awesome .. appreciate what she has to say about stopping these foolish regime
change wars! Respect!!! Tulsi2020
63 64
View reply Hide replies Fellow Citizen1
day ago They are terrified of Tulsi because they know that if people hear her they will
automatically vote for her. Tulsi: "...honour, respect, and integrity..." "Journalists":
"[clears throat at the prospect of competing on a fair playing-field]"
75 76
View 10 replies Hide replies Freedom Tribe1 day
ago Time is running out. We need this woman to lead us into the next epoch.
38 39
View reply Hide replies MR BOSTON1 day
ago I voted for trump but I would vote for her in a heart beat
57 58
View 6 replies Hide replies MoMo Bronx1 day
ago You just don't get more real than Tulsi I hope she win,the world need real
Leadership
31 32 Peace Harmony1 day
ago Tulsi is one of the few Democrats who isn't too scared to go on FOX News. And she is a
great candidate! A true patriot.
View 13 replies Hide replies Kedaar Iyer1 day
ago Make sure to get her to 100,000 individual donors so that she can be on the debate
stage!
www.tulsi2020.com
25 26
View 2 replies Hide replies lendallpitts1 day
ago Tulsi Gabbard is the most presidential of all of the candidates.
11 12 John Doe1 day ago
(edited) I love the compassion in the comments. That's what we're talking about. Service to
others, learn to love thy neighbor
12 13 Kostas K1 day
ago Honour Integrity and respect, qualities that the White House has never experienced so
far in it's history.
14 15 OTR
Trucker1 day ago
(edited) Thanks for running Tulsi. If we look at history it's Presidents without a military
background that get us into the biggest disasters. Veterans still get us into wars sometimes
but they are wars that are limited in scope and "winnable". Every open ended catastrophe we've
been in was from a non vet.
32 33
View 4 replies Hide replies Jeremy Chase1 day
ago I was speaking with an older couple yesterday. They obviously had a lot of MSM on the
brain. The woman said, I would like to see a woman in The White House. I said, Tulsi Gabbard is
your woman! Don't let the media lie to you about her. They just want their senseless wars. You
go, Tulsi! ✌
16 17
View reply Hide replies Michael Dob1 day
ago What a concept. Serve American interest instead of corporations and foreign
governments.
Neoliberal corruption in full display. As we see forms of nepotism evolve with time...
Notable quotes:
"... Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem. And just like his Ukraine scandal , it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries. ..."
"... Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now Secret Empires discovered that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5 billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the New York Post . ..."
"... Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned entities. ..."
"... Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner ..."
"... It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers . ..."
"... It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. ..."
"... The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont. ..."
"... "We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive, who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous." ..."
"... Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal. ..."
"... The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy. ..."
"... The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector. - New York Post ..."
"... Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world. ..."
Two years of investigations by journalist Peter Schweizer has revealed that Joe Biden may now have a serious China problem.
And just like his
Ukraine scandal
, it involves actions which helped his son Hunter, who was making hand over fist in both countries.
Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash and now
Secret Empires discovered
that in 2013, then-Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew together to China on Air Force Two - and two weeks later, Hunter's
firm inked a private equity deal for $1 billion with a subsidiary of the Chinese government's Bank of China , which expanded to $1.5
billion, according to an article by Schweizer's in the
New York Post .
" If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who has scant experience in private
equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that's because it is " -
Peter Schweizer
Perhaps this is why Joe Biden - now on the 2020 campaign trail - said last week that China wasn't a threat.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo took a shot at Biden's comment during a speech at the Claremont Institute's 40th anniversary gala,
saying "Look how both parties now are on guard against the threat that China presents to America -- maybe except Joe Biden."
Back to Hunter...
Schweizer connects the dots, writing that "without the aid of subpoena power, here's what we know :"
Hunter Biden and his partners created several LLCs involved in multibillion-dollar private equity deals with Chinese government-owned
entities.
The primary operation was Rosemont Seneca Partners - an investment firm founded in 2009 and controlled by Hunter Biden, John
Kerry's stepson Chris Heinz, and Heniz's longtime associate Devon Archer. The trio began making deals "through a series of overlapping
entities" under Rosemont.
In less than a year, Hunter Biden and Archer met with top Chinese officials in China , and partnered with the Thornton Group
- a Massachusetts-based consultancy headed by James Bulger - son of famed mob hitman James "Whitey" Bulger.
According to the Thornton Group's Chinese-language website, Chinese executives "extended their warm welcome" to the "Thornton
Group, with its US partner Rosemont Seneca chairman Hunter Biden (second son of the now Vice President Joe Biden."
Officially, the China meets were to "explore the possibility of commercial cooperation and opportunity," however details of
the meeting were not published to the English-language version of the website.
"The timing of this meeting was also notable. It occurred just hours before Hunter Biden's father, the vice president, met
with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington as part of the Nuclear Security Summit ," according to Schweizer.
Perhaps most damning in terms of timing and optics, just twelve days after Hunter and Joe Biden flew on Air Force Two
to Beijing, Hunter's company signed a "historic deal with the Bank of China ," described by Schweizer as "the state-owned financial
behemoth often used as a tool of the Chinese government." To accommodate the deal, the Bank of China created a unique type of
investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). According to BHR, Rosemont Seneca Partners is a founding partner .
It was an unprecedented arrangement: the government of one of America's fiercest competitors going into business with the
son of one of America's most powerful decisionmakers .
Chris Heinz claims neither he nor Rosemont Seneca Partners, the firm he had part ownership of, had any role in the deal with
Bohai Harvest. Nonetheless, Biden, Archer and the Rosemont name became increasingly involved with China.
Archer became the vice chairman of Bohai Harvest, helping oversee some of the fund's investments. -
New York Post
National Security implications
As Schweizer also notes, BHR became an "anchor investor" in the IPO of China General Nuclear Power Corp (CGN) in December 2014.
The state-owned energy company is involved with the construction of nuclear reactors.
In April 2016, CGN was charged by the US Justice Department with stealing nuclear secrets from the United States , which prosecutors
warned could cause "significant damage to our national security." CNG was interested in sensitive, American-made nuclear components
that resembled those used on US nuclear submarines, according to experts.
More China dealings
It doesn't stop there. While Hunter Biden had "no experience in China, and little in private equity," the Chinese government
for some reason thought it would be a great idea to give his firm business opportunities instead of established global banks such
as Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs.
Also in December 2014, a Chinese state-backed conglomerate called Gemini Investments Limited was negotiating and sealing deals
with Hunter Biden's Rosemont on several fronts. That month, it made a $34 million investment into a fund managed by Rosemont.
The following August, Rosemont Realty, another sister company of Rosemont Seneca, announced that Gemini Investments was
buying a 75 percent stake in the company. The terms of the deal included a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese, who were eager
to purchase new US properties. Shortly after the sale, Rosemont Realty was rechristened Gemini Rosemont.
"Rosemont, with its comprehensive real-estate platform and superior performance history, was precisely the investment opportunity
Gemini Investments was looking for in order to invest in the US real estate market," said Li Ming, chairman of Sino-Ocean Land Holdings
Limited and Gemini Investments. "We look forward to a strong and successful partnership."
That partnership planned to use Chinese money to scoop up US properties.
"We see great opportunities to continue acquiring high-quality real estate in the US market," said one company executive,
who added: "The possibilities for this venture are tremendous."
Then, in 2015, BHR partnered with a subsidiary of Chinese state-owned military aviation contractor Aviation Industry Corporation
of China (AVIC) in order to purchase American precision-parts maker Henniges - a transaction which required approval from the Committee
of Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the same rubber-stamp committee that approved the Uranium One deal.
Tying it back to Ukraine
While we have previously reported on the Bidens' adventures in Ukraine, Schweizer connects the dots rather well here ...
Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's business partner in the Rosemont
Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe
Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials . The vice president was bringing with him
highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry
and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping
more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.
The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas
company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any
background or experience in the energy sector. -
New York Post
Hunter was paid as much as $50,000 per month while Burisma was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and elsewhere.
Then Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees to Ukraine unless President Petro Poroshenko fired
his head prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin, who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into natural gas firm Burisma
Holdings.
Biden bragged about the threat last year, telling an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations: "I said, ' You're not getting
the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
Joe Biden says that he had no idea Hunter was on the board of Burisma (for two years after he joined), and that the two never
spoke about the Burisma investigation. The former VP claims that Shokin's removal was required due to his mishandling of several
cases in Ukraine.
As we head into the 2020 elections, it will be interesting to see how Joe Biden dances around his son's lucrative - and very
potentially daddy-assisted deals around the world.
Biden is another scumbag Democrat Lawyer who's the original 'pay for play' politician...A 40+ year history in Political Office
with Zero accomplishments except enriching himself and his family...A complete fraud and hypocrite liar.....Lawyers should have
never been allowed to run for Office at any level.....Look at all the corruption that has been and is being exposed at the different
bureaucracies...Virtually all the corruption has been willfully committed by Lawyers....Pathetic....
Interesting.... I put: "The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow
an elected President because he stands in " the way of "profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected
councils and retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
But came out:The Steele Dossier has so many British agents involved it sounds like a British failed coup to overthrow an elected
President because he stands in the profiting goals of " international goals" of global monopoly run by unelected councils and
retired instigators as facilitators of discord.
To make it sound as if it is Trump profiting.... By no means is that true... Its the " long term" Washington officals that
have been profiting. Not a possible 8 year President.
My phone also wont let me thumbs up people i would like to but only a few and also replying is " verboten".
These algorhythms and blocks and censorship is an abuse of constitutional rights which is bad enough, but even worse is that
these rights got monopolized by various corporations who bought stock in facebook/ googles options that was stolen from Leader
technologies source code ( which Mark zukerberg couldnt write on a good day... He is a front guy and again we have British privy
council involed with Clegg head of facebook now voice for Mark... Because Mark is a cut out).
This whole social media internet thing has been hijacked and weaponized by Washingtons same people as Dossier scandel... James
Chandeler attorney and backstaber of Leader technology.
See leader technology vs facebook..... But i digress.
Michael T. McKibben's career spans two phases: international Christian music ministry, and technology innovation. In 2006,
he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for what is now called "social networking."
Biden & Kerry aren't the only ones with a China problem. "Secret Empires" also listed Mitch McConnell having a huge China problem
through his wife's shipping company. I bet he doesn't run for re-election. Winning.
they all own one another - that's the essence of the problem in politics. and why they have tried so hard to get that outsider,
trump, out of the country club.
China funded Bill Clinton's election campaigns through James Riady, an Indonesian Chinese man involved in hard drug smuggling
and arms trafficking. The money was laundered through Little Rock banks and corporations. (See Victor Thorn's Hillary and Bill
, all three volumes.)
"Come on man! This is a joke! He's my son and he's a great buddy. I mean yeah he was drummed out of the Naval Reserve because
of his cocaine habit, but come on man, you know, everybody does it! Just ask my good friend Barack, he's a clean, good looking
darkie whose done his share of blow. And yeah Hunter fucked his dead brother's widow, but come on man! Have you seen her ****
and ***. I might have made a move on her myself, but hey man I'm married."
Joe Biden, From the endless Fear and Mongering Presidential campaign of 2020.
IRS/SEC/FBI are not investigatory agencies. They are barrier agencies. They protect the anointed, letting them do as they wish,
and stomp on anyone else who tries to get in on the gravy train.
Sociopaths are the reason all governments, regardless of the particular 'ism', eventually fail...
Looking at human history, fascism is the most common form of government for humans. At least it is the most honest - that the
sociopaths are ******* everyone else.... These days we try to hide it by lofty idealism that is incompatible with a predator/prey
real world.....
Representative democracy, socialism and communism all fail and all fail for the same reason - sociopaths...
We should be honest with ourselves that there is a small, but statistically significant percentage of the human population
that are sociopaths (and more are being born every generation). We can call them predators and we are the prey...any concentration
of power attracts sociopaths regardless of the fancy label we put on the political system. Within a short time the system is inundated
with sociopaths who invariably game the system to death for their own individual benefit....
Don't like the reality in which you find yourself? Stop voting for sociopaths, stop giving them power...
What political party or system even acknowledge the sociopath problem? That's right, none...so don't expect anything to change
after the reset...the pleubs will chose a new sociopath for their leader, who will **** them, and things will go on as they always
have...
Only way to combat this is to decentralize power as much as possible...this doesn't solve the sociopath problem, but it does
spread them out and keeps them from ganging up together to **** over the peasants...but I won't hold my breath....
Is this a good time to take a look at 1) Front Men 2) Front Companies 3) Shell Companies 4) Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV/SPE)
5) Offshore Accounts, Offshore Donations, Offshore Campaign or PAC or Party Contributions, Paradise Papers, Panama Papers 6) USA
as Tax Haven for foreign accounts 7) USA as an Empire 8) The Rise Of The Fourth Reich notes in book by Jim Marrs
Jimmy Dore is an outstanding stand-up comedian, political commentator, host of "The Jimmy Dore Show" available on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3M7...)
and as a podcast available on iTunes.
Notable quotes:
"... Biden must be high from all of that hairspray he's been sniffing. Lol ..."
"... Can't wait to see the blue MAMA hats... ..."
"... Looks like Robert Mueller was a dirty cop hired to confirm fairy tales of Russian collusion peddled by a Clinton wing of Dems (DemoRats) sing Trump. And he enjoyed the full support of several intelligence agencies brass (especially FBI brass; initially Stzkok was one of his investigators) ..."
"... Before that Mueller was in charge of 9/11 and Anthrax scare investigations. So he is a card caring member of the neoliberal elite which converted the USA into what can be called the "National Security State" ..."
"... In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired a fruitless investigation ..."
"... the USA squabble over Parteigenosse Mueller Final Report between two factions of neoliberal elite makes the USA a joke in the eyes of the whole world ..."
"... Hopefully, a more sound part of the USA elite, which Barr represents, will put some sand into those wheels. His decision to investigate the origin of Russiagate produced almost a heart attack for Pelosi. And the fact that he decided to skip his auto-da-fé at the House adds insult to injury. Poor Pelosi almost lost her mind. ..."
"... Out of democratic challengers IMHO only Tulsi Gabbard can probably attract a sizable faction of former Trump supporters and she is the most reviled, ignored, and slandered by DNC liberals and neocons alike candidate. ..."
"... The truth is that the color revolution against Donald Trump (a soft coup if you wish) failed. Now he badly needs to win in 2020 to avoid an indictment in NY State when he leaves the Presidency. It is just a matter of survival for him. ..."
"... Neoliberal Democrats will help him by putting their weakest pro-war candidate like the aged, apparently slightly demented neocon Joe Biden. With his rabid neoliberal past, neocon foreign policy past, Ukrainian skeletons in the closet and probably participation in the Obama administration dirty and criminal attempt to derail Trump using intelligence agencies as the leverage. ..."
"... Just like is the case with Boeing the situation for neoliberal democrats does not look promising. The world is starting to crash all around them. ..."
The F.B.I. surveillance didn't come out until after the election. Therefore it couldn't impact the election. McConnell threatened
to shriek "partisan politics!" if Obama said anything publicly about the Russian issue. Obama didn't. Claims of partisan behavior?
Bullshit.
What about proven attempts of entrapments and inserting spies into Trump campaign?
Mifsud and Halper's stories come to mind (Halper's story has an interesting "seduction" subplot with undercover FBI informant
Azra Turk). FBI and Justice Department brass acted as dirty mafia style politicians. McCabe and Brennan are two shining examples here. Probably guided personally by Obama, who being grown in a family of CIA operatives
probably know this color revolutions "kitchen" all too well.
BTW Hillary did destroy evidence from her "bathroom server" while under subpoena.
Looks like Robert Mueller was a dirty cop hired to confirm fairy tales of Russian collusion peddled by a Clinton wing of
Dems (DemoRats) sing Trump. And he enjoyed the full support of several intelligence agencies brass (especially FBI brass; initially
Stzkok was one of his investigators)
Before that Mueller was in charge of 9/11 and Anthrax scare investigations. So he is a card caring member of the neoliberal
elite which converted the USA into what can be called the "National Security State"
Which looks like classic Mussolini Italy with two guiding principles of jurisprudence applied to political enemies:
(1) To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law (originated in 1933) .
(2) Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime (that actually comes from Stalinism period of the USSR, but the spirit is the
same) .
It was actually Barr who saved Trump from obstruction of justice charge. He based his defense on the interpretation of the
statuses the following (actually very elegant) way:
In order for a person to obstruct justice, there must be some justice to obstruct. Hence, if the alleged obstructer did
not commit the underlying crime being investigated, then his so-called obstruction did not impair justice; it just impaired
a fruitless investigation
Of course, that upset DemoRats who want President Pence to speed up the destruction of the USA and adding a couple of new wars
to list the USA is involved.
Mueller was extremely sloppy and one-sided in writing his final report. Which is given taking into account his real task: to
sink Trump. As Nunes aptly observed about his treatment of Mifsud as a Russian agent :
"If he is, in fact, a Russian agent, it would be one of the biggest intelligence scandals for not only the United States,
but also our allies like the Italians and the Brits and others. Because if Mifsud is a Russian agent, he would know all kinds
of our intelligence agents throughout the globe
likbez , May 4, 2019 10:11 pm
run75441,
Yes, of course, in the current neo-McCarthyism atmosphere merely passing the salt to a Russian guest at a dinner party makes
you "an unregistered foreign agent" of Russia bent on implementing Putin's evil plans and colliding with Russian government ;-).
It looks like you are unable/unwilling to understand the logic behind my post. With all due respect, the situation is very
dangerous -- when the neoliberal elite relies on lies almost exclusively as a matter of policy (look at Kamala Harris questioning
Barr -- she is not stupid, she is an evil, almost taken from Orwell 1984, character), IMHO the neoliberal society is doomed. Sooner
or later.
Currently, the USA squabble over Parteigenosse Mueller Final Report between two factions of neoliberal elite makes the
USA a joke in the eyes of the whole world and Democrats look like Italian Fascists in 30th: a party hell-bent of dominance
which does not care about laws or legitimacy one bit and can use entrapment and other dirty methods to achieve its goals.
Hopefully, a more sound part of the USA elite, which Barr represents, will put some sand into those wheels. His decision
to investigate the origin of Russiagate produced almost a heart attack for Pelosi. And the fact that he decided to skip his auto-da-fé
at the House adds insult to injury. Poor Pelosi almost lost her mind.
Neoliberals and neoconservatives joined ranks behind Russiagate and continue to push it because otherwise they need to be held
accountable for all the related neoliberal disasters in the USA since 1980th including sliding standard of living, disappearance
of "good" jobs, sky-high cost of university education and medical insurance, and the last but not least, Hillary fiasco.
Trump ran to the left of Clinton in foreign policy and used disillusionment of working close with neoliberal Democratic Party
to his advantage promising jobs, end of outsourcing, end of uncontrolled immigration, and increased standard of living. He betrayed
all those promises, but, still, that's why he won.
And that why the neoliberal establishment must present his election as de facto illegitimate, because otherwise they would
be forced to admit that the bipartisan consensus around both financialization driven economics (casino capitalism) and imperial,
war on terror based interventionism that are the foundation of the USA neoliberal elite politics since Clinton has been a disaster
for most ordinary Americans -- of all political persuasions.
Out of democratic challengers IMHO only Tulsi Gabbard can probably attract a sizable faction of former Trump supporters
and she is the most reviled, ignored, and slandered by DNC liberals and neocons alike candidate.
The truth is that the color revolution against Donald Trump (a soft coup if you wish) failed. Now he badly needs to win
in 2020 to avoid an indictment in NY State when he leaves the Presidency. It is just a matter of survival for him.
Neoliberal Democrats will help him by putting their weakest pro-war candidate like the aged, apparently slightly demented
neocon Joe Biden. With his rabid neoliberal past, neocon foreign policy past, Ukrainian skeletons in the closet and probably participation
in the Obama administration dirty and criminal attempt to derail Trump using intelligence agencies as the leverage.
Just like is the case with Boeing the situation for neoliberal democrats does not look promising. The world is starting
to crash all around them.
This was true about Iraq war. This is true about Venezuela and Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. ..."
"... Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. ..."
"... Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 . ..."
"... Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.) ..."
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael
Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with
sanctions and bombing. The
sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of
mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI
conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some
of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit.
Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the
desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything
new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books ,
Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had
excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when
earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no
connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of
anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great
political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with
a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never
had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the
Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a
Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and
evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For
the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core
are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also
recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the
administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals
have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with
glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started
was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further
alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather
clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the
documents published by the Project
for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton
years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers.
First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open
about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues
are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially
promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take
decades.
Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its
public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction
have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues
believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were
really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear
reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the
billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington
supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as
many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back
to 1959
.
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why
it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much
tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks
fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The
details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given
the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very
expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil
companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A
U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck
the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares
about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of
human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most
industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic
rivals.
It's
sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil
supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price
spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war,
and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The
world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in
Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue
that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military
dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by
gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But
it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is
thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about
economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is
mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the
exercise of raw state power.
Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU
is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common
foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for
his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls.
But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting
like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the
Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial
powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically
united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war
because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated
speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the
political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia.
Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and
the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial
oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at
least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information
unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia
alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and
together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly
can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to
nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A
New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that
the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new
constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task
themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the
few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to
be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A
retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of
SY Technology , a military
contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He
loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's
performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised
Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject
populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
lightness
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition,"
it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers
were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force
was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks,
JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of
aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous
quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start
an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no
bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after
all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about
$150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in,
pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10
trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and
interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according
to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by
an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion
firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of
state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like
Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to
remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they
won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberalization is like riding a
bicycle - you have to keep riding forward or else you'll fall over. The same could be said of
an imperial agenda: if you want to remake the world, or a big chunk of it, there's little time
to pause and catch your breath, since doubt or opposition could gain the upper hand. Which
makes stoking that opposition more
urgent than ever.
Losing it all
There's a feeling around that Bush is now politically invulnerable . Certainly the atmosphere
is one of almost coercive patriotism. That mood was nicely illustrated by an incident in
Houston in mid-March. A teenager attending a rodeo failed to stand along with the rest of the
crowd during a playing of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American," a dreadful country song
that has become a kind of private-sector national anthem for the yahoo demographic, thanks to
its truculent unthinking jingoism. A patriot standing behind the defiantly seated teen started
taunting him, tugging on his ear as an additional provocation. The two ended up in a fight, and
then under arrest.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get disinvited
from events, websites nominate
traitors for trial by military tribunal, and talk radio hosts organize CD-smashings. But things
aren't hopeless. A close analysis of Greenwood's text might suggest why. The song's core
argument is contained in its two most famous lines: "I'm proud to be an American/where at least
I know I'm free." But the oft-overlooked opening reads: "If tomorrow all the things were
gone/I'd worked for all my life," the singer would still be a grateful patriot. That's
precisely the condition lots of Americans find themselves in. More than two million jobs have
disappeared in the last two years. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings
wiped out by the bear market, and over a million filed for bankruptcy last year. Most states and
cities are experiencing their worst fiscal crises since the 1930s, with massive service cuts
and layoffs imminent. In the song, such loss doesn't matter, but reality is often less
accommodating than a song.
As the nearby graphs show, W's ratings are much lower than his father's at the end of Gulf
War I, and his disapproval ratings much higher. Their theocratic and repressive agenda is
deeply unpopular with large parts of the U.S. population. Spending scores of billions on
destroying and rebuilding Iraq while at home health clinics are closing and teachers working
without pay is potentially incendiary. Foreign adventures have never been popular with the
American public (much to the distress of the ruling elite). An peace movement that could draw
the links among warmongering, austerity, and repression has great political potential. Just a
month or two ago, hundreds of thousands were marching in American streets to protest the
imminent war. Though that movement now looks a bit dispirited and demobilized, it's unlikely
that that kind of energy will just disappear into the ether.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
It might well be that Trump treatment of 9/11 as unsolved investigation was one of the red flag for establishment
(and personally Brennan) which led to launching of Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? ..."
"... Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began, that Brennan would set all of this in motion? ..."
"... For one thing, Trump, early in his campaign stated that he had suspicions regarding official explanations of 9/11. ..."
But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? Why
target two regimes esp hated by Jews?
It seems he's like McCain. A mean nasty son of a bitch who likes to play world politics.
It's his bullying nature. But he has no vision or compass. Like a dog, he will hunt and maul
anything that is approved by the Power. And that Power is Jewish.
Dogs love to hunt but only get to hunt what the master orders it to. If the master orders
the dog to love rabbits and hunt raccoon, it will do just that. If the master orders it to
love raccoon and hunt rabbits, it will do that. In the end, the dog doesn't care what it
hunts as long as it's given a chance to hunt something.
Same with these goy cuck dogs. Their lives feel fulfilled only in Big Power bully mode.
They need to beat up on something. But they have no vision or compass, no agency. They look
over their shoulders to the Power to tell them what to love(Israel and Saudis) and what to
hate(Iran and Syria and Russia).
Dogs growl at dogs, not at their masters. When Trump came around, Brennan didn't see him
as the new master but as a bad dog(or even wolf) displeasing his master, the Jews. Like
McCain, a very loyal dog. Also, a dog feels jealousy that the master may take to a new dog
over him.
I have to think that the pyramid goes higher still Brennan working for Hillary and Hillary
working for the combined plutocratic imperialist elite that make up the core of the Clinton
Foundation's billions these scumbags will never be touched for buying Killary, but maybe
Killary will end up in an orange jumpsuit, right beside her gopher Brennan
And maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised time
will tell
But evidence of wrongdoing is not proof that Comey was the ringleader, he was just the
hapless sad sack who was left holding the bag. The truth is, Comey was just a reluctant
follower. The real architect of the Trump-Russia treachery was the boss-man at the nation's
premier intelligence agency, the CIA.
suspect you are correct
Brennan seems like the real evil, Comey just a doofus
@R Boyd
"Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began,
that Brennan would set all of this in motion?"
He was not truly compromised thus controlled by the spooks. So they were trying to achieve
that, and it appears based on Trump's behavior, that they did achieve that
Questioning 9/11 in any way is an anathema for the US establishment, and, especially the US intelligence agencies. From Wikipedia
"Brennan became deputy executive director of the CIA in March 2001. [3] He was director of the newly
created Terrorist Threat Integration Center from 2003 to 2004, an office that sifted through and compiled information for President
Bush's daily top secret intelligence briefings and employed the services of analysts from a dozen U.S. agencies and entities. [22] think.
"... Relitigation of the Bush administration's record on 9/11 and Iraq to the next level, seeming to imply that we don't currently know who " really " committed the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Trump says if he is elected: "you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center." ..."
"... It is a well known fact that the Bush clan have been close buddies with the House Of Saud for a long time. It is also known that in spite of a flight ban following 9-11, top level strings were pulled to scoot the Saudis that were in the US back to their country in a major rush. ..."
"... Let's look at who shorted airline stock in the days before 9/11..... and those fellows living with Atta by the airport in south Florida... a little old Jewish Lady was all over the internet on the day after.... she was their neighbor. Atta and company were being groomed. ..."
"... I saw this in Belgium the day after 9/11... she said "they were nice men, with Israeli friends... but we knew here in the building something was "up"... the place was crawling with 007 types for months." ..."
Trump says if he is elected: "you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center."
"It wasn't the Iraqis," he explained. "You may find it's the Saudis."
"They have papers in there that are very secret," he also said, referencing the 28 still-classified pages of the 9/11 commission
report. "But you will find out."
DONALD TRUMP: We went after Iraq, they did not knock down the World Trade Center. It wasn't the Iraqis that knocked down the World
Trade Center, we went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran's taking over, okay.
But it wasn't the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center. Because they have papers in there
that are very secret, you may find it's the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.
But when I look at a guy like Lindsey Graham, you'll end up being over in that war forever, you'll start World War Three.
The one thing I definitely agree with Trump on and that is the Saudis are responsible for 9/11. They have been
trying to destroy the west since before the 70's oil wars.
Not destroy it so much as infiltrate with all the megamosques they finance throughout the world. Then as we islamicize,
we will destroy ourselves, as mohomohamed decreed.
It is a well known fact that the Bush clan have been close buddies with the House Of Saud for a long time.
It is also known that in spite of a flight ban following 9-11, top level strings were pulled to scoot the Saudis that
were in the US back to their country in a major rush.
Hell, even a pigeon was not allowed to take off from Central Park, but the Saudis, with Bush running interference
for them....................
Yeah, how wild and crazy to say that the Iraqis did not take down the World Trade Center. Are you freaking serious?
With all the Saudi and Qatari and Kuwaiti private funding for ISIS going on RIGHT NOW and with 11 of the 19 9/11
hijackers being Saudi, it's not unreasonable to think Saudis of some position or influence were supporting 9/11.
Why did we go to war in Iraq? Did it serve our interests? Did it serve the greater worlds interests? What was the
point of Iraq exactly? As much as I detest Barack Hussein Obama, perhaps the single worst thing any president ever
did for the US and the world was when George W. Bush invaded Iraq. Trump 2016
Trump is signaling.... he knows... we know... nobody is saying.
Let's look at who shorted airline stock in the days before 9/11..... and those fellows living with Atta by the
airport in south Florida... a little old Jewish Lady was all over the internet on the day after.... she was their
neighbor. Atta and company were being groomed.
I saw this in Belgium the day after 9/11... she said "they were nice men, with Israeli friends... but we knew here
in the building something was "up"... the place was crawling with 007 types for months."
NOW -- I saw this interview with my own eyes. WHY was there never an investigation into the Israeli Friends...
the 007 types obviously grooming the young pilots... and the airfield was known to be a government air field.
@FB Trump
is totally responsible for the assault on Venezuela. Trump hired these thugs, Trump agreed to
the strategy, Trump gives the command. Trump is a f ING disaster, a thug and a Mafia scubag.
@Z-man Lets
make it clear. Wars are also existential mater for US generals. As a mater of fact for all
generals around the world. Generals simply love wars.
maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised
I really hope so .
But I fear he is an unfocused egomaniac, without overarching philosophy or principles,
blown by the winds and susceptible to any path that seems interesting to him at the present
time or that massages his ego.
I can see Trump's re-election message now. Never mind what a yuge dissapointment I am to you
who elected me. Re-elect me so the investigations continue!
"... Historians will study this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any entente between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' ( 8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts. ..."
"... This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia. Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but by the Obama administration? ..."
"... Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute to Montenegro, NATO's newest member. ..."
"... At this stage, it doesn't matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own conclusions. ..."
Trump was after a good deal from Russia. A new partnership would have reversed deteriorating relations between the powers by encouraging
their alliance against ISIS and recognising the importance of Ukraine to Russia's security. Current US paranoia about everything
Kremlin-related has encouraged amnesia about what President Barack Obama said in 2016, after the annexation of the Crimea and Russia's
direct intervention in Syria. He too put the danger posed by President Vladimir Putin into perspective: the interventions in Ukraine
and the Middle East were, Obama said, improvised 'in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp' (
5 ).
Obama went on: 'The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country,
their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms.' What he feared most about Putin was
the sympathy he inspired in Trump and his supporters: '37% of Republican voters approve of Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald
Reagan would roll over in his grave' ( 6 ).
By January 2017, Reagan's eternal rest was no longer threatened. 'Presidents come and go but the policy never changes,' Putin
concluded ( 7 ). Historians will study
this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any
entente between Moscow and Washington.
Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump
and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe
an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails
fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' (
8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts.
The media, especially the New York Times and Washington Post, eagerly sought a new Watergate scandal and knew their
middle-class, urban, educated readers loathe Trump for his vulgarity, affection for the far right, violence and lack of culture (
9 ). So they were searching for any information
or rumour that could cause his removal or force a resignation. As in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, everyone
had his particular motive for striking the same victim.
The intrigue developed quickly as these four areas have fairly porous boundaries. The understanding between Republican hawks such
as John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the military-industrial complex was a given. The architects
of recent US imperial adventures, especially Iraq, had not enjoyed the 2016 campaign or Trump's jibes about their expertise. During
the campaign, some 50 intellectuals and officials announced that, despite being Republicans, they would not support Trump because
he 'would put at risk our country's national security and wellbeing.' Some went so far as to vote for Clinton (
10 ).
Ambitions of a 'deep state'?
The press feared that Trump's incompetence would threaten the US-dominated international order. It had no problem with military
crusades, especially when emblazoned with grand humanitarian, internationalist or progressive principles. According to the press
criteria, Putin and his predilection for rightwing nationalists were obvious culprits. But so were Saudi Arabia or Israel, though
that did not prevent the Saudis being able to count on the ferociously anti-Russian Wall Street Journal, or Israel enjoying
the support of almost all US media, despite having a far-right element in its government.
Just over a week before Trump took office, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden story that revealed the mass
surveillance programmes run by the National Security Agency, warned of the direction of travel. He observed that the US media had
become the intelligence services' 'most valuable instrument, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with
hidden intelligence officials.' This at a time when 'Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as
well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing
-- eager -- to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging
those behaviours might be' ( 11 ).
The anti-Russian coalition hadn't then achieved all its objectives, but Greenwald already discerned the ambitions of a 'deep state'.
'There really is, at this point,' he said 'obvious open warfare between this unelected but very powerful faction that resides in
Washington and sees presidents come and go, on the one hand, and the person that the American democracy elected to be the president
on the other.' One suspicion, fed by the intelligence services, galvanised all Trump's enemies: Moscow had compromising secrets about
Trump -- financial, electoral, sexual -- capable of paralysing him should a crisis between the two countries occur (
12 ).
Covert opposition to Trump
The suspicion of such a murky understanding, summed up by the pro-Clinton economist Paul Krugman as a 'Trump-Putin ticket', has
transformed the anti-Russian activity into a domestic political weapon against a president increasingly hated outside the ultraconservative
bloc. It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert
opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.
This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses
the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia.
Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no
one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but
by the Obama administration?
The silence was once broken when the Republican representative for North Carolina, Tom Tillis, questioned former CIA director
James Clapper in January: 'The United States has been involved in one way or another in 81 different elections since World War II.
That doesn't include coups or the regime changes, some tangible evidence where we have tried to affect an outcome to our purpose.
Russia has done it some 36 times.' This perspective rarely disturbs the New York Times 's fulminations against Moscow's trickery.
The Times also failed to inform younger readers that Russia's president Boris Yeltsin, who picked Putin as his successor
in 1999, had been re-elected in 1996, though seriously ill and often drunk, in a fraudulent election conducted with the assistance
of US advisers and the overt support of President Bill Clinton. The Times hailed the result as 'a victory for Russian democracy'
and declared that 'the forces of democracy and reform won a vital but not definitive victory in Russia yesterday For the first time
in history, a free Russia has freely chosen its leader.'
Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining
resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President
Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute
to Montenegro, NATO's newest member.
No longer getting his way
But the Times, far from worrying about these provocative gestures coinciding with heightened tensions between great powers
(trade sanctions against Russia, Moscow's expulsion of US diplomats), poured oil on the fire. On 2 August it praised the reaffirmation
of 'America's commitment to defend democratic nations against those countries that would undermine them' and regretted that Mike
Pence's views 'aren't as eagerly embraced and celebrated by the man he works for back in the White House.'
At this stage, it doesn't
matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own
conclusions.
There were some reports quoted in Alexander Mercouris has a much rosier
view of Trump's intentions
that the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran. The Pentagon has found
its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't defend themselves, and that's not Iran.
@Endgame Napoleon Americans
probably don't understand Russia. Americans don't even mostly understand their own history. "
and they inquire why they hate us .
Don Bacon | May 11, 2019 11:56:00 AM | 23
@ ToivoS 16
the US military brass are vigorously apposed to the Bolton and Pompeo efforts to provoke war against Iran.
Yes, for the reasons I noted in my 4 above. The Pentagon has found its niche pounding upon third world countries which can't
defend themselves, and that's not Iran. The recent US defeats in Iraq and Syria also sent a message. So the Pentagon is now content
with aerial bombing of Afghanistan and Somalia while spending big bucks to (supposedly) contend with Russia and China, which of
course is also out of the question when it comes to execution.
The Pentagon materiel acquisition system is riddled with corruption and poor management, the army is handicapped by low recruiting,
drugs and obesity, the navy suffers from performance and maintenance problems, and the air force has been decimated by personnel
problems and by an overly zealous procurement of useless F-35 prototypes. So bombers dropping bombs on villages in poor countries
is as far as the Pentagon can go.
On May 14/2019 Pompeo is to meet Lavrov in Sochi! ..."Pompeo is scheduled to meet with Putin and Lavrov, the Russian foreign
minister, in Sochi on May 14 to “discuss the full range of bilateral and multilateral challenges.” Before that, he will meet with
officials at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow."...
A messenger boy on the errant trip overseas from his handlers. Something to tell in person, mano a mano no less.
..."“On May 13, he will arrive in Russia to meet with his team at U.S. Embassy Moscow before meeting with U.S. business leaders
and U.S. exchange alumni. Secretary Pompeo will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier,” State Department spokeswoman
Morgan Ortagus said."... That's rich, a nobody faces an unknown.
Trade, however, doesn't represent the only U.S.-China economic activity whose profile has
lowered recently. For example, since 2016, two-way foreign direct investment (purchases of
so-called hard assets, like factories and real estate, as opposed to financial assets, like
government bonds) has cratered by fully 70 percent. Most of the drop is due to an 80 percent
decrease in Chinese investment in the United States, and the bulk of that decline came in 2018.
But American direct investment in China peaked back in 2008, as the recession struck, hasn't
come close to recovering since, and is also down slightly since 2012.
U.S.-China economic flows are still so great that they won't dry up completely. Nor should
anyone expect the current unwinding to continue at its current pace. After all, China still
boasts advantages in many manufacturing industries (which dominate bilateral trade) sure to
sustain sales to American households and businesses. Chief among them are the scale of existing
production complexes in China and the efficiencies that result, along with the wide range of
cost-reducing subsidies these sectors receive from Beijing. Further, China can't expect to find
foreign markets capable of replacing its sales to the United States, and therefore supporting
its own ability to grow and maintain the employment levels vital for political stability. Nor
will American businesses be able to totally blow off the enormous Chinese market and its own
still-impressive growth.
.... ... ...
Nonetheless, the days are over when the United States -- or at least its
political and business leaders -- saw mushrooming commerce with China as an expressway to
greater national prosperity and higher profits, not to mention a powerful contributor to global
well-being, security, and stability, and a means of democratizing China itself. With all these
hopes dashed, Washington and the American business community will find ample reasons to keep
looking for exits.
Alan Tonelson is the founder of RealityChek, a public policy blog focusing on
economics and national security, and the author of The Race to the Bottom.
I do not necessarily support his course of action...but I feel that sometimes, doing
the unexpected and unconventional thing can lead to new doors and new possibilities.
China's internal debt situation is so precarious that it can ill-afford a trade war
with US. China has a trade surplus of $325 billion with the US. This kind of skewed
number is totally unacceptable. By reneging on the provisional agreements over IP and
other hurdles, China is playing with fire.
I am not a Trump supporter but I think his policy on China is right on the money. No
other US president had the courage to address this issue.
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
Trump triples down on George W. Bush's responsibility for 9/11 - The Washington Post
By
Karoun Demirjian
Karoun
Demirjian
Congressional reporter focusing on national security
Email
Bio
Follow
October 18, 2015
Donald Trump says he doesn't flat-out blame former president George W. Bush that the Sept. 11
terror attacks happened on his watch. But he can think of three reasons why one could hold Bush responsible.
And, he might add, they are three things a President Trump would do very differently.
"You always have to look to the person at the top," Trump said Saturday in a telephone interview.
"Do I blame George Bush? I only say that he was the president at the time, and you know, you could say the buck stops
here."
So why might one consider Bush responsible?
No. 1: Bush's immigration policy. "We had very weak immigration laws," Trump said, adding that
perhaps if Bush had had a Trump-style immigration policy, replete with "the strong laws that I'm wanting, these
terrorists wouldn't have been in the country."
No. 2: People knew that the FBI, the National Security Council and the CIA weren't sharing
information about potential threats. "They were not talking to each other," Trump said. "If I'm president, I want to
have my three most important agencies talking to each other and coordinating with each other."
And No. 3: George Tenet, Bush's director of central intelligence, "knew in advance that there
would be an attack, and he said that."
After listing those points, Trump said, "I don't blame anybody. But it's possible perhaps
something could have been done that was obviously better than the worst attack ever perpetrated on the United
States."
Trump, the real estate mogul, and former Florida governor Jeb Bush have been
hurling vitriol
at each other since Friday, after Trump pointed out during a Bloomberg News interview that "the
World Trade Center came down during [former president Bush's] reign."
Jeb Bush retorted on Twitter, calling Trump's comments "pathetic" and repeating an argument he
used during the most recent Republican debate: that his brother "kept us safe."
Trump returned fire on Twitter, adding that he was just being polite when the subject came up
for discussion at the debate. Like it or not, he said, Bush was in the White House when the Twin Towers came down.
"I just didn't want to embarrass him," Trump said, insisting that Jeb Bush's "statement was
wrong."
mrzack8883 years
ago neocons behind 9/11. Skeet Fletcher3
years ago Well before 9/11/2001 the conservatives over at PNAC called for a Pearl Harbor
type event to move forward their agenda. Robert Smith3
years ago I think GW Bush wanted that attack to happen so he could wreak vengeance a
country that tried to kill his father. I will believe that until my last dying breath on this
earth. Crouchy2323233
years ago Jeb's brother did keep us safe, completely, 100% (except for 9/11) and his
daddy DID NOT have Osama Bin Laden on ANY payrolls (except for one payroll). Does anyone
think that following 9/11 the CIA and their cohorts would not have thought - if there is
going to be anti-American groups, and there will be if we continue our policies, then it
would be better if we not only have operatives within their ranks but have control over their
whole structure? Anyone not see this as one of the most likely plans of action? To avoid
confusion name them differently, so CIA control ISIL, Department of Defense take ISIS, deep
cover has IS. And just think of the great things that could be achieved for the world with
heart eating, head chopping lunatics. Pretty fucking simple
Donald Trump, for all his obnoxious demagoguery, is adding value to the presidential campaign by calling on
former President George W. Bush to account for 9/11 and the Iraq war, which set in motion the growth and spread
of al-Qaeda and the rise of the Islamic State. Former U.S. rulers rarely face consequences for the horrible
things they do in office. Condemnation is considered impolite.
So good for Trump. Unfortunately, he shows no sign of having done his homework; so his charges against Bush
are little more than soundbites, allowing Bush defenders to dismiss Trump as a kook. But this time he is not a
kook.
Trump presumably does not mean that Bush knew where and when al-Qaeda would attack. Detailed foreknowledge
is not part of the case against Bush. All we need to know is that Bush and his top people, starting with Vice
President Dick Cheney, were
too
busy
in their first eight months in office to bother about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Too busy doing
what? Among other things, they were too busy looking for an excuse to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, had left Saddam in power after sending the U.S. military to reverse Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait in 1991. But the elder Bush and successor Bill Clinton enforced killer economic sanctions,
on the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction but actually in hopes of driving Saddam from power.
Saddam wouldn't cooperate in his own regime change, however, so Bush Jr., Cheney, national security adviser
Condoleezza Rice, and their neoconservative brain trust were determined to complete the
mission
.
Because of this obsession, warnings from the CIA and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke about al-Qaeda,
which had previously attacked U.S. government assets and the World Trade Center in the 1990s, fell on deaf
ears, despite growing signs that
"Bin
Laden [was] Determined to Strike the US."
Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.
Clarke wrote in his book,
Against All
Enemies
, that when he finally managed to get a cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda, Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz objected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin
Laden." Clarke responded, "We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that
happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an
immediate and serious threat to the United States." To which Wolfowitz replied, "Well, there are others that do
as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example."
Thus Bush and his top people ignored al-Qaeda despite warnings from their experts and ominous events such as
the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui (as
Peter
Beinart explains
). Could the attacks have been prevented had the policymakers paid attention? Who knows?
But that does not excuse Bush's irresponsibility.
As for the Iraq war, Bush and his defenders plead innocent on grounds that
everyone
thought
Saddam had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, or at least active WMD programs.
That's simply false. Well-sourced reporting at the time said the intelligence had been cooked under White
House pressure. It meant little that former President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said
they believed in the WMD. People with direct access to the intelligence seriously doubted the WMD existed, and
they of course were right. But the establishment news media continue to give Bush a pass, just as as they did
in 2002-2003. As I
wrote
three
years ago:
Today, like the Bush administration alumni attempting to duck responsibility, the media blame 'bad
intelligence' for their conduct. But that will not wash. The dissenting reports of Knight Ridder's Warren
Strobel and Jonathan Landay, along with a very few others, show definitively that in 2002–03 solid
intelligence information undermining every propagandistic administration claim was readily available to
anyone willing to use traditional reporting techniques. Strobel and Landay were mostly ignored. On the rare
occasions when
The New York Times
or
The
Washington Post
reported on the doubts intelligence personnel had about the Bush narrative, the stories
were buried deep in the paper. (See Bill Moyers's special "
Buying
the War
" and Greg Mitchell's book
Wrong
for So Long
.)
Bush has culpability for both 9/11 and the Iraq war. Keep the pressure on, Donald.
A really interesting discussion. the problem with discussion on new direction of the USA foreign policy is that forces that
control the current forign policy will not allow any changes. Russiagate was in part a paranoid reaction of the Deep State to the
possibility of detente with Russia and also questioning "neoliberal sacred truth" like who did 9/11 (to suggest that Bush is
guilty was a clear "Red Flag") and critical attribute to forrign wars which feed so many Imperial servants.
BTW Trump completely disappointed his supporters in the foreign policy is continuing to accelerate that direction
Here is how you chart a Progressive foreign policy stop treating the US intelligence
agencies of the CIA and FBI as orgs of integrity. Ban all foreign lobbying so no foreign
government can influence foreign policy.
Disband the Veto powers that the US holds over the UN
security council. Prosecute former Presidents and Government officials for the illegal regime
change wars.
Connect with other progressive politicians around the world such as Jeremy Corbyn,
Jean Luc Melenchon and Moon Jae In. End the arms race and begin a peaceful space race to
colonize the moon diverting funds from the military industrial complex into something
fulfilling.
What BULL while world under the fog of Berlin wall down, USA VP Bush attacks
Panama 8000 Marines kills 3500 panamanians , gives the banks to CIA, therefore Panama papers.
Another coup in Latin America. When V.P. Bush "we had to get over the Vietnam Syndrome". So
Killing 3500 people , to get over the loser spirit, suicidal influence from Vietnam. SHAME USA
more hate for Americans. And Now Venezuela, more Shame and Hate for Americans. Yankee go home,
Gringo stay home is chanted once more.
The audio is a little off especially for a couple speakers but this discussion is
great. Trump ran on a non-interventionist platform, but in his typical dishonest fashion, he
appointed people who are developing usable nukes like characters out of Dr. Strangelove.
Nuclear weapons and climate change are both existential threats that all the world needs to act
together to address.
17 plus years later some people are finally starting to talk about the $6
trillion wars and the $750 billion annual Defense Department Budget.... Please consider giving
Tulsi Gabbard at least a $1 contribution so she can be part of the debate between Democratic
presidential candidates. She has made ending the wars on terrorism and regime change the
primary issue of her candidacy. She is an Iraq vet and currently in the National Guard. Her
rank is Colonel. She needs $62,500 and contributions from 200 people in each of 20 states.
Thanks for anything you can do.
Jim R2 months ago
President Eisenhower's farewell address warned us of the very thing that is happening today with the industrial military
complex and the power and influence that that entity weilds.
chickendinner2012, 2 months ago
End the wars, no more imperialism, instead have fair trade prioritizing countries that have a living wage and aren't
waging war etc. No more supporting massive human rights abusers like Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE etc. and we need to get three
of the most aggressive countries the F UK US coalition that constantly invades and bombs everyone they want to steal from to
stop doing war, stop coups, stop covert sabotage, stop sanctions.
asbeautifulasasunset, 2 months ago
17 plus years later some people are finally starting to talk about the $6 trillion wars and the $750 billion annual
Defense Department Budget.... Please consider giving Tulsi Gabbard at least a $1 contribution so she can be part of the
debate between Democratic presidential candidates. She has made ending the wars on terrorism and regime change the primary
issue of her candidacy. She is an Iraq vet and currently in the National Guard. Her rank is Colonel. She needs $62,500 and
contributions from 200 people in each of 20 states. Thanks for anything you can do.
carol wagner sudol2 months ago
Israel today has become a nazi like state. period. That says it all. This is heart-breaking. Gaza is simply a
concentration camp.
Tom Hall, 2 months ago
All our post WWII foreign policy has been about securing maintaining and enhancing corporate commercial interests. What
would seem to progressives as catastrophic failures are in fact monumental achievements of wealth creation and concentration.
The billions spent on think tanks to develop policy are mostly about how to develop grand narratives that conceal the true
beneficiaries of US foreign policy and create fear, uncertainty and insecurity at home and abroad.
The real story behind this or any other presidency is Who could stand up to the deep
state/neocons?
Trump is an outsider who is up against powerful, entrenched forces who apparently do
whatever they want to do. (and they would be the same had Bernie won the presidency).
Bernie seems to lack the spine. Tulsi on the other hand is a tough cookie--but could she
ever find adequate military and DOJ support?
They are outer-directed, uncritically reactive, and conforming. They trample the
boundaries of their own morality, cheering on wars and war criminals in their midst. It's
been a sorry thing to watch.
This also applies to most Republicans, with possible exception of Libertarians like Rand
Paul.
There is no doubt in my mind that the inherent schism between the left of the left-center
Dims will split away from the existing party establishment. This will especially prove true
when the Clintonites steal another primary from Bernie. Absent that, the already visible
dichotomy in the two Dim factions cannot but speed this disintegration of their party. Time
waits for no one, including politicians. The
Dems failed to perform a long overdue political autopsy to their now-evident peril. The
forthcoming
Trump landslide will immolate the sick beast known as the Democrat party. No residue will
remain
upon which to perform an autopsy.
P.S. Joe Biden? Seriously. Not only is this conniving bastard a sniff-and-touch creep, but
also an admittedly corrupt one. He threatened Ukraine with blocking a $1B loan guarantee
unless the Hunter Biden/Borisma investigation was stopped. And Biden boasted about doing
so.
"... When then President Obama spoke out against credit-card lenders calling them "'outrageous' and 'looked forward to reviewing additional legislation that caps interest rates,'" VP Joe Biden was silent on the issue. Joe knew which side his bread was buttered on then and for that matter today also. Constituents can expect no help from Joe Biden. ..."
"... In particular, I am eager to see how Joe Biden responds to Bernie Sanders proposal to cap interest rates. " Biden is more reliant on the kinds of big donors and high dollar events Democratic primary voters frown upon." ..."
Moving on and considering other presidential candidates who may have a difference of opinion
than Sanders. It is no secret Delaware Senator Joe Biden has been a big supporter of banks
since the seventies and has sponsored and helped to put into play many new laws which prevented
students from getting relief or declaring bankruptcy to them from the signature loans made to
them.
When then
President Obama spoke out against credit-card lenders calling them "'outrageous' and
'looked forward to reviewing additional legislation that caps interest rates,'" VP Joe Biden
was silent on the issue. Joe knew which side his bread was buttered on then and for that matter
today also. Constituents can expect no help from Joe Biden.
When a similar bill capping credit card interest rates at 15% was introduced, half of the
Democrats joined Republicans in 2009. It lost 60 to 33. This gives you an idea of how deep the
politics run between Banks and the conservative Republicans and Democrats. Consider for a
moment how long it took for either party to make this an issue or at least one party. Since
1978 . . .
In particular, I am eager to see how Joe Biden responds to Bernie Sanders proposal to cap
interest rates. " Biden is more
reliant on the kinds of big donors and high dollar events Democratic primary voters frown
upon."
"... It's not obvious to me that universal access to college education is a progressive goal. ..."
"... I think it is extremely important to understand where Warren is coming from on this. Warren initially became active in politics because she recognized the pernicious nature of debt and the impact it had on well-being. I ..."
"... Warren's emphasis in this particular initiative, it seems to me, is to alleviate debt so that individuals can pursue more advanced functionings/capabilities. ..."
"... The more a college degree is the norm, the worse things are for people without one. Making it easier to get a college degree increases the degree to which its the norm, and will almost inevitably have the same impact on the value of a college degree as the growth in high-school attendance (noted by Sam Tobin-Hochstadt above) had on the value of a high school degree. ..."
"... The debate on this subject strikes me as misguided because it says nothing about what students learn. A good high school education should be enough to prepare young people for most kinds of work. In most jobs, even those allegedly requiring college degrees, the way people learn most of what they need to know is through on the job training. Many high school graduates have not received a good education, though, and go to college as, in effect, remedial high school. ..."
by Harry on May 6, 2019 Ganesh Sitaraman argues in
the Garun that, contrary to appearances, and contrary to the criticism that it has earned,
Elizabeth Warren's college plan really is progressive, because it is funded by taxation that
comes exclusively from a wealth tax on those with more than $50 million in assets. Its
progressive, he says, because it redistributes down. In some technical sense perhaps he's
right.
But this, quite odd, argument caught my eye:
But the critics at times also suggest that if any significant amount of benefits go to
middle-class or upper-middle class people, then the plan is also not progressive. This is
where things get confusing. The critics can't mean this in a specific sense because the plan
is, as I have said, extremely progressive in the distribution of costs. They must mean that
for any policy to be progressive that it must benefit the poor and working class more than it
benefits the middle and upper classes. T his is a bizarre and, I think, fundamentally
incorrect use of the term progressive .
The logic of the critics' position is that public investments in programs that help
everyone, including middle- and upper-class people, aren't progressive. This means that the
critics would have to oppose public parks and public K-12 education, public swimming pools
and public basketball courts, even public libraries. These are all public options that offer
universal access at a low (or free) price to everyone.
But the problem isn't that the wealthy get to benefit from tuition free college. I don't
think anyone objects to that. Rather, the more affluent someone is, on average, the more they
benefit from the plan. This is a general feature of tuition-free college plans and it is built
into the design.
Sandy Baum and Sarah Turner explain:
But in general, the plans make up the difference between financial aid -- such as the Pell
Grant and need-based aid provided by states -- and the published price of public colleges.
This means the largest rewards go to students who do not qualify for financial aid. In plans
that include four-year colleges, the largest benefits go to students at the most expensive
four-year institutions. Such schools enroll a greater proportion of well-heeled students, who
have had better opportunities at the K-12 level than their peers at either two-year colleges
or less-selective four-year schools. (Flagship institutions have more resources per student,
too.) .
For a clearer picture of how regressive these policies are, consider how net tuition --
again, that's what most free-tuition plans cover -- varies among students at different income
levels at four-year institutions. For those with incomes less than $35,000, average net
tuition was $2,300 in 2015-16; for students from families with incomes between $35,000 and
$70,000, it was $4,800; for those between $70,000 and $120,000, it was $8,100; and finally,
for families with incomes higher than $120,000, it was more than $11,000. (These figures
don't include living expenses.)
Many low-income students receive enough aid from sources like the Pell Grant to cover
their tuition and fees. At community colleges nationally, for example, among students from
families with incomes less than $35,000, 81 percent already pay no net tuition after
accounting for federal, state and institutional grant aid, according to survey data for
2015-16. At four-year publics, almost 60 percent of these low-income students pay
nothing.
If you take progressivism to mean "improvement of society by reform", Warren's plan is
clearly progressive. It reduces the pie going to the rich, greatly improves the lot of
students who are less than rich, and doesn't harm the poor.
Who cares – as long as this plan -(and hopefully an even more extended plan) puts an
end to a big part of the insanity of the (stupid and greedy) US education system?
In other words – let's call it "conservative" that might help to have it passed!
The difficulty with the plan as proposed is not whether it is progressive or not but that it
targets the wrong behavior – borrowing for education. If the goal is to make education
more accessible – subsidize the university directly to either facilitate point of
admission grants in the first place or simply bring down tuition cost to all attendees.
Under this proposal (assuming one thinks Warren would win and it could get passed) the
maximizing strategy is to borrow as much as one possibly can with the hope/expectation that
it would ultimately be forgiven. If that's the "right" strategy, then it would benefit those
with the greatest borrowing capacity which most certainly is not students from low income
families but is in fact families which could probably pay most of the cost themselves but
would choose not to in order to capture a benefit they couldn't access directly by virtue of
being 'too rich' for grants or other direct aid.
"Rather, the more affluent someone is, on average, the more they benefit from the plan. "
This doesn't seem like a fair description of what's going on. If Starbucks gives a free muffin to everyone who buys a latte, it's theoretically helping
the rich more than the poor under this way of looking at things. The rich can afford the
muffin; the poor can't. So the rich will get more free muffins. But the rich don't give a
crap. They can easily just buy the damn muffin in the first place. They're not really being
helped, because the whole damn system helps them already. They're just about as well off with
or without the free muffin.
Same here. My kid's going to Stanford. I'm effin rich and I don't give a crap about
financial aid. If it was free I'd have an extra 75k a year, but how many Tesla's do I need
really? How many houses in Hawaii do I need? But when I was a kid I was lower middle class. I
didn't even apply to Stanford because it was just too much. Yeah, I could have gone rotc or
gotten aid, but my parents just couldn't bust out their contribution. Stanford just wasn't in
the cards. And Stanford's a terrible example, it had needs blind admissions and can afford
to just give money away if it wants.
I don't understand the fear, in certain areas of what's apparently the left, of giving
benefits to people in the middle of the income/wealth curve.
The expansion of the term "middle class" doesn't help with this, nor does the expansion of
education. These debates often sound as if some of the participants think of "middle class"
as the children of physicians and attorneys, who moreover are compensated the way they were
in the 1950s.
The ability to switch between "it's reasonable to have 100% college attendance within 5
years from now" and "of course college is only for the elite classes" is not reassuring to
the average more or less educated observer (who may or may not be satisfied, depending on
temperament and so on, with the answer that of course such matters are above her head).
The actual plan is for free tuition at public colleges. So not "the most expensive
four-year institutions" that Baum and Turner discuss. [HB: they're referring to the most
expensive 4-year public institutions]
There's also expanded support for non-tuition expenses, means-tested debt cancellation,
and a fund for historically black universities, all of which make the plan more progressive.
And beyond that, I could argue that, for lower-income students on the margin of being able to
attend and complete school, we should count not only the direct financial aid granted, but
also the lifetime benefits of the education the aid enables. But suffice it to say, I think
you're attacking a caricature.
the college plan does not actually offer 'universal access'
Given that something like one third of Americans gets a college degree, Warren's plan
seems good enough. It's not obvious to me that universal access to college education is a
progressive goal.
I think it is extremely important to understand where Warren is coming from on this. Warren
initially became active in politics because she recognized the pernicious nature of debt and
the impact it had on well-being. If you are trying to get out from under the burden of debt
your capabilities for flourishing are severely restricted, and these restrictions can easily
become generational. One of the more difficult debts that people are facing are student
debts. This was made especially difficult by the 2005 bankruptcy bill which made it close to
impossible for individuals to get out from under student debt by entering in to Chapter 7
bankruptcy.
Warren's emphasis in this particular initiative, it seems to me, is to alleviate debt so
that individuals can pursue more advanced functionings/capabilities. So if you think that the
definition of progressive is creating situations where more individuals in a society are
given greater opportunities for flourishing then the plan does strike me as progressive (an
Aristotelian interpretation of Dewey such as promoted by Nussbaum might fall in this
direction). There is another issue however that might be closer to the idea of helping those
from lowest social strata, something that is not being discussed near enough. Internet
technologies helped to promote online for profit universities which has (and I suppose
continues to) prey and those most desperate to escape poverty with limited resources. The
largest part of their organizations are administrators who help students to secure loans with
promises of high paying jobs once they complete their degrees. These places really do prey on
the most vulnerable (homeless youth for instance) and they bait individuals with hope in to
incurring extremely high debt. The loan companies are fine with this I am guess because of
the bankruptcy act (they can follow them for life). This is also not regulated (I think you
can thank Kaplan/Washington Post for that). Warren's initiative would help them get out from
under debt immediately and kick start their life.
I agree k-12 is more important, but it is also far more complicated. This plan is like a
shot of adrenaline into the social blood stream and it might not even be necessary in a few
years. I think it dangerous to make the good the enemy or the perfect, or the perfect the
critic of the good.
– and how cynical does one have to be – to redefine a plan canceling the vast
majority of outstanding student loan debt – as some kind of ("NON-progressive") present
for "the rich"?
But even apart from that, the argument of the post seems like it would suggest that many
things that we currently fund publicly are not progressive in a problematic way. Everything
from arts to national parks to math research "benefits" the rich more than the poor. There's
possibly a case that public provision of these goods is problematic when we as a society
could spend that money on those who are more disadvantaged. But that's a very strong claim
and implicates far more than free college.
Finally, it's worth comparing the previous major expansion of education in the US. The
point at which high school attendance was as widespread as college attendance is now (about
70% of high school graduates enroll in college of some form right away) was around 1930, well
after universal free high school was available. I think moving to universal free college is
an important step to raise those rates, just as free high school was.
It strikes me that the argument made here against a universal program of tuition free college
is not all that different than an argument made against social security -- that the benefits
go disproportionately to middle class and professional class individuals. Since in the case
of Social Security, one has to be in gainfully employed to participate and one's benefits
are, up to a cap, based on one's contributions, middle class and professional class
individuals receive greater benefits. Poor individuals, including those who have not been
employed for long periods of time, receive less benefits. (There are quirks in this 10 second
summary, such as disability benefits, but not so much as to alter this basic functioning.)
Every now and again, there are proposals to "means test" social security, using this
functioning as the reasoning. A couple of points are worth considering.
First, it is the universality of social security that makes it a political 'third rail,'
such that no matter how it would like to do away with such a 'socialist' program, the GOP
never acts on proposals to privatize it, even when they have the Presidency and the
majorities that would allow it to get through Congress. The universality thus provides a
vital security to the benefits that poor and working people receive from the program, since
it makes it politically impossible to take it away. Since social security is often the only
pension that many poor and working people get (unlike middle class and professional class
individuals who have other sources of retirement income), the loss of it would be far more
devastating to them. There is an important way, therefore, that they are served by the
current configuration of the system, even given its skewing.
Second, and following from the above, it is important to recognize that the great bulk of
proposals to "means test" Social Security come from the libertarian right, not the left, and
that they are designed to undercut the support for Social Security, in order to make its
privatization politically viable.
Most colleges and universities "means test" financial aid for their students, which is one
of the reasons why it is generally inadequate and heavily weighted toward loans as opposed to
grants. I think it is a fair generalization of American social welfare experience history to
say that "means tested" programs are both more vulnerable politically (think of the Reagan
'welfare queen' narrative) and more poorly funded than universal programs.
There are additional argument about the skewing of Social Security benefits, such as the
fact that they go disproportionately to the elderly, while those currently living in poverty
are disproportionately children. This argument mistakes the positive effects of the program
-- before Social Security and Medicare the elderly were the most impoverished -- for an
inegalitarian design element.
The solution to the fact that children bear the brunt of poverty in the US is not to
undermine the program that has lifted the elderly out of poverty but to institute programs
that address the problem of childhood poverty. Universal quality day care, for example,
provides the greatest immediate economic benefits to middle class and professional class
families who are now paying for such services, but it provides poor and working class kids
with an education 'head start' that would otherwise go only to the children of those families
that could afford to pay for it. And insofar as day care is provided, it makes it easier for
poor and working class parents (often in one parent households) to obtain decent
employment.
So the failings of universal programs are best addressed, I would argue, by filling in the
gaps with more universal programs, not 'means testing' them.
To the extent that Warren's 'free tuition' proposal addresses only some of the financial
disadvantages of poor and working people obtaining a college education, the response should
not be "oh, this is not progressive," but what do we do to address the other issues, such as
living expenses. It is not as if there are no models on how to do this. All we need to do is
look at Nordic countries that provide post-secondary students both free tuition and living
expenses.
Having grown up and gone to university in Germany it is simply incomprehensible to me that
there is tuition supporters on the political left in the U.S. It's true that free college
isn't universal in the same sense free K-12 education is. But neither are libraries (they
exclude those who are functionally illiterate completely, and their services surely go mostly
to upper middle class people who have opportunity and education to read regularly), for
example. Neither are roads – the poor overwhelmingly live in inner cities, often take
public transport – it's middle class suburbanites that mostly profit. Speaking of
public transport, I assume Henry opposes rail; it is very middle class, the poor use buses.
(The last argument actually has considerable traction in Los Angeles, it's not completely far
fetched.)
I agree that Warren's free college and debt forgiveness plans would not be very progressive,
but I'd propose that I think the dynamic mechanism built in would make it worse than a static
analysis shows.
(Note that most of my siblings and in-laws do not have college degrees; this perspective
is based on my own observations.)
The more a college degree is the norm, the worse things are for people without one. Making
it easier to get a college degree increases the degree to which its the norm, and will almost
inevitably have the same impact on the value of a college degree as the growth in high-school
attendance (noted by Sam Tobin-Hochstadt above) had on the value of a high school degree.
(We're already seeing this: many positions that used to require a college degree now require
a specific degree, or a masters degree.) This will increase age discrimination, and further
worsen the position of the people for whom college is unattractive for reasons other than
money.
To give a particular example of a mechanism (idiosyncratic, but one I know specifically).
Until a couple decades ago, getting a KY electrician's license required 4 years experience
under a licensed electrician, and passing the code test. Then the system changed; now it
requires a 2-year degree and 2 years experience, OR 8 years experience. This was great for
colleges. The working electricians don't think the new electricians are better prepared as
they used to be, but all of a sudden people who don't find sitting in a classroom for an
additional 2 years attractive are hugely disadvantaged. Another example would be nursing
licenses; talk to any older LPN and you'll get an earful about how LPN's are devalued as RNs
and BSNs have become the norm.
I suspect tuition reform will be complex, difficult and subject to gaming. Being simple
minded I offer an inadequate but simple palliative. Make student loan debt dischargeable in
bankruptcy. You can max out your credit cards on cars, clothes, booze or whatever and be able
to discharge these debts but not for higher education.
The inability to even threaten bankruptcy gives all the power to collection companies.
Students have no leverage at all. The threat of bankruptcy would allow for negotiated
reductions in principal as well as payments.
Bankruptcy does carry a lot of negative consequences so it would offset the likely
objections about moral hazards, blah, blah. I would also favor an additional method of
discharging student debt. If your debt is to a for-profit school that can't meet some minimum
standards for student employment in their field of study then total discharge without the
need for bankruptcy. For-profit vocational schools intensively target low income and minority
students without providing significant value for money.
Progressivity looks much better if the program sticks to free community college, at least
until there is universal access to 4-year schools. That's what Tennessee did (IIRC the only
example that is actually operational).
Harry: it doesn't seem as if you responded to my comment. I'll try again.
1. A policy is progressive if it is redistributive.
2. Warren's plan is redistributive.
3. Thus, Warren's plan is progressive.
Comments about how effective the redistribution is are fine, but to claim a non-ideal
distribution framework invalidates the program's claims to being progressive seems spurious.
And I don't think this definition of progressive is somehow wildly ideosyncratic.
To whine that free college is somehow not progressive because not everyone will go to college
is a ridiculous argument, one of those supposedly-left-but-actually-right arguments that I
get so tired of. To assume that the class makeup of matriculators will be unchanged with free
college is to discount knock-on effects. This is a weird, weird post. I guess I'm going back to ignoring this site.
The debate on this subject strikes me as misguided because it says nothing about what
students learn. A good high school education should be enough to prepare young people for
most kinds of work. In most jobs, even those allegedly requiring college degrees, the way
people learn most of what they need to know is through on the job training. Many high school
graduates have not received a good education, though, and go to college as, in effect,
remedial high school.
Readers who attended an average American high school, as I did long ago, will know that
there are certain students, especially boys, who are itching to be done with school. It is
far more productive to give them a decent high school education and have them start working
than to tell them they need another two to four years of what to them is pointless
rigamarole.
Rather than extending the years of education, I would reduce the high school graduation
age to 17 and reduce summer vacations by four weeks, so that a 17 year old would graduate
with as many weeks of schooling as an 18 year old now. (Teachers would get correspondingly
higher pay, which should make them happy.)
Harry Truman never went to college. John Major became a banker and later prime minister of
Britain without doing so. Neither performed noticeably worse than their college-educated
peers. If a college education is not necessary to rise to the highest office in the land, why
is it necessary for lesser employment except in a few specialized areas?
An experiment that I would like to see tried is to bring back the federal civil service
exam, allowing applicants without college degrees who score high enough to enter U.S.
government jobs currently reserved for those with college degrees.
"... Particularly shameless was Florida Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, who went on Tucker Carlson's show to peddle half-baked innuendo as brazen as anything claimed in the lead up to the Iraq War. If Maduro's government survived, he claimed, it would be "a green light, an open door for the Russians and for the Chinese and for others to increase their activity against our national security interest right here in our hemisphere." ..."
Russiagate hysteria is already being used to push Trump into an act of armed aggression against Venezuela. It's a disastrous result
of a pointless delusion.
One of the things Russiagate skeptics found unsettling about the frenzy over supposed "collusion" was that it made war more likely.
Not only did the now-debunked conspiracy theories and resulting political climate push officials into a more aggressive posture toward
Russia, but once the Kremlin was returned to its status as the foreign policy elite's Big Bad, it was easy to imagine a situation
where the threat of a Russian bogeyman could be used to justify any number of unrelated foreign adventures. This appears to be exactly
what's happening with
Venezuela
right now.
First there was Fareed Zakaria, who two months ago
tried to goad Trump into attacking Venezuela by pointing to Russia's support for Maduro. "Putin's efforts seem designed to taunt
the United States," he said (it might also have something to do with the
billions of dollars Russia
sank into the country), making reference to the Monroe Doctrine. He asked if Washington would "allow Moscow to make a mockery of
another American red line," warning that "if Washington does not back its words with deeds" the country could become another Syria.
Zakaria concluded: "will Venezuela finally be the moment when Trump finally ends his appeasement?"
More recently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
charged that Russia had "invaded" Venezuela before claiming the Kremlin had dissuaded Maduro from fleeing the country at the
last moment, something Pompeo has provided no evidence for but much of the media has treated as fact since.
National Security Advisor
John Bolton has
said that "this is our hemisphere"
and "not where the Russians ought to be interfering." Democratic Sen. Doug Jones
echoed this sentiment on CNN, praising the Trump
administration for saying "all options are on the table" to deal with Venezuela, something he suggested may have to be acted on "if
there is some more intervention [by] Russia."
The national press, taking a break from warning about Trump being a dangerous authoritarian, has been
demanding to know why he hasn't been more aggressive toward the country over this.
Particularly shameless was Florida Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, who went on Tucker Carlson's show to
peddle half-baked
innuendo as brazen as anything claimed in the lead up to the Iraq War. If Maduro's government survived, he claimed, it would be "a
green light, an open door for the Russians and for the Chinese and for others to increase their activity against our national security
interest right here in our hemisphere."
He went on to claim that Russia had already placed nuclear missiles in the country, and that it could lead to a Cuban missile
crisis-like conflict. There is no evidence this is true, and Díaz-Balart didn't provide any.
Of course, no coverage of the Trump administration's relations with Russia would be complete without a trip into Rachel Maddow's
fractured psyche. After Trump repeated Putin's personal assurances that he wasn't interested in getting involved in Venezuela --
contradicting Pompeo and Bolton -- Maddow addressed the two
officials :
Hey John Bolton, hey Mike Pompeo, are you guys enjoying your jobs right now? You each thought your job this week was to name
and shame and threaten and counter Russian government involvement in Venezuela while saber-rattling about how everybody else better
get out of the way because the US is really mad about it. Guys, turns out your actual job is figuring out how and why you work
for a president who says whatever Vladimir Putin tells him.
Maddow went on to express her sympathy for one of the
most unhinged warmongers
in a city teeming with them ("I mean, John Bolton, God bless you"), and again seemed to suggest that Bolton's "job" of "push[ing]
Russia back because of what they're doing in Venezuela" was the correct course of action.
It's now clear there is nothing -- not Trump's years-long belligerence toward Russia's Venezuelan ally, not his
near-constant
bellicosity toward Russia since taking office, not
Robert Mueller's failure
to indict a single person for conspiring with Russia, not even his report's explicit and implicit denial that any such conspiracy
existed -- that will make these people give up the talking point that Trump is secretly in bed with Putin. If Mueller himself denied
it, they would claim he was a Russian in disguise. It's simply too convenient an attack line, and too professionally embarrassing
to admit otherwise.
There is also an Orwellian level of doublethink going on here. Russia, a Venezuelan ally, has sent personnel and equipment to
the country with the consent of its government at a time when it's being threatened by multiple hostile regional powers. Meanwhile
the US, one of those hostile powers, has for years been
laying siege to the country
and killing its people, trying to destabilize and oust its leadership, and even threatening to invade it.
Yet according to the media and political class, it's Russia's actions that are an unacceptable intrusion into another country's
affairs -- an "invasion," even. They are holding up four fingers to your face and telling you you're seeing five.
Meanwhile, these same quarters, after spending close to three years hyperventilating about Russia's meddling in domestic US affairs
-- an "act of war," in some minds -- have now seamlessly pivoted to cheering Trump as he attempts to
engineer a change
of Venezuela's government, even calling for him to possibly attack the country. This is glaringly hypocritical, but the
Russiagate
frenzy was never about principled outrage or any sort of moral consistency.
Lastly and most significantly, the rhetoric around Venezuela is now taking on an explicitly imperialistic character, in the most
literal sense of that word. Zakaria invoked the Monroe Doctrine to urge Trump to intervene in Venezuela; National Security Advisor
John Bolton "proudly proclaim[ed]" upon
launching
a fresh round of sanctions that "the Monroe Doctrine is alive and well," and one MSNBC guest
insisted the Trump administration was "right in being completely flabbergasted" at Russia's presence in the country because "this
is our hemisphere," echoing
Bolton
.
When these figures talk about "our hemisphere," they don't mean the hemisphere in which the US happens to be located; they mean
this is literally their hemisphere. The US is the imperial power with dominion over this part of the world, and only it has
the right to interfere in the countries that populate it.
Their objection is not that an outside power is involving itself in a Latin American country's business, but that this outside
power isn't the one in Washington. The fact that the US has been doing this very thing for years in Russia's part of the world --
expanding NATO right up to its
border, sending weapons to Ukraine -- goes conveniently unmentioned.
Russiagate skeptics were criticized for being hyperbolic in
comparing that scandal to the bogus
WMD tale that led to the Iraq War; the latter, after all, killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized an entire region. But the
full consequences of Russiagate will not be felt immediately; they will unfold over time. And while floating the specter of Russia
might not work this time, expect it to be used over and over in the coming years to justify all manner of
military aggression
.
In 2006, former Vice President Joe Biden told a South Carolina rotary club audience that he proudly
voted for the Secure Fence Act - authorizing the construction of 700 miles of fencing at the
southern US border.
He also called for a crackdown on companies which hire "illegals," saying: "
I voted for
a fence, I voted, unlike most Democrats -- and some of you won't like it
-- I voted for 700
miles of fence," adding "But, let me tell you, we can build a fence 40 stories high, unless you
change the dynamic in Mexico and -- and you will not like this, and --
punish American
employers who knowingly violate the law when, in fact, they hire illegals
. Unless you do
those two things, all
the rest is window dressing
."
So, 2006 Biden and President Trump agree on immigration policy based on this video unearthed by
CNN
's
KFile.
"
Now, I know I'm not supposed to say it that bluntly, but they're the facts,
they're the facts
," said Biden. "And so everything else we do is in between here.
Everything else we do is at the margins.
And the reason why I add that parenthetically, why
I believe the fence is needed, does not have anything to do with immigration as much as drugs.
And let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons, hear
me, tons of everything from
byproducts for methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin and it's
all coming up through corrupt Mexico
."
Biden 2020 campaign spokesman Andrew Bates defended the remarks to CNN, noting that Biden said
the barrier along the border will not solve the problem of illegal immigration - and called
President Trump's approach to the problem "repugnant" and "contrary to our values as a nation."
"Vice President Biden believes we have to stop trying to scare people and instead have an
immigration discussion based on facts," said Bates. "He believes that we can secure our borders
without abandoning our values, and that we should do that by addressing the root causes of
immigration abroad and working toward comprehensive immigration reform at home, including a pathway
to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and smart border security."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
As
The Hill
's Jonathan Easley notes, Biden has knocked Trump's immigration policies, as
well as the pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio - a staunch opponent of illegal
immigration who was found guilty by the DOJ of racially profiling Latinos.
Biden has been a fierce critic of Trump's immigration policies.
In a speech to the United Latin American Citizens last year, Biden bashed the administration
for its zero-tolerance policy that separated children from their parents at the border.
"
Grotesque lies about immigrants and policies that rip babies from their mothers'
arms
carry echoes of the darkest moments in our history," Biden said. "Not only are
they a national shame, they tarnish the very idea of America and diminish our standing in the
world."
He also lashed out at the president for pardoning former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio,
who had been found guilty in a Justice Department investigation of racially profiling Latinos.
"It doesn't just reveal itself in the betrayal of the 'Dreamers,'
or the pardoning of
a sheriff who has terrorized this community,
" Biden said. "It's also in the
underfunding of our schools, in attacks on labor and the ability of workers to bargain for their
worth, and in the neglect of Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria, where many children -- American
children -- have lost a year of school due to the devastation." -
The
Hill
The war's over, we've been Merkeland. The choice now is whether to
get your throat cut with a sharp knife or a dull one. Trapped by
the fake 2 party paradigm.
Border apprehensions to surpass last 13 year totals in 122
days, DHS heightens funding plea
by Paul Bedard
| May 10, 2019
An average of 3,891 illegal immigrants are apprehended every
day, according to officials.
If the DNC wanted a shot at 2020 they would run Tulsi. Nobody
else on the blue ticket stands a chance, as it was a strong
anti-war sentiment that helped get Trump elected in the first
place, and she is literally the only one to address the illegal
war machine.
You will be fading fast as well, Don, if Hairplugs pivots away
from the Democrat line, and re-embraces a border wall and the
punishment of American firms who hire illegal aliens.
All these
things you "promised," yet have not done. If Biden takes this
issue away from you, you will be lucky to win four states in '20.
Voters do not abide broken campaign promise liars.
"......
punish American employers who knowingly violate the law
when, in fact, they hire illegals
. Unless you do those two
things, all
the rest is window dressing
."
How come we
don't hear this out of the current administration? We all know
these are FACTS.....so quit squabbling over who said the
FACTS.....when they are just FACTS.
All Trump can do is stir the pot about the wall and keep the
tumptards entertained. He has the executive power to bring some
real pain to corporations that hire illegals, but all we get our
of him on this KEY issue of FACT is........crickets........
Trump is a liar and charlatan that doesn't want immigration
reform or even control. If he did, he would do something
meaningful other than rave non-stop about a wall that will solve
NOTHING........FACT.
This is easy: Creepy Joe Biden is a career politician who,
not-so-deep down, is a hypocritical shitheel. The only "good"
thing Joe wants is a lifetime pension and some Ukrainian/Chinese
financial favors for his son (the one who is banging his deceased
brother's widow).
"... It was comprehensive -- directing military, diplomatic, and propaganda, policies -- regarding the Trump Administration's planned "Overthrow" of Venezuela's Government. His plan has since guided the Administration's entire operation, including "the capacities of the psychological war," regarding Venezuela. ..."
"... Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises." ... ..."
"... intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures." ... ..."
"... Fully obstruct imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make the situation more critical for the population." ... compelling him to fall into mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically" ... ..."
"... To besiege him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of Cuba." ... ..."
"... Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order 'to leave it with no professionals at all', which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame on of Government." ..."
A detailed plan from "UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND" dated "23 FEBRUARY 2018" was issued with the title "PLAN TO OVERTHROW THE
VENEZUELAN DICTATORSHIP 'MASTERSTROKE'" and is here presented complete.
This document was personally signed by
Admiral Kurt W. Tidd , who was the Commander (the chief), at
SOUTHCOM , and he was thus the top U.S.
military official handling Venezuela. But this was far more than just a military plan.
It was comprehensive -- directing military, diplomatic, and propaganda, policies -- regarding the Trump Administration's planned
"Overthrow" of Venezuela's Government. His plan has since guided the Administration's entire operation, including "the capacities
of the psychological war," regarding Venezuela.
It instructed SOUTHCOM:
Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential
goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises." ...
intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary
base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures." ...
Fully obstruct imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make the situation more
critical for the population." ... compelling him to fall into mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically"
...
To besiege him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of
Cuba." ...
Appealing to domestic allies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate protests,
riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation, with the
intention of deserting this country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such a way the
National Security of neighboring frontier nations. Causing victims and holding the Government responsible for them. Magnifying,
in front of the world, the humanitarian crisis in which the country has been submitted to."
Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order 'to leave it
with no professionals at all', which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame on
of Government."
the presence of combat units from the United States of America and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint
General Staff led by the USA."
It was posted online at the Voltairenet site , and
was first copied to a
web archive on
14 May 2018 . So, it has been online since at least that date. However, because the photo in it of the document wasn't made available
via software which includes the individual symbols, but presented only the full visual image of the paper document, it still hasn't
yet gone viral on the Web.
Here, therefore, is the first appearance, on the Web, of the full document, that's manually copied, character-by-character, so
that each phrase in this document becomes, for the first time, web-searchable, and thereby conveniently available for journalists
and historians to quote from.
This prophetic document -- the source for what has happened afterward in and to Venezuela -- might therefore finally receive the
public attention that it so clearly merits.
The document starts with propaganda against Venezuela's existing Government (and
it totally ignores the extent
to which the pre-existing
U.S. economic sanctions
against Venezuela had actually caused these problems ), and it then proceeds to present the U.S. plan to overthrow the 'dictatorship'.
(Tidd refers to Maduro only as "the Dictator," except at the very start and very end.
At the end, he commands "the denouncement toward Maduro's regimen" and he also uses the phrase "the enemy" to refer to him --
as if there had been the U.S. Constitutionally required authorization, by the U.S. Congress, of this "war." The close urges "the
dispatch of a UNO military force for the imposition of peace, once Nicolas Maduro's corrupt dictatorship is defeated." The U.N. is
militarily to "impose" "peace," after the U.S. and its allies have conquered Venezuela.)
Although Tidd placed 100% of the blame for Venezuela's problems upon Maduro, and ignored the crucial extent to which U.S. economic
sanctions had caused them, his plan emphasized that the U.S. must actively make things even worse for the Venezuelan public than
America's economic sanctions had yet done.
His coup-plan is loaded with such statements, and, in fact, opens with one:
"Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential
goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises."
So: he wasn't naive. America's induced suffering upon Venezuelans was part of his plan for Venezuelans, in order to get them to
do what the U.S. regime wants them to do -- overthrow Maduro. Furthermore, the United States Government has had extensive successes
in previous such operations. One example is that this was how Chile's Salvador Allende was brought down in 1973 (at a time when the
U.S. Government's claims to have done it for 'national security' reasons had much more credibility than its current excuse of helping
the Venezuelan people does, because the supposedly ideological Cold War was still on).
The only excuse that the perpetrators can come up with, this time around, is "to put an end to the Venezuelan nightmare and the
awakening of theirs beloved nation at a luminous dawn, in which the vision of fortune, true peace and tranquility predominate for
their fellow citizens."
Impoverish the nation, in order to help Venezuelans attain "true peace and tranquility." That's the plan.
Here is the document's entire text:
SOUTHCOM
TOP SECRET
23 FEB 2018
PLAN TO OVERTHROW THE VENEZUELAN DICTATORSHIP "MASTERSTROKE"
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND 23 FEBRUARY 2018
TOP SECRET/20180223
CURRENT SITUATION
The Venezuelan Chavista dictatorship staggers as a result of its frequent internal problems; there is a great shortage of foodstuffs,
an exhaustion of the sources of foreign currency and a rampant corruption. The international support, won with petrodollars, becomes
scarcer each time and the purchasing power of its national currency is in a constant downfall.
Such scenario is not supposed to change, but the Venezuelan present-day leaders, as they usually do, in their despair to preserve
their power, are capable to appeal to new populist measures that perpetuate their positions of privilege; the only mechanism that
sustains them obstinate to the struggle to hold on their positions.
Maduro's corrupt regimen will collapse but regrettably, the divided opposing forces, legitimate defenders of democracy and
the well-being of their people, do not have power enough to put an end to the Venezuelan nightmare and the awakening of theirs
beloved nation at a luminous dawn, in which the vision of fortune, true peace and tranquility predominate for their fellow citizens.
The internal disputes, the supreme particular likings, the corruption similar to the one of their rivals, as well as the scarcity
of rooting, do not grant them the opportunity to make the most of this situation and to give the necessary step to overturn the
state of penury and precariousness in which the pressure group, that exercises the leftist dictatorship, has submerged the country.
We are at the presence of an unprecedented criminal action in Latin America.
This affects the entire region, there is no respect to international right and local political alternatives are unacceptable.
Democracy spreads out in America, continent in which radical populism was intended to take over. Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil
are examples of it. The rebirth of democracy has the support of the most valuable determinations, and the conditions in the regions
run in its favour.
It is the time for the United States to prove, with concrete actions, that they are implicated in that process, where overthrowing
Venezuelan dictatorship will surely mean a continental turning point.
It is the first opportunity of the Trump Administration to bring forward the vision in reference to security and democracy.
Showing its active commitment is crucial, not only for the administration, but also for the continent and for the world.
The time has come to
Step to speed up the definite overthrow of Chavismo and the expulsion of its representative:
Undermining the decadent popular support to Government.
Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential
goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises.
Securing he the present-day dictator's irreversible deterioration
Developing actions to encourage the egocentrism and the verbal incontinence of the Dictator, compelling him to fall into
mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically, while continuing to minimize the international significance
of his public figure.
To beseige him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of
Cuba. Exacerbating the division among members of the governing group. Revealing the differences in his living conditions with
respect to those of his followers, at the same time to incite them to keep on increasing those divergences. Highlighting examples
as the ones of Rafael Ramirez from PDVSA and Nelson Mercengtes from gthe BCV.
Making his government unsustainable, forcing him to claudication, to negotiate or to run away, as other close collaborators
have done.
Making provisions for a back or escaping door, in case he finally chooses to look for a safe port out of his country.
Increasing the internal instability to a critical level.
Intensifying the undercapitalizatioin of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its
monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures that increase its deterioration and that simultaneously
provoke the citizens with less access -- who support the present-day rulers -- and those who are best positioned, to see their
social status threatened or affected. Establishing that the use of bitcoin, Petro, is a key element in the deterioration of
the economy, which is an unconstitutional and illegal manipulation of the national currency, useable for money laundering.
Fully obstructing imports, and at the same time, discouraging potential foreign investors in order to contribute to make
more critical the situation of the population -- mainly in the sphere of oil, essential for any attempt of recuperation of
the national economy.
Appealing to domestic allies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate
protests, riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation,
with the intention of deserting this country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such
a way the National Security of neighboring frontier nations. Causing victims and holding the Government responsible for them.
Magnifying, in front of the world, the humanitarian crisis in which the country has been submitted to.
Making use of the generalized corruption and the originating profits from their operations with prohibited drugs, to do
away with their image in front of the world and their domestic followers.
Promoting fatigue inside the members of the PSUV, inciting the annoyance and nonconformity among themselves, for them to
break noisily away from the line of the Government; for them to refuse the measures and restrictions which also affect them,
inciting the rising of internal politic factions, which divides it in its schism, making it as weak as the the opposition is.
Creating frictions between the PSUV and "Somos Venezuela".
Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order "to leave
it with no professionals at all", which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame
on of Government.
Using the army officers as an alternative of definite solution.
Continuing hardening the conditions inside the Armed Forces to carry out a coup d'etat before concluding 2018, if the crisis
does not make the dictatorship to collapse or the dictator does not decide to move aside.
Continuing setting fire to the common frontier with Colombia. Multiplying the traffic of fuel and other goods. The movement
of paramilitaries, armed raids and drug trafficking. Provoking armed incidents with the Venezuelan frontier security forces.
Recruiting paramilitaries mainly in the campsites of refugees in Cucuta, La Guajira and the north of Santander, areas largely
populated by Colombian citizens who emigrated to Venezuela and now return, run away from the regimen to intensify the destabilizing
activities in the common frontier between both countries. Making use of the empty space left by the FARC, the belligerency
of the ELN and the activities in the area of the Gulf Clan.
Preparing the involvement of allied forces in support of the Venezuelan army officers or to control the internal crisis,
in the event they delay too much in taking the initiative.
Establishing a speedy time line that prevents the Dictator to continue winning control on the internal scenario. If it's
necessary, act before the elections stipulated for next April.
Getting the support of the allied authorities of friendly countries (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Panama and Guyana).
Organizing the provisioning, relief of troops, medical and logistic support from Panama. Making good use of the facilities
of electronic surveillance and signals intelligence, the hospitals and its deployed endowments in Danen, the equipped airdromes
for the Colombian Plan, as well as the landing fields of the old-time military bases of Howard and Albrook, as well as the
one belonging to "Rio Halo". In addition, the Humanitarian Regional Center of the United Nations, designed for situations of
catastrophes and humanitarian emergency, which has an aerial landing field and its own warehouses.
Moving on the basification of combat airplanes and choppers, armored conveyances, intelligence positions, and special military
and logistics units (police and military district attorneys and prisons).
Developing the military operation under international flag, patronized by the Conference of American Armies, under the
protection of the OAS and the supervision, in the legal and media context, of the Secretary General Luis Almagro. Declaring
the necessity that the continental commandment be strengthened to act, using the instrument of the Inter-American Democratic
Charter, in order to avoid the democratic rupture.
Binding Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Panama to the contribution of greater number of troops, to make use of their geographic
proximity and experience in operations in forest regions. Strengthening their international condition with the presence of
combat units from the United States of America and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint General Staff led
by the USA.
Using the facilities at Panamanian territory for the rear guard and the capacities of Argentina for the securing of the
ports and the maritime positions.
Leaning on Brazil and Guyana to make use of the migratory situation that we intend to encourage in the border with Guyana.
Coordinating the support to Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, Aruba, Curacao, Trinidad and Tabago and other States in front of
the flow of Venezuelan immigrants in the event of the crisis. Promoting international participation in this effort, as part
of the multilateral operation with contribution of the States, Non-Profit Organizations and international bodies. Supplying
the adequate logistic, intelligence, surveillance and control support.
Anticipating, specially, the most vulnerable points in Arauca, Puerto Carreno and Ininda, Maicao, Barranquilla and Sincelejo,
in Colombia, and Roramia, Manaos and Boa Vista, in Brazil.
Information Strategie
Silencing the symbolic presence of Chavez-representative of unit and popular support-, and in the other way around, keeping
the harassment to the Dictator as the only responsible of the crisis in which he has submerged the nation.
Holding the Dictator and his closer followers responsible, in the first place, for the prevailing crisis due to his inability
to find the way out that the Venezuelans are in need of.
Intensifying the media denouncement about the cubanization of Venezuela.
Outstandingly intensifying the denouncement toward Maduro's regimen, considering him:
A criminal
A illegitimate
A thief of the wealth of the Venezuelan people
Someone who plunders the national treasury to carry out his evasion
Highlighting the incompetence of the mechanisms of integration created by the regimens of Cuba and Venezuela, specially
the ALBA and PETROCARIBE, in order to tackle the situation of the country and their inability to find solutions to the problems
that the citizens are facing.
Increasing, inside the country and through the mass media established abroad, the dissemination of designed messages based
on testimonies and publications originated in the country, making use of all the possible capacities, including the social
networks.
Claiming, through that mass media, the need to put an end to this situation because of its unsustainable essence.
Justifying and assuring through violent means the international backup to the deposal of the dictatorship, displaying an
extensive dissemination, inside the country and to the entire world, through all the open means and the capacities of the psychological
war of the US ARMY.
Assuring that the disclosed images and reports of the military actions are approved by the General Staff to prevent their
manipulation and use by the enemy.
The United States should entirely back up the OAS, strengthening the image of the OAS and other multilateral institutions
for the inter-American system, as instruments for the solution to the regional problems.
Promoting the request of the the dispatch of a UNO military force for the imposition of peace, once Nicolas Maduro's corrupt
dictatorship is defeated.
The US military learned their international terrorism activities from the best, the Mossad. This country is run (since at least
Lincoln) by terrorists. Money stolen from us every year in the form of taxes used for ******** that destabilizes nations, destroys
heritage and expands greater isn'treal.
All this and **** none of us even heard of yet...while our own borders remain wide open and our infrastructure crumbles.
It's fake. The military doesn't engage in such things, the spooks at the CIA do-along with the NSA. Just looking at that pic
is humorous -- as if that's what they would title the document.
BLah, blah, blah... in other words, the usual.... same as always... CIA's Crowley complained about these idiots after he retired...
one example is the difference in Bush 1 and Bush Jr....
This plan is just the usual regime change script written about in many books... the only difference is how 'western' it is
in targeting the mind of the masses... which only happens in 'democracies'.... real ones make you do that....
Wait till the puppets in DC really get frustrated... .and then see how frustrated their puppet masters get when their plans
go awry as well... time is running out for both puppet and its master... Imagine being Putin and having to deal with these freaks.
I have a conspiracy theory. Since one of my theories is this: We want to gain control of Venezuela oil in order to secure oil
imports coming into the US for when we attack Iran for the sake of Israel. The 22% of imports we get from the middle east, much
of which comes from the Persian Gulf region, will be disrupted due to this war. And we would have a shortage here in the US along
with skyrocketing oil prices. And we would surely bitch about it. But Venezuela oil will keep the oil coming into the US uninterrupted.
And for those of you who believe we are energy independent, we are not. We use about 19 million barrels of oil per day, we produce
about 12 million barrels per day, and we import about 6-7 million barrels of oil per day to help feed our craving for oil.
But to add to this conspiracy theory, I believe the window of opportunity is closing and the Zionists have to act quickly.
So they will just say, OK, lets take Venezuela with our military and see how the world responds. We will never know until we try,
so let's do it. And if it was a bad idea, don't worry boys, we are untouchable. We got away with it in Iraq, so let's do it again.
Venezuela today, Iran tomorrow, and Israel always. They pay very well.
But this is just a conspiracy theory of mine, perhaps even a foolish one.
I have heard from many sources that much of Biden's "lead" in the polls is astroturfed
nonsense.
This is because the corporate poll-takers are taking data from demographics that
lean heavily towards Biden in an effort to skew the numbers towards making him seem more
popular than he really is.
After all, how popular can a guy be who is heaping praise on Dick
Cheney?
Biden voted for Iraq invasion. That disqualifies him from any public office.
Notable quotes:
"... "Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be able to decide when to pull the trigger?" ..."
"... I have reflected on that question numerous times over the years. Part of me rankles at the notion of someone like Biden, who assiduously avoided military service, asking such a question to someone like me, who not only volunteered to serve in the Marine Corps, but did so during wartime, when more than 500,000 other U.S. servicemen and women were doing the trigger-pulling, figuratively and otherwise, based upon the decisions made by others. ..."
"... "Senator Biden will not be meeting with you," the staffer declared. "You're too controversial." I slid the Arms Control Today article across the table. "How are facts controversial?" I asked. "Point to one thing in this article that you believe to be false or misleading." The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are failing." ..."
"... By the summer of 2002, it was clear that the administration of George W. Bush was making a push for a war with Iraq designed to resolve the WMD issue by removing Hussein from power ..."
"... "Senator Joe Biden is running a sham hearing," I noted at the time. "It is clear that Biden and most of the congressional leadership have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and are using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq." I pointed out that it was important to determine whether a threat existed inside Iraq that justified going to war. I believed no such threat existed. "I bear personal witness," I noted, "through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the U.N., to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of the U.N. weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament. These are the sort of facts that must be included in any hearing that seeks to determine the threat posed by Iraq today. It is clear that Senator Biden and his colleagues have no interest in such facts." ..."
"... "That's right," Biden responded, "and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact -- and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that's part of what I said, but not all of what I meant." Biden rambled on in typical fashion, before concluding, "But [Saddam] did have these stockpiles everywhere." "Where are they?" Russert asked. "Well, the point is," Biden stammered, "it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them." ..."
Author's note: The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition will go down in history as one of
the greatest geopolitical disasters in modern history. Then-Sen. Joe Biden was in a unique position to prevent this war from happening.
That he chose not to speaks volumes about the man who now seeks to become the next president of the United States. My personal experiences
with Biden from 1998 to 2002 provide a window into the character of the man that Americans should familiarize themselves with before
considering whether to give him their support.
"I envy your position. I sincerely do. I envy the ability to have such clarity on this issue."
Listening to those words, coming as they were from Sen. Joe Biden, one of the most vociferous defenders of the policies of Bill
Clinton's administration, I knew I was in for a grilling. It was Sept. 15, 1998. I was seated, alone, at a table reserved for witnesses,
giving testimony to a joint session of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees about the reasons behind my resignation
as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. Arrayed before me were some of the most powerful people in the United States, if not
the world. The combined membership of these two committees totaled 36 senators, a little over a third of the entire membership of
that esteemed body. More than 20 were present at the hearing and, over the course of the next hour and a half, I was questioned in
detail by 17 of them, none of whom seemed to object to my presence more than Biden.
"Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be able to decide when to pull the trigger?"
I have reflected on that question numerous times over the years. Part of me rankles at the notion of someone like Biden, who assiduously
avoided military service, asking such a question to someone like me, who not only volunteered to serve in the Marine Corps, but did
so during wartime, when more than 500,000 other U.S. servicemen and women were doing the trigger-pulling, figuratively and otherwise,
based upon the decisions made by others.
... ... ...
Kerry took my phone call and listened to my pitch. "Put it in writing," he told me. I did him one better -- I wrote an exhaustive
article for Arms Control Today, the leading journal on the issue of disarmament, and had the publisher send a copy to every member
of Congress. Titled "The Case for the Qualitative Disarmament of Iraq," the article noted that "Iraq has not fully complied with
the provisions of Security Council Resolution 687. On this there is no debate. However, this failure to comply does not automatically
translate into a finding that Iraq continues to possess weapons of mass destruction and the means to produce them."
Citing UNSCOM
inspection reports and internal memoranda, I broke down Iraq's WMD programs and demonstrated how UNSCOM, while not able to account
for every component or item of interest related to WMD, had in fact accomplished the "qualitative" disarmament of Iraq, destroying
its ability to manufacture and sustain weapons of mass destruction which, when coupled with a vigorous inspection-based monitoring
of its industrial infrastructure, could provide meaningful assurance that Iraq would not be able to reconstitute a viable WMD capability.
Kerry passed the issue off to Biden, who declined to talk to me directly, instead dispatching a senior member of the minority
staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. This meeting was a singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling
me a traitor for speaking out about Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. "You are not supposed to have
these materials," he said. "They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing the information they contain."
After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed
out that the information I cited was from my time as an inspector, and was not classified in any way. No U.S. intelligence sources
or methods were compromised by my efforts. While U.S. policymakers may have been embarrassed by my revelations, this was only because
truth did not comport with the policies they were pursuing. I reminded the staffer of Biden's stated desire to call on my "knowledge
and expertise in the future," noting that this meeting was supposed to be conducted in keeping with that intent in mind.
"Senator Biden will not be meeting with you," the staffer declared. "You're too controversial." I slid the Arms Control Today article across the table. "How are facts controversial?" I asked. "Point to one thing in this article
that you believe to be false or misleading." The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This
is about politics, and Senator Biden will not go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are failing."
I couldn't think of a more damning indictment of a public official.
By the summer of 2002, it was clear that the administration of George W. Bush was making a push for a war with Iraq designed to
resolve the WMD issue by removing Hussein from power. Once again, I began lobbying the Senate to hold hearings on the threat posed
by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and consider whether this threat justified going to war. A better option, I contended, was to
push for getting U.N. weapons inspectors back to work. This time, no senator would meet with me. Hagel sent a staffer, while Kerry
and Biden refused to take my calls. I was compelled to take my case to the media, writing a series of op-ed articles making the case
for hearings. Under pressure, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee finally relented, scheduling two days of hearings. I was not
invited to testify.
"Senator Joe Biden is running a sham hearing," I noted at the time. "It is clear that Biden and most of the congressional leadership
have pre-ordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and are using these hearings
to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq." I pointed out that it was important to determine whether a threat
existed inside Iraq that justified going to war. I believed no such threat existed. "I bear personal witness," I noted, "through
seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the U.N., to both the scope of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and
the effectiveness of the U.N. weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them. While we were never able to provide 100 percent
certainty regarding the disposition of Iraq's proscribed weaponry, we did ascertain a 90-95 percent level of verified disarmament.
These are the sort of facts that must be included in any hearing that seeks to determine the threat posed by Iraq today. It is clear
that Senator Biden and his colleagues have no interest in such facts."
Biden convened his hearing, which sought the testimony of witnesses hand-picked to sustain the desired conclusion that Iraq was
a threat worthy of war. He then went on to vote in support of the use of military force against Iraq -- a sharp contrast to the position
he took in 1991. The U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003, citing the threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the justification
for this action. No such weapons were found; Iraq, it turned out, had in fact been qualitatively disarmed, just as I had pointed
out in my Arms Control Today article. Instead, the U.S. found itself embroiled in an unpopular occupation and confronted by a popular
insurgency that ended up killing more than 4,400 U.S. service members and wounding some 32,000 others; more than 500,000 Iraqis perished
as a result of this insurgency before U.S. combat troops were withdrawn from Iraq in December 2011.
In April 2007, during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Biden was confronted with his decision to support the 2003 invasion
of Iraq. "I want to go back to 2002," host Tim Russert said, "because it's important as to what people were saying then and what
the American people were hearing. Here's Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: 'He's a long-term threat and a short-term threat to our
national security.'
'We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.'
'He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.' You were emphatic about that."
"That's right," Biden responded, "and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact -- and remember the weapons we were talking
about. I also said on your show, that's part of what I said, but not all of what I meant." Biden rambled on in typical fashion, before
concluding, "But [Saddam] did have these stockpiles everywhere." "Where are they?" Russert asked. "Well, the point is," Biden stammered, "it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons
inspectors said he had them."
I was watching "Meet the Press" that day as Biden sought to spin his way out of a trap of his own making. Then came the clincher.
Russert asked Biden straight up: "Should you have gone or sought out people who had a dissenting view on the level of weapons of
mass destruction?"
Biden (D)(1): "Biden tells wealthy donors he is from the 'corporate state of Delaware'" [
Washington Times ]. "Joe Biden told supporters at a private fundraising event in Los
Angeles that he hails from the 'corporate state of Delaware,' while protesters gathered
outside objecting to corporate greed The meeting took place at the home of Cynthia Telles and
Joe Waz in the upscale Hancock Park neighborhood on Wednesday.
Telles is on the board of
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan. Waz is a media executive
for Comcast and NBCUniversal."
Status Quo Joe has a built in hate list;
9.9 Million Americans with student loans who are in default. (45 million student loans X 22% in default). These are mostly minority students who are supposedly going to vote Democratic.
Up to 40% may default by 2023. Uh huh.
You forgot to include the other 9M of us who lost our homes while he was VP, too.
Those facts need to be shouted to all, to sink that current sailboat he's riding named
"ABB". (Anybody But Bernie).
Sadly Stupidly, the Dems would rather lose to Trump again than win with a
Progressive representing the actual people. That would not be in their best
(financial) interest, don't ya know.
The million or more of us who have never forgotten his treatment of Anita Hill and his all
but in name only sign off of Thomas who will be more likely to spit on his grave than ever
vote for him.
If these three reasons alone were spoken of repeatedly to those who would be tempted to
vote for him, that should be enough to take the wind out of his sails.
Well perhaps a few more should be included to rip those sails to shreds, preventing him
from ever reaching a welcoming shoreline again.
It's painfully obvious Biden is supposed to be the next 'chosen one' for our votes.
Yet this time I don't see the nomination going as planned, as it did in 2016
or I'm trying to remain hopeful, at least, while continuing to offer the truth about him, and
the much better candidates, to those I meet.
I tell every young person I meet how Biden made it illegal to go bankrupt on your college
loan. Those are four reasons. Iraq war vote. Handsy. Senator in service to America's own
offshore banking haven. Architect of the Drug War. I'll think of more once I post.
I would remind people he has run before, and especially has not done well here in Iowa.
That was before he was the chosen one though.
If Bernie mud-wrestles the nomination away from the Democratic Party Swamp Creatures, all
the Democratic Swamp Creatures and all the Catfood Democrats will support Trump, either
secretly or in public; in a desperate effort to MAKE Bernie lose.
And that's okay. I want Bernie nominated anyway. Let the Caftood Democrats turn around and
elect Trump. They know they want to, and we know it too. They will be doing it in open view,
before God AND CSPAN. The whole world will be watching. It could finally push American
society to seek a "final solution" to the "Catfood Democrat" question. ("Figuratively
speaking" of course. >>of course<< )
I'm still trying to understand that polling. It doesn't make much sense. Then again, we're
months away from any votes being cast, so this is probably all name recognition right
now.
Polls of the primary races are meaningless until this fall at the earliest. And at that
point the only worthwhile polls are the Setzer poll in Iowa and a few comparable polls in NH,
SC and NV. National polls don't mean anything.
How many of those 9.9 Million Americans with student loans in default know that Biden was
the principal designer of the law designed to create their situation? Is there a way to shove
that knowledge all-up in the FACE of every single student-loan defaulter who does not know
all about that already now?
"Biden voted for a controversial 2005 bankruptcy bill after receiving a large number of
donations from MBNA, a credit card firm that also retained Hunter Biden as a consultant.
(MBNA, which was headquartered in Biden's home state of Delaware, was bought by Bank of
America in 2006
As vice president, Biden hired Steve Ricchetti, his longtime adviser and former lobbyist,
to serve as one of his top aides. Though the Obama administration had imposed a ban on hiring
people who had lobbied in the past two years, Biden's office said Ricchetti didn't need an
ethics waiver to join the administration because Ricchetti had terminated his lobbying
registrations four years earlier -- even though he had still been doing "government
relations" work for 20 clients, and his brother had kept lobbying for their firm's
clients."
"The Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign tossed
out the Obama-era rules banning lobbyist and corporate PAC cash during the 2016 election.
The PAC's lobbyist donors include:"
see article
Look how Tulsi deal with really hostile interviewers. A real nasty attack dog.
Notable quotes:
"... That was absolutely disgusting. He didn't say should we "pull our forces out around the world." He said should we "take our boot off their necks." Warmongering imperialist. ..."
"... So rude he won't let her talk, Tulsi is awesome this guy is a joke he doesn't know history. ..."
That was absolutely disgusting. He didn't say should we "pull our forces out around the
world." He said should we "take our boot off their necks." Warmongering imperialist.
Damn, Tulsi totally smashed him. Now, his supporters gonna have a second thought as they
got a short taste of truth/facts on Saudi. Tulsi can easily defeat Trump.
Ordinary Human, 2 weeks ago
Intelligent, calm, speaks clearly qualities you look for in a leader.
Timothy Lavoie, 2 weeks ago
So rude he won't let her talk, Tulsi is awesome this guy is a joke he doesn't know history.
Newly released evidence suggests Ukraine played key role in creating
Trump–Russia collusion narrative at behest of Obama officials
As Ukraine underwent dramatic changes
in 2014, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden played a critical role in the Obama
administration's involvement in the revolution that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor
Yanukovych.
Following the revolution, Biden would use his influence to help force the creation of the
troubled National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU). Notably, during the 2016 election campaign,
information leaked from NABU about Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort that helped to create
the false narrative that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election.
Biden also would use the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to
pressure Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to fire the prosecutor general. At the time, the
prosecutor had been investigating Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas giant that had appointed
Biden's son, Hunter, as a board member.
President Donald
Trump 's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, recently said, "Keep your eye on Ukraine." In his
comments to the
Washington Examiner , Giuliani highlighted the "plot to create an investigation of
President Trump, based on a false charge of conspiracy with the Russians to affect the 2016
elections."
Obama Administration's 2014 Involvement
On or shortly before Feb. 4, 2014, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary for European and
Eurasian affairs in the Obama State Department, had a conversation with the U.S. ambassador to
Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, which was intercepted and leaked .
In the call, Nuland and Pyatt appeared to be discussing the ouster of Yanukovych and the
installation of opposition leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk as prime minister.
Nuland favored opposition leader Yatsenyuk over his main rivals Vitali Klitschko and Oleh
Tyahnybok, telling Pyatt: "I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the
governing experience. He's the what he needs is Klitschko and Tyahnybok on the outside."
Toward the end of the conversation , then-Vice President Biden
was discussed as being willing to help cement the changeover in Ukraine:
Geoffrey Pyatt: "We want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come
out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to
Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into
place."
Victoria Nuland: "So, on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [Biden's national security
adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need Biden, and I said
probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's
willing."
Nuland and Pyatt met with Ukrainian opposition leaders Klitschko and Yatsenyuk, along with
then-President Yanukovych, just days later on Feb. 7, 2014.
Events then moved swiftly. On Feb. 22, 2014, Yanukovych was
removed as president of Ukraine and fled to Russia. On Feb. 27, 2014, Yatsenyuk, the
candidate favored by Nuland, was installed as prime minister of Ukraine.
Klitschko was left out. Notably, Yatsenyuk would later resign
in April 2016 amid corruption accusations.
Biden's Involvement in Ukraine
In April, Biden would get personally involved, as would his son, Hunter. On April 18, 2014,
Hunter Biden was
appointed to the board of directors for Burisma–one of the largest natural gas
companies in Ukraine.
Four days later, on April 22, 2014, Vice President Biden traveled to Ukraine ,
offering his political support and $50 million in aid for Yatsenyuk's shaky new government.
Poroshenko, a billionaire politician, was elected as president of Ukraine on May 25, 2014.
Biden became close to both men and helped Ukraine obtain a four-year, $17.5
billion IMF package in March 2015.
In October 2016, Foreign Policy wrote a lengthy article, "
What Will Ukraine Do Without Uncle Joe ," which described Biden's role in the removal of
Ukraine's general prosecutor, Victor Shokin. Shokin, the choice of Poroshenko, was portrayed as
fumbling a major corruption case and "hindering an investigation into two high-ranking state
prosecutors arrested on corruption charges."
The United States pushed for Shokin's removal, and Biden led the effort by personally
threatening to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. In an interview
with The Atlantic, Biden recalled telling Poroshenko: "Petro, you're not getting your billion
dollars. It's OK, you can keep the [prosecutor] general. Just understand -- we're not paying if
you do." Shokin was removed by
Poroshenko shortly thereafter, in early 2016.
But according to reporting by The Hill, at the time of his firing, Shokin had been
investigating Burisma. Shokin's investigation into Burisma had previously been
disclosed in June 2017, by Front News International.
Burisma is
owned by Nikolai Zlochevsky (also known as Mykola Zlochevsky), the former minister of
ecology for Ukraine. According to
Front News , Zlochevsky issued
a "special permit for the extraction of a third of the gas produced in Ukraine" to his own
company, Burisma.
According to the Ukrainian nonprofit Anti Corruption Action Center, Zlochevsky owns 38
permits held by 14 different companies -- with Burisma
accounting for the majority with 33 of the permits. Zlochevsky left Ukraine after
Yanukovych fled to Russia during the Ukrainian Revolution known as
Euromaidan.
Investigation Into Burisma
In the spring of 2014, the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office opened an investigation at
the behest of the UK prosecutors office, which was investigating money laundering allegations
against Zlochevsky and had
just frozen $23.5 million in assets allegedly belonging to him in early April 2014. Shokin,
who wasn't appointed as general prosecutor until February 2015, wasn't yet involved in the
case.
Ukrainian prosecutors
refused to provide the UK with needed documents, and in January 2015, a British court
ordered the assets unfrozen. This action was pointedly called out in a
speech by Pyatt, who stated, "In the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky, the
UK authorities had seized $23 million in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian
people."
Instead of receiving cooperation from Ukrainian prosecutors, they "sent letters to
Zlochevsky's attorneys attesting that there was no case against him. As a result, the money was
freed by the UK court, and shortly thereafter the money was moved to Cyprus."
On Feb. 10, 2015, Shokin was appointed prosecutor general of Ukraine, and he picked up the
investigation into Burisma, which reportedly continued until his formal resignation in February
2016.
Around the same time that Zlochevsky's assets were being frozen in the UK, Burisma appointed
Hunter Biden to its board on April 18, 2014. Hunter's compensation had never been disclosed by
Burisma, which is a private company, but Ryan Toohey, a Burisma spokesman,
told The New York Times that Biden's compensation was "not out of the ordinary" for similar
board positions.
However, according to The Hill's
reporting , Hunter Biden's firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was receiving regular
payments -- "usually more than $166,000 a month" -- from Burisma. The payments ran from the
spring of 2014 through the fall of 2015 and reportedly totaled more than $3 million.
The Hill article included a written answer from Shokin, who told Solomon that his
investigation into Burisma had included plans for "interrogations and other crime-investigation
procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden."
According to Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, following Shokin's forced
dismissal, the Burisma investigation was transferred to Sytnyk's NABU, which then reportedly
closed the investigation sometime in 2016.
The Kyiv Post on March 27 published an
editorial written by three members of the Anti-Corruption Action Center in Kyiv that
disputed Lutsenko's interview with The Hill. They claim that two cases relating to Burisma are
still being investigated by NABU:
"Two cases regarding the extraction of licenses by Zlochevsky's companies and embezzlement
of public funds at the ministry's procurements during Zlochevsky's Ministerial tenure remain
active and are investigated by NABU."
They also claim that "none of the criminal proceedings against Burisma were closed by NABU."
They acknowledged that the case concerning illegal issuance of licenses to extract natural
resources were transferred to NABU in December 2015, but claim that SAP missed procedural
deadlines for a lawsuit on canceling those licenses.
The politics within Ukraine are extremely complicated, and corruption is endemic, often
leading to conflicting accounts of events.
US Pressure to Investigate Manafort
In January 2016, top Ukrainian corruption prosecutors and officials from Obama's National
Security Council (NSC), FBI, State Department and Department of Justice (DOJ) met in
Washington, according to an April 26
article by The Hill.
The meeting, which was reportedly billed as "training," apparently also touched on two other
matters -- the revival of a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine's
Russia-backed Party of Regions and the closure of an ongoing Ukrainian investigation into
Burisma.
According to The Hill's reporting, the Ukrainian Embassy confirmed that meetings were held,
but said it "had no record that the Party of Regions or Burisma cases came up in the
meetings."
A Jan. 22, 2016, NABU press
release confirmed that NABU Director Artem Sytnyk was in Washington from Jan. 19 to 21.
At the same time as the NABU meeting with Obama officials, Vice President Biden
also met with senior Ukrainian officials. On Jan. 21, 2016, Biden
met with Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine. According to the
White House release , the two leaders agreed "to continue to move forward on Ukraine's
anti-corruption agenda."
Just six days earlier, on Jan 15, 2016, Biden had met with Ukrainian Prime Minister
Volodymyr Groysman, promising to commit $220 million in new assistance to Ukraine that
year.
Notably, several months later, Sytnyk and Ukrainian Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko
would
publicly disclose the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger" to the media, which
implicated Trump's campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The revelation would force Manafort from
the campaign.
Leshchenko also served as a source for various individuals, including journalist Michael
Isikoff and Democratic National Committee (DNC) operative Alexandra Chalupa. In addition,
Leshchenko served as a direct source of information for Fusion GPS -- and its researcher,
former CIA contractor Nellie Ohr.
Another Ukrainian-related meeting also took place in January 2016 when Chalupa, a
Ukrainian-American, informed an
unknown senior DNC official that she believed there was a Russian connection with the Trump
campaign. Notably, this theme would be picked up by the Clinton campaign in the summer of 2016.
Chalupa also told the official to expect Manafort's involvement in the Trump campaign.
How Chalupa knew to expect Manafort's involvement with the Trump campaign in January remains
unknown, but her forecast proved prescient, as Manafort
reached out to the Trump campaign shortly after, on Feb. 29, 2016, through a mutual
acquaintance, Thomas J. Barrack Jr. According to Manafort, he and Trump hadn't been in
communication
for years until the Trump campaign responded to Manafort's offer.
As The Epoch Times
previously reported , on May 30, 2016, Fusion GPS contractor Nellie Ohr sent an email to
her husband, high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, and three other DOJ officials to alert them
of the discovery of the "Reported Trove of Documents on Ukrainian Party of Regions' 'Black
Cashbox.'" It was this discovery that led to Manafort's resignation from the Trump campaign in
August 2016.
On Aug. 14, 2016, The New York Times published an article
alleging that payments to Manafort had been uncovered from the Party of Regents' "black box" --
the 400-page handwritten ledger released by Leshchenko. The article proved to be a fatal blow
for Manafort, who resigned from the Trump campaign just days later.
NABU Ties to FBI
Following the successful overthrow of Yanukovych, Joe Biden had a direct hand in the
formation of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), as he personally "pushed for the
creation of an independent anti-corruption bureau to combat graft," according to an Oct. 30,
2016, article by
Foreign Policy .
NABU was formally established in October 2014 in response to pressure
from not only the U.S. State Department and Biden, but also by the International Monetary Fund
and the European Commission.
Despite the international push, the fledgling anti-corruption unit took more than a year to
actually become a functioning unit. During this time, NABU officials began establishing a
relationship with the FBI. In early 2016, NABU Director Sytnyk announced
that his bureau was very close to signing a memorandum of cooperation with the FBI and by
February
2016 , the FBI had had a permanent representative onsite at the NABU offices.
On June 5, 2016, Sytnyk met with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt to
discuss a more formalized relationship with the FBI and, on June 30, 2016, NABU and the FBI
entered into a
memorandum of understanding that allowed for an FBI office onsite at NABU offices to focus on
international money laundering cases. The relationship was renewed
for an additional two years in June 2017.
NABU has repeatedly refused to make the memorandum of understanding with the FBI public and
went
to court in 2018 to prevent its release. After receiving an unfavorable opinion from the
Kyiv District Administrative Court, NABU appealed the ruling, which was overturned in its favor
by the Sixth Administrative Court of Appeal.
Sytnyk, along with parliamentarian Leshchenko, became the subject of an investigation in
Ukraine and in December 2018, a Kyiv court
ruled that both men "acted illegally when they revealed that Manafort's surname and
signature were found in the so-called black ledger of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych's
Party of Regions," the Kyiv Post
reported on Dec. 12, 2018.
The court noted the material was part of a pre-trial investigation and its release "led to
interference in the electoral processes of the United States in 2016 and harmed the interests
of Ukraine as a state."
Leshchenko had publicly adopted a strong anti-Trump stance, telling the Financial
Times in August 2016 that "a Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American
foreign policy" and that it was "important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he
is [a] pro-Russian candidate who can break the geopolitical balance in the world." Leschenko
noted that the majority of Ukrainian politicians were "on Hillary Clinton's side."
In December 2017, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko
accused Sytnyk of allowing the FBI to conduct illegal operations in Ukraine, claiming that
the "U.S. law enforcers were allegedly invited without the permission required and in breach of
the necessary procedures." Lutsenko
continued by asking, "Who actually let the foreign special service act in Ukraine?"
Taras Chornovil, a Ukrainian political analyst, also questioned the FBI's activities,
writing that "some kind of undercover operations are being conducted in Ukraine with direct
participation (or even under control) of the FBI. This means the FBI operatives could have
access to classified data or confidential information."
Lutsenko called for an audit of NABU,
claiming to "possess information of interest to the auditors" and was pushing for Sytnyk's
resignation, along with that of Nazar Kholodnitskiy, the Specialized Anti-Corruption
Prosecutor's Office (SAP). According to
reporting by Euromaidan Press, Lutsenko's efforts failed "thanks to the reaction from
Ukraine's American partners."
Michael Carpenter, an adviser to Joe Biden, personally issued a public warning to Lutsenko
and others pushing for Sytnyk's removal, stating, "If the Rada votes to dismiss the head of the
Anticorruption Committee and the head of the NABU, I will recommend cutting all U.S. government
assistance to #Ukraine , including security
assistance."
Sytnyk remains in his position as NABU's director.
Pinchuk's Ties to Leshchenko,
Clintons
On April 11, 2019, Greg Craig, Obama's former White House counsel and a partner at law firm
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, was indicted
for lying about and concealing his work in Ukraine. Craig, who reportedly worked closely with
Manafort, was paid
more than $4 million to produce an "independent" report justifying Ukraine's trial and
conviction of the former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko. Notably, Craig's name was not
included in the "Black Ledger" leak from Leshchenko and Sytnyk.
The indictment notes that "a wealthy private Ukrainian" was fully funding the report. In a
recent YouTube video
, Craig publicly stated that "it was Doug Schoen who brought this project to me, and he told me
he was acting on behalf of Victor Pinchuk, who was a pro-western, Ukrainian businessman who
helped to fund the project."
"The Firm understood that its work was to be largely funded by Victor Pinchuk," Skadden
wrote in recent FARA filings .
Pinchuk put out a statement on Jan. 21, denying any financial involvement:
"Mr. Pinchuk was not the source of any funds used to pay fees of Skadden in producing their
report into the trial and conviction of Yulia Tymoshenko. He was in no way responsible for
those costs. Neither Mr. Pinchuk nor companies affiliated with him have ever been a client of
Skadden. Mr. Pinchuk and his team had no role in the work done by Skadden, including in the
preparation or dissemination of the Skadden report."
Pinchuk is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He owns Credit Dnipro Bank,
several ferroalloy plants and a media empire. He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of
former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.
Pinchuk has been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Between April 4 and April 12,
2016, Ukrainian parliamentarian Olga Bielkova had
four meetings , with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies), Liz
Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Department), and David Kramer
(McCain Institute).
FARA documents
filed by Schoen showed that he was paid $40,000 a month by Pinchuk (page 5) -- in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with congressmen and media (page 10). It's
unknown how many of these meetings, if any, took place.
Schoen also helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street
Journal reported on
March 19, 2015, how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in
order to pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Tymoshenko–a political
rival of Yanukovych–from jail. And the relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons
continued. According to the Kyiv
Post :
"Clinton and her husband Bill, the 42nd U.S. president, have been paid speakers at the
annual YES and other Pinchuk events. They describe themselves as friends of Pinchuk, who is
known internationally as a businessman and philanthropist."
Although exact numbers aren't clear,
reports filed by the Clinton Foundation indicate that as much as $25 million of Pinchuk's
donations went to the Clinton organization.
Pinchuk also has ties to Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP who leaked the information on
Manafort. Leshchenko had been a frequent speaker at the Ukrainian Breakfast , a traditional private event
held at Davos, Switzerland, and hosted by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation and has also been
pictured with Pinchuk at multiple other events.
America's revolution to a socialist, government-planned society complete with reserve currency helicopter money also known as
"MMT", may or may not be successful but it certainly will be attempted, and every moment will be not only televised but also tweeted.
On Thursday morning, Visa and MasterCard tumbled after the democratic party's "progressive" socialist wing consisting of Bernie
Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced they would introduce legislation on Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at
15%, a sharp drop from current levels . The proposal follows not long after AOC also proposed the "Green New Deal" - which among
its various policy proposals urged to give a generous and recurring cash handout to any and every American, regardless if they work
or not, and which according to analysts would cost the US as much as $100 trillion over the next several years.
In addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates, states could establish their own lower limits, under the legislation.
Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told the WaPo in an interview that
a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates. " Wall
Street today makes tens of billions from people at outrageous interest rates," he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist New York representative who is expected to run for the Democratic nomination for president as soon
as she is eligible, will introduce the House version of the bill.
According to some, the proposal is quite timely, and comes just as credit card rates recently hit an all time high despite artificially
low interest rates, according to Creditcards.com, which has been tracking the data since 2007 and compiles data from 100 popular
cards. The median interest rate was 21.36% last week compared with 20.24% about a year ago and 12.62% about a decade ago, according
to the website.
Rates have been rising fastest for those with the lowest credit scores , said Ted Rossman, an industry analyst for Creditcards.com.
"Issuers are taking an opportunity to charge people with lesser credit a bit more," he said.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
For borrowers with high credit scores the average rate was 17.73 percent last week compared with 16.71 percent a year ago. For
those with poor credit scores, the average is now about 24.99 percent compared with 23.77 percent a year ago. The difference in the
increase is about 20 basis points higher for customers with a low credit score. A basis point is a common way to measure changes
in percentages.
"It may not sound like that much, but that is just in one year," Rossman said. And even small increases in rates can be crippling
to a cash strapped borrower, he said. "It is the ultimate slap in the face when you're already down."
That may well be, but we wonder what Sanders and AOC will do when the bulk of their supporters, those with the lowest credit rating
and by implication paying the highest interest rates - are de-carded as credit card companies tighten standards "just enough" to
eliminate all those who would be in the 15%+ interest universe anyway . Will they then force credit card companies to issue cheap
(or free) debt to anyone? Inquiring minds want to know...
Meanwhile, considering that in a time of inverted yield curves banks are scrambling for every dollar in interest income, the proposal
is expected to meet stern resistance from the banking industry, which brought in $113 billion in interest and fees from credit cards
last year, up 35 percent since 2012, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It also has zero chance of passing the Senate for
at least the next two years, where Republicans hold the majority.
"I am sure it will be criticized," Sanders said of the legislation. "I have a radical idea: Maybe Congress should stand up for
ordinary people."
Quoted
by the WaPo , the 15 percent cap would be the same as the one Congress imposed on credit unions in 1980, Sanders said. (The National
Credit Union Administration, the industry's regulator, raised that cap to 18 percent in 1987 and has repeatedly renewed it at that
higher level.)
Subprime consumers would discover their credit lines would be eliminated overnight. Could create a wave of bankruptcies in
short order. If they really want to crack down they need to start tinkering with the rates these payday loan companies charge.
Interest rate reflects that credit card debt is unsecured. If you cap it, most people will simply not have access to credit
cards as the banks won't take the risk. Next, there will be a bill that ensures everyone has a credit card. Going into debt is
an American past time, right?
Sure, lowering the interest rates banks can charge on credit cards is a good idea - at first glance - but, in reality, it is
simply another "gatekeeper" move. That means addressing a symptom of an issue, rather than it's real causative reason for existing.
The central banking system, and the banks it controls internationally, including the Fed and headquartered in Basil, Switzerland
- is a criminal enterprise designed to transfer the wealth of sovereign nations into the pockets of a tiny minority of fiends,
and in the process, handing over all power to govern victim nations - through the influence of money in politics. This tiny group
of very sick people are behind 90% of the misery and death in this world - including all wars and profits derived therein. Since
they also control the media they have also foisted an incredibly successful mind control program on their victims. Here in the
US, people run around after whatever the latest "big story" is purported to be - always making sure to box themselves into their
manufactured personalities, repeating what they have been programmed to say. Everyone is watching the giant circus, and misses
the machinations of profound evil - resulting in horrific consequences for all life on Earth.
The Fed and the banks need to exposed for what they are and destroyed, and the fiends behind them exposed, stripped of all
assets, and sentenced to hard labor. Unfortunately, the US government and it's various branches of "justice" is owned by said
fiends and would have to be overthrown to do what needs to be done.
America's revolution to a socialist, government-planned society complete with reserve currency
helicopter money also known as "MMT", may or may not be successful but it certainly will be
attempted, and every moment will be not only televised but also tweeted.
On Thursday morning,
Visa and MasterCard tumbled after the democratic party's "progressive" socialist wing consisting of
Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, announced they would
introduce legislation on
Thursday to cap credit card interest rates at 15%, a sharp drop from current levels
. The
proposal follows not long after AOC also proposed the "Green New Deal" - which among its various
policy proposals urged to give a generous and recurring cash handout to any and every American,
regardless if they work or not, and which according to analysts would cost the US as much as $100
trillion over the next several years.
In addition to a 15% federal cap on interest rates, states could establish their own lower
limits, under the legislation.
Sanders, the socialist Vermont senator running for the Democratic nomination for president, told
the WaPo in an interview that a decade after taxpayers bailed out big banks, the industry is taking
advantage of the public by charging exorbitant rates. "
Wall Street today makes tens of
billions from people at outrageous interest rates," he said.
Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist New York representative who is expected to run for the Democratic
nomination for president as soon as she is eligible, will introduce the House version of the bill.
According to some, the proposal is quite timely, and comes just as credit card rates recently
hit an all time high despite artificially low interest rates, according to Creditcards.com, which
has been tracking the data since 2007 and compiles data from 100 popular cards. The median interest
rate was 21.36% last week compared with 20.24% about a year ago and 12.62% about a decade ago,
according to the website.
Rates have been rising fastest for those with the lowest credit scores
, said
Ted Rossman, an industry analyst for Creditcards.com. "Issuers are taking an opportunity to
charge people with lesser credit a bit more," he said.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
For borrowers with high credit scores the average rate was 17.73 percent last week compared with
16.71 percent a year ago. For those with poor credit scores, the average is now about 24.99 percent
compared with 23.77 percent a year ago. The difference in the increase is about 20 basis points
higher for customers with a low credit score. A basis point is a common way to measure changes in
percentages.
"It may not sound like that much, but that is just in one year," Rossman said. And even small
increases in rates can be crippling to a cash strapped borrower, he said. "It is the ultimate slap
in the face when you're already down."
That may well be, but
we wonder what Sanders and AOC will do when the bulk of their
supporters, those with the lowest credit rating and by implication paying the highest interest
rates - are
de-carded
as credit card companies tighten standards "just enough" to
eliminate all those who would be in the 15%+ interest universe anyway
. Will they then
force credit card companies to issue cheap (or free) debt to anyone? Inquiring minds want to
know...
Meanwhile, considering that in a time of inverted yield curves banks are scrambling for every
dollar in interest income, the proposal is expected to meet stern resistance from the banking
industry, which brought in $113 billion in interest and fees from credit cards last year, up 35
percent since 2012, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. It also has zero chance of passing
the Senate for at least the next two years, where Republicans hold the majority.
"I am sure it will be criticized," Sanders said of the legislation. "I have a radical idea:
Maybe Congress should stand up for ordinary people."
Quoted
by the WaPo
, the 15 percent cap would be the same as the one Congress imposed on credit unions
in 1980, Sanders said. (The National Credit Union Administration, the industry's regulator, raised
that cap to 18 percent in 1987 and has repeatedly renewed it at that higher level.)
Subprime consumers would discover their credit lines would be
eliminated overnight. Could create a wave of bankruptcies in
short order. If they really want to crack down they need to start
tinkering with the rates these payday loan companies charge.
Interest rate reflects that credit card debt is unsecured. If you
cap it, most people will simply not have access to credit cards as
the banks won't take the risk. Next, there will be a bill that
ensures everyone has a credit card. Going into debt is an American
past time, right?
Sure, lowering the interest rates banks can charge on credit cards
is a good idea - at first glance - but, in reality, it is simply
another "gatekeeper" move. That means addressing a symptom of an
issue, rather than it's real causative reason for existing. The
central banking system, and the banks it controls internationally,
including the Fed and headquartered in Basil, Switzerland - is a
criminal enterprise designed to transfer the wealth of sovereign
nations into the pockets of a tiny minority of fiends, and in the
process, handing over all power to govern victim nations - through
the influence of money in politics. This tiny group of very sick
people are behind 90% of the misery and death in this world -
including all wars and profits derived therein. Since they also
control the media they have also foisted an incredibly successful
mind control program on their victims. Here in the US, people run
around after whatever the latest "big story" is purported to be -
always making sure to box themselves into their manufactured
personalities, repeating what they have been programmed to say.
Everyone is watching the giant circus, and misses the machinations
of profound evil - resulting in horrific consequences for all life
on Earth.
The Fed and the banks need to exposed for what they
are and destroyed, and the fiends behind them exposed, stripped of
all assets, and sentenced to hard labor. Unfortunately, the US
government and it's various branches of "justice" is owned by said
fiends and would have to be overthrown to do what needs to be
done.
I would love to have a social conservative who was as red-hot on the abuse of corporate
power as she is. Of course there's no way she would ever win the Democratic nomination if she
were a social conservative, nor would she be a US Senator from Massachusetts.
Back in 2011, when she announced for the Massachusetts Senate race on an anti-big business
platform, I wrote in this space that she was "a
Democrat I could vote for." In 2014, observing how far gone she is on cultural leftism, I
lamented that
I wanted so bad for her to be good -- but hey, you can't always get what you want.
Warren's vision of human flourishing is fundamentally a conservative one -- or at least it
would be if the family were still at the center of the conservative conception of politics.
What she argues for is the right of families to thrive, not be the slave of financial
interests, corporate power, housing monopolies, the educational establishment, or any other
external force. She believes, radically, alas, in 2018, that we all have a right to food,
water, housing, education, and medical care. The idea that hard-working Americans should be
able to raise their children in comfort and with a sense of dignity is not, or at least
should not be, the exclusive purview of any one politician or party. The fact that Warren
very frequently does seem to be among the only elected officials in this country who both
affirms these things and has taken the trouble to think carefully about them is a reminder
that the centrism rejected by her and fellow travelers on the left and the right alike is not
only noxious but omnipresent.
Warren's economic vision of human flourishing -- that is, the economic conditions she
believes must be in place for people to flourish -- is fundamentally conservative, in an older,
more organic sense. Old-fashioned Catholic reactionaries understand exactly what she's talking
about, and so would the kind of Christian conservatives who read Wendell Berry and
Crunchy Cons (which, alas, came out about 13 years too early).
Elizabeth Warren said that out loud. Nobody seemed to mind. She'd never say that today.
It's not allowed like so much else that is true and important. She can't talk about the
things that she believed 10 years ago. No modern Democrat can.
If anyone had suggested to me five years ago that the most incisive public critic of
capitalism in the United States would be Tucker Carlson, I would have smiled blandly and
mentioned an imaginary appointment I was late for. But that is exactly what the Fox News host
revealed himself to be last week with an extraordinary monologue about the state of American
conservative thinking. In 15 minutes he denounced the obsession with GDP, the tolerance of
payday lending and other financial pathologies, the fetishization of technology, the
guru-like worship of CEOs, and the indifference to the anxieties and pathologies of the poor
and the vulnerable characteristic of both of our major political parties. It was a
masterpiece of political rhetoric. He ended by calling upon the GOP to re-examine its
attitude towards the free market.
Carlson's monologue is valuable because unlike so many progressive critics of our social
and economic order he has gone beyond the question of the inequitable distribution of wealth
to the more important one about the nature of late capitalist consumer culture and the
inherently degrading effects it has had on our society. The GOP's blinkered inability to see
beyond the specifications of the new iPhone or the latest video game or the infinite variety
of streaming entertainment and Chinese plastic to the spiritual poverty of suicide and drug
abuse is shared with the Democratic Socialists of America, whose vision of authentic human
flourishing seems to be a boutique eco-friendly version of our present consumer society. This
is lipstick on a pig.
And:
It is difficult for me to understand exactly why conservatives have come around to their
present uncritical attitude toward unbridled capitalism. It cannot be for electoral reasons.
Survey after survey reveals that a vast majority of the American people hold views that would
be described as socially conservative and economically moderate to progressive. A
presidential candidate who spoke capably to both of these sets of concerns would be the
greatest political force in three generations.
The answer is that for conservatives the market has become a cult. No book better explains
the appeal of classical liberal economics than The Golden Bough , Sir James Frazer's
history of magic. Frazer identified certain immutable principles that have governed magical
thinking throughout the ages. Among these is the imitative principle according to which a
favorable outcome is obtained by mimicry -- the endless chants of entrepreneurship, vague
nonsense about charter schools, calls for tax cuts for people who don't make enough money to
benefit from them. There also is taboo, the primitive assumption that by not speaking the
name of a thing, the thing itself will be thereby be exorcised. This is one reason that any
attempt to criticize the current consensus is met with whingeing about "socialism." This
catch-all talisman is meant to protect against everything from the Cultural Revolution to
modest restrictions on overdraft fees imposed at the behest of consultants.
"In the real world you are going to have to keep companies from getting too powerful if you
want a free(ish) market."
"So, is it possible that in this everything-can-be-bought-and-sold culture that the
massive corporations made the very rational choice to buy themselves a government?"
Noah makes an excellent point about the differences between public- and private-sector unions
and collective bargaining units. I would personally add that public-sector unions would never
have been necessary if governments were not run under the same philosophy as private-sector
employers: minimize the cost of employees by any means possible. I've always held that
regardless of any definition of necessity, public-sector unionization was and remains a bad
idea.
I also don't know of a better alternative. Sometimes it's the evil you must handle, rather
than the lesser of two evils.
As for the shifts in the socio-economic realities, there's a necessary categorization
necessary when discussing women in the workforce. I offer these broad categories which are
likely arguable. It's a starting point, not a line in the sand.
Families at or below the poverty line: when you control for the benefits of a stay-at-home
parent, these families only ever had one option to get above the poverty line enough to no
longer need public assistance, and that was a second income. The entire motivation for
minimum wage, stable work hours and such was an attempt to mitigate the need for a second
income. It gets politicized and complicated from there, partially for good reasons, but
unless you look at a given family's income limitations before criticizing the woman's working
instead of being at home, you are ignoring the consequences of poverty, which cannot be
mitigated by parenting.
The woman has a higher income potential: it started well before the employment argument,
as in decades previous women were "permitted" to attain higher education in skill and content
areas beyond nursing and teaching. One reaction to that, an analysis conclusion I arrive at
personally, was to routinely discriminate against female employees in both compensation and
promotion. The prevailing "wisdom" (again, my personal POV) was that women are going to get
pregnant anyway, why encourage them away from that? If the only disparity in compensation was
for unpaid leave due to pregnancy and childbirth, you might have avoided a large part of the
feminist revolution.
The broad mix of "women belong in " arguments based on some moral construct (religious or
other): this is where the feminist revolution was inevitable. It comes down to personal
agency and choice. I have an Orthodox Jewish relative whose wife fully, happily and
creatively embraces her religiously mandated role. She's very intelligent, an erudite writer
and speaker, and is as much a pillar of her community as any male in it. We should avoid
extreme examples like Rahaf Mohammed Alqunun, but her plight without fatal consequences is
precisely what many women face, and want to escape. Feminism simply states that such women
have the right to make that different choice, and the power the men of their community have
over them is a denial of a human right.
I'm sure other broad categories need to be described. I'll leave this before it gets
beyond being too long.
@kgasmart "I defy Elizabeth Warren, or any other prominent lefty, to publicly restate her
thesis that the entry of women into the workforce has ultimately harmed the family.
Imagine the furious tweetstorms. How dare she suggests it's been anything but wonderful
for women themselves – and thus, for society as a whole. Evidence to the contrary be
damned as 'hateful,' of course."
You don't understand the left. And no, having once been in favor of SSM doesn't mean you
understand the left. I and many others will happily say the following: "Society was not
prepared for the mass entry of women into the workplace. Childcare suffered, work-life
balance suffered, male-female relations suffered."
The problem here is that we follow that up with: "The problem was not women having basic
aspirations to the dignity and relative economic security work offers. The problem was a
government captured by the rich who don't understand what policy for families that can't
afford nannies would look like. The problem was also a social structure which valued families
less than it valued proscribed gender roles. Time to chart a different course."
Trust me, feminists talk all the time about how much harder it is to have a family these
days. We just don't think the problem exists because women selfishly wanted basic economic
security.
Warren is a smart, informed academic with some solid views on economic issues.
On the other hand, she is a terrible politician, and not suited for high executive office.
She lacks gravitas and has no intuition for the optics of what she does, going from gaffe to
gaffe. She'd be chewed up and spit out before she became a contender.
While I think HRC had terrible ideas, I never questioned her capacity to project authority
and credibility, that is, "act presidential". In contrast, Obama's dork factor got him in
trouble on a number of occasions (although his "communist salute" stands out), and Warren is
many times more a dork than Obama.
"I confess I have never understood her appeal. She is the very model of a useless New England
scold, constantly seeking to regulate just about everything. There is almost no problem that
more government, more regulation – usually with no oversight – cannot fix. No,
thank you."
This sounds like someone who has not researched Warren's writings and positions
and just does not like her style (i.e. New England Scold). I think her style, which would
be fine in a man (e.g. who is a scold if not Bernie) will primary her out.
The market is not a Platonic deity, floating in the sky and imposing goodness and
prosperity from on high. It is the creation of our choices, our laws, and our democratic
process. We know, for instance, that pornography has radically altered how young boys
perceive their relationships with women and sex, and that the pornography industry has
acquired a lot of wealth in the process of creating and distributing that content. Just last
month, we learned that a Chinese entity created the first gene-edited baby, using a
technology developed in the United States. Some company, here or there, will eventually
create a lot of prosperity by using this gene-editing technology (called CRISPR) in an
unethical way, quite literally playing God with the most sacred power in the universe -- the
creation of human life. In the past few years, it has become abundantly clear that Apple --
despite self-righteously refusing to cooperate with American security officials -- has
willingly complied with the requirements of the Chinese surveillance state, even as China
builds concentration camps for dissidents and religious minorities. And, as Carlson
mentioned, there are marijuana companies pushing for legalization, though we know from the
Colorado experience that legalization increases use, and from other studies that use is
concentrated among the lower class, causing a host of social problems in the process.
I'm an anti-capitalist so of course I'd agree with JD Vance that there's no good reason to
trust the free market or the owners of capitalist enterprises. Nonetheless, I can't join him
in his specific criticisms of free markets here, and I think this kind of underscores the
difficulties there may be in building bridges between social conservatives and social
liberals. Bridges can certainly be built, for sure, but it will take some work and some
painful compromises, and this is a good example of why: several of the things that JD Vance
points to as examples of free markets gone wrong, are things that I'd say are good
things, not bad ones.
I'm not going to defend pornography (although I'm not particularly going to criticize it
that much either: while I distrust conservative / orthodox Christian sexual ethics, I don't
really care about pornography per se and would be happy if the more violent / weird /
disturbing stuff was banned). Gene editing of humans though strikes me as a clearly good
thing: why wouldn't we want our species to be more peaceful, better looking, more pro-social
and more healthy? And why wouldn't we, at the margins, want to raise people who might
otherwise be born with serious physical or mental handicaps to be 'fixed'? I have a lot of
fears for the future of the world, but the idea that gene editing of our species might become
commonplace is one of the things that makes me hopeful. I also think it's a good thing that
tech companies are cooperating with the Chinese state: not because I like China and its
government, particularly, but because I believe strongly in the sovereign nation state and in
the right of national governments to decide how foreign companies are going to behave on
their territory. I'd much rather a world in which companies in China are constrained by the
Chinese state than one in which they're constrained by no rules at all other than their own
will. Finally, the legalization of marijuana and other soft drugs seems to me to be a good
thing as well.
I'm sure that JD Vance and I can come to lots of agreement over other issues, but I did
want to point out there may be stumbling blocks over social issues as well- precisely because
these issues do matter. They don't matter as much as the economic issues, but they do matter
somewhat.
"We believe that family, local communities, and voluntary associations are the first
guarantors of human dignity, and cultivate mutual care. National institutions and policies
should support, not supplant them."
Quite seriously, the entire party could have been invented by Rod, and I mean that as the
highest endorsement.
"You think creating a power vacuum will prevent big businesses from imposing their will on
the population? Go back and look at your beloved 19th century and tell me that absent
government intervention corporations won't crush peoples lives for a few extra cents."
Absolutely. Absent government help, businesses can't do anything except offer people goods
or services, or offer to purchase their labor or goods or services, on terms the individuals
may or may not find advantageous compared to the status quo. When Big Business ran roughshod
over people in the 19th Century, it was because government helped them (e.g., court cases
letting businesses off the hook for their liabilities because of the supposed need for
"progress").
Not all specialties are created equal. It is clear that a person who take loan to became
obtain a degree in communications is deeply misguided as chances to get a well paying job with
this specially are close to zero. Many "humanitarian" specialties are similar -- unemployment is
almost guaranteed and if a person was misled we should prosecute greedy university administrators
and jail some of them. Such specialties should have a disclaimer: employment is difficult to
obtain. Unemployment is almost garanteed. Take the courses at your own risk.
At the same time for STEM degrees Warren proposal makes more sense as people who enrolled
into those specialties tried a more realistic approach, but probably job market turned bad or
level of talent is not enough or both. while people in this specialties are needed but their
chances for employment are crippled by the flow of H1B applicants so part of those costs should
be subsidized by fees for large H1B employers, such as Microsoft and Google. Or something like
that.
At the same time why we should forgive a person the debt if the particular person specialized
in, say, dance? What is the social value of oversupply of dancers? So probably subsidies should
be selective and limited to STEM specialties and selected "high social value" humanitarian
specialties.
So the loan forgiveness is a crippled, somewhat unfair but still a reasonable approach.
But the key problem is not loads but greed of neoliberal educational institutions. Cost of
tuition skyrocketed after 1980 and that's not accidental: this is drect result of neoliberalism
corruption of higher education. The ability of government to prosecute "too greedy" colleges is
important. Limits of salary of administrators and especially president and vice president and
deens are critical.
Notable quotes:
"... The total cost of Warren's plan would be $1.25 trillion over 10 years, with the debt forgiveness portion consisting of a one-time cost of $640 billion. Warren plans to pay for her plan by imposing an annual tax of 2 percent on all families that have $50 million or more in wealth. ..."
"... Warren is right to focus attention on the matter of student loans. This is a major issue for young people and experts have been warning of a crisis for years. ..."
"... After all, they are victims of a scam perpetrated by the education cartel and the federal government. ..."
"... Here's how it works: the education cartel sells the lie that only those with four-year college degrees can succeed in life. Then they steer everyone with a pulse towards a university. ..."
"... The government steps in and subsidizes student loans that allow almost anyone to go to college, regardless of their ability to pay the loans back. ..."
"... College is not for everyone and there's no reason to keep promoting that idea. ..."
"... Reduce the overabundance of administrators. The number has exploded since the 1990s. ..."
"... A lot of required courses are just padding to make the experience drag on for four years. That creates unneeded expenditures of time and money. ..."
"... several nations currently do offer virtually free college educations & I don’t believe their diplomas are of less value for it. ..."
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren recently jolted the Democratic presidential primary
race by tackling one of the most important issues of our time: student loans and the cost of
higher education. Warren called for
canceling up to $50,000 of student loan debt for every American making under $100,000 a
year. In addition, she would make two- and four-year public college tuitions free for all new
students.
The total cost of Warren's plan would be $1.25 trillion over 10 years, with the debt
forgiveness portion consisting of a one-time cost of $640 billion. Warren plans to pay for her
plan by imposing an annual tax of 2 percent on all families that have $50 million or more in
wealth.
Warren is right to focus attention on the matter of student loans. This is a major issue
for young people and experts have been warning of a crisis for
years.
But in most cases, it isn't right to blame student loan borrowers for their predicaments.
After all, they are victims of a scam perpetrated by the education cartel and the federal
government.
Here's how it works: the education cartel sells the lie that only those with four-year
college degrees can succeed in life. Then they steer everyone with a pulse towards a
university.
The government steps in and subsidizes student loans that allow almost anyone to go to
college, regardless of their ability to pay the loans back. These loans are a trap, and
not just with regard to their cost. The government, which
took over the student loan industry , forbids borrowers from discharging that debt in
bankruptcy proceedings.
How do such cheap and easy student loans affect universities? For starters, they have caused
a proliferation of degrees that offer poor returns on
investment . In addition, they have led to the dilution of the value of previously
marketable degrees such as those in the humanities and international relations, as more
students enter those programs than could ever hope to work in their respective fields. For
example, in 2013, half of all those who had graduated from college were working in jobs that
did not require degrees .
But worst of all, the easy access to student loans has destroyed the price mechanism, which
is so important for determining the real supply and demand of a product. Since government is
the ultimate payer, tuition has been pushed sky high. The rate of tuition increase has
actually
outpaced inflation threefold .
Is Elizabeth Warren's plan the solution? No! It will only make things worse.
For starters, the wealth tax that she would use to fund her plan is likely
unconstitutional . But even if it was upheld by the Supreme Court, it would still be bad
policy. Countries that have imposed wealth taxes like France and Sweden have found that the
rich simply
leave and take their assets with them rather than pay more.
As for the idea of universal student loan debt forgiveness, it is a bad policy on the
merits. For starters, it does not make economic sense to forgive the debts of those who will
earn at least $17,500 more a year than those who don't go to college.
Also, although the student loan bubble has been inflated by the actions of both the
education cartel and government, at the end of the day, loans are a contract. Those who are
able to pay them down should and not be bailed out.
... ... ...
Finally, we need to promote alternatives to college. There are many well-paying jobs out
there that
don't require degrees . There are also apprentice programs offered by organizations like
Praxis . We should encourage
entrepreneurship, which is how so many in this country have lifted themselves out of poverty.
College is not for everyone and there's no reason to keep promoting that idea.
Kevin Boyd is a freelance writer based in Louisiana. He is a contributor to The
Hayride, a southern news and politics site. He has also been published in , The Federalist, The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution , and The New York Observer among other publications.
How to make college cost effective. Two major reforms
1. Reduce the overabundance of administrators. The number has exploded since the
1990s.
2. Restructure college. Most programs don’t need to be four years long. Most can be
cut to 2 1/2 – 3 years. A chemistry student should be taking courses required for a
chemistry degree, nothing more (unless he/she wants to). A lot of required courses are just
padding to make the experience drag on for four years. That creates unneeded expenditures of
time and money.
After doing the above, then maybe we can talk about “free” college.
I personally believe that we should each pay our own way through life as much as possible,
but several nations currently do offer virtually free college educations & I don’t
believe their diplomas are of less value for it.
I agree with you that other avenues like trades should be encouraged. A four year degree
isn’t necessary for everyone.
"... War is likely to start in the Middle East as Iran, Lebanon and Syria are relatively soft targets with only limited capability to strike back. As neocon pundit Michael Ledeen put it , " Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ." ..."
With the appointment of leading neoconservative John Bolton as National Security Advisor,
the Zionist war-party takeover of
the White House is nearly complete. With Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State, Nikki Haley at the U.N.
and now Bolton whispering in the President's ear, we have a fully endowed war cabinet that will
make sure the Mullahs, Russkies and Rocket Man begin to pay attention. As Haley laid down the
law in the United Nations recently, "Our patience is not unlimited."
Bolton, the point man for Israeli-American
casino billionaire and GOP kingmaker Sheldon Adelson , will be the spark plug that ignites
a new round of warfare on behalf of Israel. Bolton has long been planning to attack Iran. He
secretly and illegally met with Israel's Mossad intelligence service in 2003-4 when he was
in the State Department under George W. Bush to lay the groundwork for such a conflict. Today,
right-wing Israelis are certainly cheering his appointment. Naftali Bennett, a member of Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security cabinet,
has already praised the move, calling Bolton "an extraordinary security expert, experienced
diplomat and a stalwart friend of Israel".
War is likely to start in the Middle East as Iran, Lebanon and Syria are relatively soft
targets with only limited capability to strike back. As neocon pundit Michael Ledeen put it , " Every ten years
or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show the world we mean business ." There have been numerous indications
that Israel is preparing for war. Its planning clearly includes deliberately involving the
United States in the conflict, turning American soldiers into de facto hostages, with U.S.
casualties guaranteeing Washington's direct and immediate involvement in the fighting.
Largely unknown to the American public, the United States
has just completed the largest ever joint military exercises with Israel even though it has
no defense agreement or treaty with Tel Aviv. That is, in part, because military alliances are
dependent on an attack on one partner mandating support from all parties to the agreement.
Israel has balked at such an arrangement because it cannot define its own borders, which are
constantly expanding.
The recent maneuvers featured scenarios in which U.S. troops fought Syrians, Lebanese and
Palestinians in a mock-up Arab village to defend Israel. Washington's particularly
vulnerability vis-à-vis Israel derives from the recent
opening of a U.S. permanent facility at Mashabim Air Base in the Negev Desert.
It is described as a base within a base, completely contained by an Israeli air force
installation and operating "under Israeli military directives," meaning that if the facility is
attacked Americans will likely die. It has no function in support of U.S. regional interests
but is instead a shell facility with a few dozen airmen that can be ramped up considerably if
Israel goes to war and calls for American assistance. Together with billions of dollars-worth
of U.S. military equipment that is pre-positioned in Israel and can be used by the Israelis as
needed, it is all about supporting Israeli war-making and has nothing to do with American
security or defense interests except as a tripwire to bring about U.S. involvement.
For that reason, all of the above is something more than just the latest "we have to support
Israel" gimmick. The American soldiers and airmen who are now based in Israel are the
sacrificial lambs that will guarantee U.S. entry into a war that Israel intends to start, make
no mistake about that.
When Israel attacks Syria and/or Lebanon, as it clearly intends to do, Hezbollah will
retaliate with its missiles, some of which will surely be directed towards the Mashabim Air
Base, which will be targeted to inhibit the base's ability to bomb Lebanon. And once Washington
is well and truly engaged in what is referred to as "force protection," Israel will undoubtedly
widen the conflict by drawing Iran in through attacks on that country's identified bases in
Syria that are supporting the al-Assad government. The bigger war will suddenly become
America's responsibility after Israel inevitably proves itself incapable of handling the
escalation.
Tulsi Gabbard does have guts. I saw her in a recent interview with Shannon Bream. She said
the US basically needs to let Venezuelans handle their own internal political affairs. I
agree. She appears to be firmly opposed to US military intervention there.
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism
on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia
Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially
conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on
the Right by Fox News's
Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's
Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less,
rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas
stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the
workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively
bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more
breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of
keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was
roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000,
those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to
maintain adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's
title. Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully
drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to
labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that
women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their
potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or
lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found,
women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their
labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical
backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just
5.8
percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of
mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which
they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and
professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily
looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time
work for pay, despite consistently
telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this
massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as
many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include
giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered
the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as
Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd
like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent
tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating
for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to
make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic
development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed
it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the
value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely
ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living
in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not?
It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to
emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of
third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the
author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then
– the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in
places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban
California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this
even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because
it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit
$) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of
course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?
"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
Things were already horrible and most Americans were already treading water before Trump was elected. Trump is a Symptom of 40
years of NeoLiberalism and the Corporate Capture of the U.S. government.
I love how the
mainstream media wants to whitewash history and pretend all the problems in this country happened because of Trump, we're
not stupid, we know the corporate oligarchs in both parties rigged the system against us long before Trump ever decided to
run for president, they think we're all sheep with no memories, screw those pathological liars!
The Democratic
party sold out progressives and the poor and working class decades ago, now they pretend to be on our side using
multi-million dollar ad campaigns funded by their billionaire corporate donors/owners! Thank you Jimmy for telling the
truth!
Bill Clinton
killed 500,000 Iraqi children with sanctions but nobody talks about it. Ramsey Clark called it one of the greatest crimes in
all of history. Why aren't people outraged, because the media doesn't instruct them to? I'm tired of living in bizarro world
where half the country defends the Bush Family and the other half defends the Clinton Cartel no matter what they do.
Jimmy Dore is
completely 100% correct here! Donald Trump is a symptom of a much larger problem, and a massive part of that problem just
happens to be horrible pro-war corporate neoliberal centrist third-way DEMOCRATS! If the nominally left-of-center political
party fails to appeal to the concerns of voters with actual substantive POLICIES, then the far right wins by default. The
far-right wins because, where the fake left fails to offer voters substantive policies that address their concerns, at the
very least the far-right offers something which is emotionally evocative-- and that is SOMETHING. That emotionally evocative
thing might be rooted in all sorts of toxic ideas like racism, sexism, xenophobia, exaggerated nationalism, and jingoism, but
it at least gives people a sense of pride and something to FEEL hopeful about. If we do not have an anti-establishment LEFT,
then get ready for a fake populist anti-Establishment RIGHT to step in and fill that void. Over 4 decades of neoliberalism
have destroyed the economic security of many people in this country, and it's destroyed people's trust in long established
political figures and institutions. Democrats need to either step up or get ready to become OBSOLETE.
One of Chris
Hedges' dozen most interesting points in his last two books included that half the population in jail in US today is there
because of Dem's under Bill Clinton whose polices doubled the inmate population during his tenure (not to mention NAFTA.)
Trump chances are not that great to begin with. Euphrial from Mueller final report will
dissipate soon and House is still controlled by DemoRats with Schiff and other "FullOfSchiff"
people pushing Russiagate like there is no tomorrow. They represent a "present danger". But
Bolton actions can cost Trump 202 elections for sure.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump presumably doesn't want to start a multi-year, extremely expensive war that could also throw the economy into a recession, but then every president that launches an illegal war of choice assumes that the war would be much easier and take less time than it does. ..."
"... There is no question that Bolton should lose his job. Even if you aren't an opponent of Trump, you should be unhappy with the way Bolton has been operating for the last year. He has made a point of sabotaging administration policies he doesn't like, resisting decisions he doesn't agree with, and effectively reversing policy changes while pretending to be carrying out the president's wishes. His mismanagement of the policy process is a bad joke, and the reason he runs the National Security Council this way is so that he can stop views and information that don't suit his agenda from reaching the president. ..."
"... If Bolton gets his wish and the U.S. starts a war with Iran, he may not be in that job for much longer, but the damage will have already been done. ..."
Jason Rezaian
engages in a bit of wishful thinking of his own:
Is John Bolton about to get the Iran war he's always wanted, or is he on the verge of
losing his job?
Over the past several days, President Trump's national security adviser has made comments
and issued statements about Iran and Venezuela that are usually reserved for the run-up to
military campaigns.
Yet Bolton's boss doesn't seem to be playing along.
There is an understandable desire to see Bolton and Trump sharply at odds over foreign
policy, but I'm not sure why anyone thinks it is happening. In the L.A. Times
article I
cited earlier, there is a quote from former ambassador Christopher Hill where he says
something similar: "The president is so dead set against military engagement anywhere, and
Bolton is so dead set on military engagement, it has left the administration speaking without
one voice and overall being sort of feckless." If Trump and Bolton disagreed with each other
this much, it is difficult to explain why Bolton is still allowed to have free rein in making
the administration's foreign policy.
For someone "not playing along," Trump has obediently given Bolton and the Iran hawks
practically everything they have wanted so far. He has gone much further in laying the
groundwork for war with Iran than any of his predecessors, and the only reason that many people
seem confident that he won't order an attack is their mistaken belief that he is a
non-interventionist when all of the evidence tells us that he is no such thing.
Trump presumably doesn't want to start a multi-year, extremely expensive war that could
also throw the economy into a recession, but then every president that launches an illegal war
of choice assumes that the war would be much easier and take less time than it does.
No one ever knowingly opts for a bloody debacle. The absurdly optimistic hawkish
expectations of a quick and easy triumph are always dashed on the rocks of reality, but for
some reason political leaders believe these expectations every time because "this time it's
different." There will come a point where Bolton will tell Trump that attacking Iran (or
Venezuela) is the only way to "win," and Trump will probably listen to him just as he has
listened to him on all of these issues up until now.
There is no question that Bolton should lose his job. Even if you aren't an opponent of
Trump, you should be unhappy with the way Bolton has been operating for the last year. He has
made a point of sabotaging administration policies he doesn't like, resisting decisions he
doesn't agree with, and effectively reversing policy changes while pretending to be carrying
out the president's wishes. His mismanagement of the policy process is a bad joke, and the
reason he runs the National Security Council this way is so that he can stop views and
information that don't suit his agenda from reaching the president.
But Trump pays little or no attention to any of this, and as long as Bolton remains loyal in
public and a yes-man in person he is likely safe in his job. If Bolton gets his wish and the
U.S. starts a war with Iran, he may not be in that job for much longer, but the damage will
have already been done. Instead of counting on Trump to toss Bolton overboard, Congress and
the public need to make absolutely clear that war with Iran and Venezuela is unacceptable and
Trump will be destroying his presidency if he goes down that path in either country.
Obama entered office in 2008 promising to close Guantanamo and end the stupid wars.
Not only did Obama fail to end a single war, he gave us new and stupider wars in Syria,
Yemen and Ukraine, to name but three. Guantanamo is still open.
Just as Obama turned out to be a slightly more articulate version of Dubya, Trump has
turned out to be a meaner, more dysfunctional, more reckless version of Dubya.
As much of a disaster for American institutions Trump has been, I believe he does not want to
go to war. The times are a’changin’. Average Americans have figured out that
these wars are self-defeating nonsense. Trump knows that, and doesn’t want to alienate
the middle American types who support him and would go to war.
But he does want to sound and look tough, hence Bolton. The problem is that while Trump
may believe he’s just blustering, reneging on the nuclear deal, cranking back brutal
sanctions and sending US flotillas to the Strait of Hormuz looks and feels like war to the
Iranians.
We could stumble into a very big and ugly war like America stumbled into the ugly era of
Trump. And Trump is the absolute last person I would want to serve as a commander in chief
during war time.
Sid, the natural conclusion is that the ‘deep state’ is real, and for the most
part runs the country. Whoever is President is less important than the goals of the American
elite, most importantly the ‘War Party’ (the MIC and the IC) and Wall Street, but
including Health Care. A side party of equal importance is the Israel Lobby. What happens in
America is pretty much what the leaders of those groups want.
Trump is too weak to push back on Bolton. He likes bluster. If starting a war will make Trump
look macho, he very well might start one. Bolton wants war, Trump may let us stumble into
one.
Trump does not touch their foreign policy: appointment of Bolton and Pompeo means complete
and humiliating capitulation to neocons and globalists.
Trump was instrumental in reelecting Netanyahu and give several gifts to Israel.
Despite Hillary fiasco Pelosi managed to cling to power. Thanks to Mueller shenanigans which
put deep suspicion on the results of 2016 election which were a crushing defeat of Clinton
democrats (DemoRats - or neoliberal wing of Democratic Party) this neoliberal who most probably
outlived her political usefulness was not replaced.
Why they are still attacking Trump. What is the logic behind this sustained effort to impeach
him not matter what are the costs and with full understanding that President Pence is much worse
?
This is a real mystery of the US political life.
Notable quotes:
"... "What we've seen is a meltdown, an absolute meltdown, an inability to accept the bottom-line conclusion on Russian interference from the special counsel's report," he said. ..."
Republican pollster Conor Maguire said in an interview that aired Tuesday on "What America's
Thinking" that the divide over special counsel Robert Mueller 's report into Russia's election
meddling is an example of American political tribalism.
"It is really tribalism," Maguire, a senior strategist at WPA Intelligence, told Hill.TV's
Jamal Simmons on Monday.
"You are either supporting or you're not based on your party," he continued. "Interesting to
see independents really split pretty much 50-50 as well."
Democrats have continued to dive deeper into Mueller's probe into Moscow's election
interference, demanding the full, unredacted report from Attorney General William Barr , and have called to hear from
Mueller himself.
The rift has led to a growing gulf between House Democrats and the Justice Department, with
House Judiciary Committee Democrats scheduling a vote to hold Barr in contempt.
"What we've seen is a meltdown, an absolute meltdown, an inability to accept the bottom-line
conclusion on Russian interference from the special counsel's report," he said.
Israel and its friends in Washington and New York never miss the opportunity to exploit the
news cycle to tighten the screws a bit more, rendering any criticism of the Jewish state
unacceptable or even illegal. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon has been
persistently
demanding that what he describes as anti-Semitic speech be criminalized. Danon declared
that "The time for talking and having a conversation is over. What Israel and the Jewish
community around the world demand is action – and now."
How exactly Danon would enforce his definition of acceptable speech is not clear, but the
demands to eliminate any negative commentary regarding the holocaust or on Israel and/or the
behavior of diaspora Jews have been promoted for some time, resulting in laws in Europe that
inflict harsh punish on those who dare to speak out. The latest incident in the campaign to
eliminate the First Amendment in America took place oddly enough on the pages of the New
York Times , which, in its international edition, ran a cartoon by a Portuguese cartoonist
showing a dog with the face of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on a leash leading a
caricature of Donald Trump wearing a yarmulke and a blind man's glasses. The Netanyahu-dog had
a tag on its collar featuring a Star of David.
There are several ways to interpret the cartoon. It is, of course, an insult to dogs to have
them depicted in such a fashion as to suggest that they might behave like the monstrous Israeli
Prime Minister. No dog would sink so low. One
observer , commenting from a dog's point of view, noted that "We canines share that saying
that 'the eyes are the window to the soul.' Look into our eyes and you'll see love and trust.
Look into Netanyahu's eyes you see cunning and deceit so why stick his head on our body?"
On the other hand, one might see in the cartoon a serious message, that Netanyahu has been
able to "wag the dog" with an ignorant and impulsive United States president who is so desirous
of pandering to Jews both in Israel and in the U.S. that he is blind to his obligation to do
what is best for the American people. Trump, who is the first president within memory not to
own a dog, would rather stroke the head of the disgusting casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson
than an intelligent and loyal Labrador retriever.
This is nothing new. In communist country Czechoslovakia 1948-1989 media every day wrote,
several times and they repeated it in TV about "with USSR all the time and never otherwise"
And any criticism od the state and the Party was crime.
The editorial cartoon was well within the usual and acceptable traditions of political
comment. It depicted with the usual license for caricature a political figure being led down
the garden path by another, and mocking him for it. What's the big deal?
Trump has not built a wall.
We have more immigrants coming in than at any time in American history.
We experienced a record number of opioid deaths in 2018 and the drugs still flow freely.
Trump is attempting to force the US into multiple wars that are of no benefit to us.
Trump bumped stocks.
Trump is allowing all of his supporters (many of them now former supporters) to be banned
from the internet.
Trump is allowing his supporters to be arrested and imprisoned for supporting him.
Trump is escalating tensions with Russia for no reason.
Trump has not pulled out of NATO.
Trump's replacement of NAFTA is the same thing as NAFTA.
Meanwhile, he has done more for Israel than any president ever in history.
Trump ended the Iran deal.
Trump attacked Assad over fake gassings.
Trump stopped aid to Palestine.
Trump hired John Bolton as his national security advisor.
Trump turned the US ambassador to the UN into a second Israeli ambassador to the UN.
Trump closed off all official communications and diplomatic relations with Palestine.
Trump sent $38 billion in US taxpayer money to Israel.
Trump made a $110 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Trump moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Israel.
Trump refuses to pull troops out of Syria.
Trump somehow transferred the Syrian Golan Heights to Israel.
Trump is now apparently planning a war with Iran.
Would those knee-jerk critics have considered the political cartoon less outrageous or
offensive if The Master was not blind and the head of the dog on the leash had the features
of Donald Trump instead?
Actually the cartoon is somewhat misleading, IMO. It's unjustifiably generous to the orange
clown, because what the orange clown does, he does knowingly and willingly, not because he's
ignorant and impressionable. IOW, orange clown is evil, not blind.
@JoaoAlfaiate Correct.
I just posted this over on Facebook: Game over. The U.S. will now base its foreign policy,
not on national interests, but on the interests of Israel and its cabal in the United States.
This was an inevitable progression when you equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and
then appoint a high government official to punish countries on that basis. And, one might
add, the First Amendment is also under attack by the same folks to make illegal even the
mildest criticism of Israel here at home. Will this ever end?
Over the past few years, Israel's ongoing military occupation of Palestinian territory and
repeated invasions of the Gaza strip have triggered a fierce backlash against Israeli
policies virtually everywhere in the world -- except the United States.
What is interesting is that Senator Schumer, who is essentially the senator from pro-Israel
lobby insists on continuation of witch hunt despite the fact that Trump is essentially a Zionist
President. So he belong to "FullOfSchiff" faction of Democratic Party.
Fifteen percent of respondents to an
Ipsos/Reuters survey conducted in April said the Mueller report had changed their minds
about the Trump campaign and/or Russia's involvement in the presidential race, while 70 percent
said that the Muller report did not change their mind.
"I think what it shows, more than anything, is the deep political and tribal splits right
now," Newall added.
Both parties have continued to spar over the implications of Mueller's investigation even
after its completion. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that he
considered the matter closed and ruled out further hearings on Trump and Russian
interference.
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) objected strongly,
accusing McConnell of trying to "whitewash" the investigation.
We speak to political commentator Jimmy Dore on the Mueller report's summary showing no collusion between the Trump campaign and
Russia, he says the media has no credibility and is bought by the people they're supposed to be investigating, says the failure of
the American
With the new CNN poll showing Joe Biden representing the fossil wing of the Democratic party
with a 39% favorable rating as Bernie drops to 15%, it is eerily reminiscent of overstated
polls for HRC in 2016. Thanks to CNN, additional White House contenders have qualified for the
debate via the % option including former Colorado Gov John Hickenlooper who might take the
opportunity to inform the public why he attended the Bilderberg meeting in
2018 .
Given her almost totally hostile reception by every MSM outlet who deigned to interview her,
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has experienced, as an opponent of regime change wars, more bad manners and
outright personal antagonism than any other candidate. While Gabbard easily qualified for the
debates via the $65,000 requirement and continues to attract SRO audiences in NH, Iowa,
California and elsewhere, yet until the newest CNN poll, she failed to register any % of public
support.
Something here does not compute given the 'favored' polls past history of favoritism. If the
Dems continue to put a brick wall around her, Jill Stein has already opened the Green Party
door as a more welcoming venue for a Tulsi candidacy. The Dems, who tend to be unprincipled and
vindictive, better be careful what they wish for.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and
president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in
Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House
of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter
@reneedove31
Dimly Glimpsed
The Democrat establishment hates Tulsi with a passion. There appear to be several factors:
1) she opposes all the neocon wars, and opposes intervention in Venezuela.
2) She refuses to kowtow to the bipartisan establish sacred cows (an apt metaphor for Tulsi), such as blind support for
Saudi Arabia and Israel;
3) She gave the DNC and Hillary the back of her hand when she resigned as a vice-chair of the DNC in 2016, citing the
reason as unethical bias by the DNC during the primaries. In other words, she resigned because the DNC was not neutral during
the primaries, and colluded with Hillary to cheat Bernie;
4) Tulsi is very progressive, favoring single payer health care, student debt relief, the Green New Deal, etc.
For an establishment democrat, those policies are like garlic to a vampire.
"... Biden is ahead according to whom?! There is a glut of more dynamic and visionary Democrats. ..."
"... Only establishment hacks endorse the republican-lite elite Biden. ..."
"... with the direction us foreign policy is moving right now across the isle concerning venezuela, biden seems to be a well fit with his kissinger reference for the renewed interest in straight out CIA driven coups in latin america, the monroe doctrine and right-wing death squads hunting down dirty brown commies. ..."
"... He is in his own words a true centrist, which means, he will always compromise to the right, which is more inhinged and greedy than ever. A Biden presidency would be one more sellout to corporate America and would pave the way for another Trump. ..."
It's not the age. Biden has always been an airhead. I really hope he doesn't get the nomination just because he's friends with
Obama. Goofy old white dudes who put their foot in their mouths is the GOP's thing. We need someone fresh with a clear mind and
good ideas. Warren... please...
One of the problems with American politics is that it is being run by people (on both sides) who are not going to be alive
in 20 years so they have no vested interest in the future of the country. All they care about is that they make as much money
for their families so they can buy fresh air, fresh water and live apart from the huddled masses.
Biden isn't a good candidate. He seem dumb to me. He's just living off of Obama success. Just a shadow from Obama. Go with
Bernie.
ScaryHairyHarry
Only establishment hacks endorse the republican-lite elite Biden.
Jay Zenitram
Let the gaffs begin ...
John Chessant
Biden voted for the Iraq War. Don't forget that!
Sulanis
Sure Joe Biden is the guy you pick if you like the same old same old every day in the sack. Joe Biden is the status Quo
candidate that will do nothing to change the country for the lower and middle class. Joe Biden is about as democratic as the
massive corporations who donate to him. Seriously look at his past and he is on the wrong side of history on almost every
major issue that has come before the senate. So yeah, if you want the same old mercenary style, then by all means vote for
Biden, However, if you want change and people who are actually talking about and releasing policy than Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren are your people. However, who the hell wants to make sure that people don't go bankrupt over healthcare
bills.
Trust me as a Canadian we have have our healthcare covered by the government and the other half is covered by private
insurance. Private insurance is needed if you want to see a dentist, get medication, see a psychologist, get glasses, and
more. Canada needs to look at a complete system like Bernie Sanders is proposing because as a whole the process of health care
for all, just makes sense and gives the government real power when it comes to pricing on medication and other health
services.
When I say going to hospital or clinic and leaving without paying a fucking cent or calling the insurance is a blessing in
disguise. Its so freeing to know that I am not going to get a medical bill for thousands. However, when it comes to the other
items i have mentioned most places know how shitty the private insurance companies are and refused to deal with them. They do
this by making you pay the full amount due, then letting you deal with the insurance company, often getting denied, or losing
on funds because of deductibles that have to be paid.
Daneelro
I'm NOT looking forward to an election in which Biden is the Dem candidate. Biden is in the pocket of moneyed interests
(who do you think attended that "pritivate fundraiser"?) Biden is on the right of the Democratic Party and is too friendly
with Republicans to fight the unavoidable fights to come. Worse, Biden is a bad campaigner and will inevitably self-destruct,
hopefully not in the general election but in the primary already.
darillio
with the direction us foreign policy is moving right now across the isle concerning venezuela, biden seems to be a well
fit with his kissinger reference for the renewed interest in straight out CIA driven coups in latin america, the monroe
doctrine and right-wing death squads hunting down dirty brown commies.
Lennox Baumbach
Seriously, nobody should 'like' or support Biden. Most of the good image people have of him comes from Obama, whose
presidency itself was partialy very flawed. Biden's record is atrocious and he WON'T support any meaningfull progressive
policies, that would actually improve peoples living conditions. He is in his own words a true centrist, which means, he
will always compromise to the right, which is more inhinged and greedy than ever. A Biden presidency would be one more sellout
to corporate America and would pave the way for another Trump.
Waryaa Wariiri
When are the establishment and corporate-owned media shows going to stop their daily plug-in promos for Biden? It is so
obvious, for we are not children.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called on Thursday for Congress to continue an investigation
into Russia's role in the 2016 presidential election and whether President Trump sought to
obstruct a law enforcement probe into the matter.
The military sucks up 54% of
discretionary federal spending. Pentagon bloat has a huge effect on domestic priorities; the
nearly $1
trillion a year that goes to exploiting, oppressing, torturing, maiming and murdering
foreigners could go to building schools, college scholarships, curing diseases, poetry slams,
whatever. Anything, even tax cuts for the rich, would be better than bombs. But as then GOP
presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said in 2015, "The military is not a social experiment.
The purpose of the military is to
kill people and break things ." If you're like me, you want as little killing and breaking
as possible.
Unfortunately, no major Democratic presidential candidate favors substantial cuts to
Pentagon appropriations.
Current frontrunner Joe Biden (
33% in the polls) doesn't talk
much about defense spending. He reminds us that his son served in Iraq (so he cares about
the military) and that we shouldn't prioritize defense over domestic programs. Vague. Though
specific programs might get trimmed, Lockheed Martin could rest easy under a President
Biden.
"Since he arrived in Congress, [runner-up] Bernie Sanders [19%] has been a fierce
crusader against Pentagon spending , calling for defense cuts that few Democrats have been
willing to support," The Hill reported in 2016. "As late as 2002, he supported a 50 percent cut
for the Pentagon." Bernie is
still a Pentagon critic but he won't commit to a specific amount to cut. He wouldn't
slash and Bern. He'd trim.
Elizabeth Warren (8%) wants "to identify which programs actually benefit American security
in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors -- then
pull out a sharp knife and make some
cuts ."
... ... ...
Kamala Harris (5%) has not weighed
in on military spending. She has received substantial campaign contributions from the
defense industry, though.
The Democrats on Wars for Fun
As senator, Biden voted for the optional wars against
Afghanistan and
Iraq . He
lied about his votes so maybe he felt bad about them. He similarly seems to regret
his ro le in
destroying Libya.
Sanders voted to invade Afghanistan . His
comment at the time reads as hopelessly naïve about the bloodthirsty Bush-Cheney regime:
"The use of force is one tool that we have at our disposal to fight against the horror of
terrorism and mass murder it is something that must be used wisely and with great discretion."
Sanders voted against
invading Iraq , favored regime change in Libya (
albeit nonviolently ) and voted to bomb Syria .
There have been no major new wars since 2013, when Warren joined the Senate so her antiwar
bona fides have not been tested. Like many of her colleagues, she wants an end to the "forever
war" against Afghanistan. She also wants us out of
Syria .
Democrats on NSA Spying Against Americans
... ... ...
Joe Biden, though to the right on other foreign-policy issues, was a critic of NSA spying
for years, going
back at least to 2006. Under Obama, however, he
backtracked . Even worse, Biden
called the president of Ecuador in 2013 to request that he deny asylum to NSA whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
"... Railing against Trump only sets up the next smooth-talking stooge who will start a fresh new con. ..."
"... Dore traces the problem primarily to Democratic Party's turning to identity politics instead of representing the working class. They sold us out. Clinton and Obama are just "Republican light" aka "Centrist" "Third Way" Democrats. "Centrist" = establishment-serving con artists. ..."
"... "Managed democracy" or "guided democracy" : is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Such governments are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the state's policies, motives, and goals. ..."
Dore makes the same point I have: "Trump is a Symptom of 40 years of NeoLiberalism and
the Corporate Capture of the U.S. government."Railing against Trump only sets up the
next smooth-talking stooge who will start a fresh new con.
Dore traces the problem primarily to Democratic Party's turning to identity politics
instead of representing the working class. They sold us out. Clinton and Obama are just
"Republican light" aka "Centrist" "Third Way" Democrats. "Centrist" = establishment-serving
con artists.
"Managed
democracy" or "guided democracy" : is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Such
governments are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the
state's policies, motives, and goals.
In other words, the government controls elections so that the people can exercise all
their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic
principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed
democracy, the state's continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from
having a significant impact on policy.
The concept of a "guided democracy" was developed in the 20th century by Walter
Lippmann in his seminal work Public Opinion (1922) and by Edward Bernays in his work
Crystallizing Public Opinion.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
RT has a good video on Yellow Vest protestors (on rt.com homepage). It's kind long for the
info that it provides. I suggest skipping some parts.
"... Is there a significant difference between "leftist" megadonor Saban and "conservative" megadonor Adelson when it comes to issues like Zionism/ Greater Israel/ destroying Iran? Or are they both acting primarily as ethnic activists, rather than as ideologically-driven "philanthropists?" ..."
Are any of these 3 individuals "evangelical Christians?"
Or is there some other aspect of their identity/ heritage that they have in common?
Some might even go so far as to characterize the common leftist claim that fanatical GOP
Israeli-Firstism is driven by evangelical Christians as a "long-debunked semitic canard."
Note also the alternative. Hillary's top donor was that notorious "evangelical Christian,"
Haim Saban.
Is there a significant difference between "leftist" megadonor Saban and "conservative"
megadonor Adelson when it comes to issues like Zionism/ Greater Israel/ destroying Iran? Or are
they both acting primarily as ethnic activists, rather than as ideologically-driven
"philanthropists?"
A lot of other "evangelical Christians" among Hillary's top donors, too.
Joe Biden is a neoliberal, so his desire to cure deals with Republicans like in case of Obama is just natural approach to the
policy. No a sign of some naivety/ignorance/inability as the author suggest. This is as natural to him as breathing. The same was
true for Obama, who was actually the Betrayer in Chief of his election promises, the real master of "bait and switch" politics
practiced by neoliberal wing of Democratic Party after it was sold by Clinton to Wall Street.
The problem with Biden is different -- he wants to kick the can down the road and as such has little of no chances, other then
acting as a spoiler to block Sanders from nomination by forcing the second round in which Superdelegates play the
decisive role.
Notable quotes:
"... He has a bad habit of making ridiculous and offensive statements. ..."
However, the No. 1 reason why Biden would be an utter disaster both as the Democratic
nominee and as president is his belief that Donald Trump is the sole cause of the current
political and constitutional crisis in the United States. He has shown a shocking inability
(refusal?) to see that Trump is a symptom of longstanding Republican nihilism and derangement
-- not the cause of it.
In fact, Biden's obsession with bipartisanship, with wanting to cut deals and make
compromises once Trump is out of the way, betrays a dangerous mix of ignorance and
naiveté.
"Limit it to four years," Mr. Biden pleaded with a ballroom crowd of 600 in the eastern
Iowa city of Dubuque. "History will treat this administration's time as an aberration."
"This is not the Republican Party," he added, citing his relationships with "my Republican
friends in the House and Senate."
Sorry, what? It is beyond astonishing to hear Biden, of all people, make such demonstrably false claims. This is a Democrat
who served as No. 2 to Barack Obama over an eight-year, two-term period...
Biden would be a more honorable politician if on an issue like abortion he would simply say
as a Catholic he opposed it on moral grounds. Fine. That's not what he does. He waffles and
tries to restrict abortions so that in a practical sense they become only available to the
rich.
"More honorable" in the current US political environment is a mighty low bar. Playing the
"Catholic" card is just a way to weasel out. Good Catholics understand better than me how the
Vatican is not interested in anything except maintaining and expanding Church power. In Rome
they haven't given up on again becoming a major player in the world any more than the Brits
have in London.
"Only available to the rich" is the way I expect it to play out. The States and the
Congress and the Supreme Court will create so many barriers only the Wealthy will be able to
either navigate them or bypass them altogether by flying overseas. Embryos and even
"pre"-embryos are really precious things - until they get born. After that the little
bastards are on their own. In fact, at this stage they're just as "precious" as a typical kid
in Gaza or Yemen.
One other quote:
If you don't think Biden's the perfect person to represent the Democratic Party, you
haven't paid much attention to what the Democratic Party has become over the last 25 years:
interventionist, anti-regulation, pro-austerity, merciless on black crime and devoted to
Israel.
I still haven't heard of Pelosi speaking out on Trump's lawlessness in Venezuela. It may
have happened, but none of my headline sites have bothered to mention such an event.
"... Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams are Trumps hires and only a moron could fail to recognise that they are neocons stuck in the regime change model of US foreign policy. Venezuela hasn't gone away and if history is any clue, they're going to double down on their initial stupidity. ..."
"... There is only one party, the Pentagon Party, and judging from their $750B budget, $20T 'accounting error', 60% of federal discretionary spend, zero audits and successful scare campaigns that are building up to another Cold War, I'd say they are doing just fine thank you very much. ..."
The key for him now is to undo a lot of the damage that's been done by his staff,
disloyal cabinet members and recalcitrant bureaucracy who are all wedded deeply to the old
way things are done.
Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams are Trumps hires and only a moron could fail to recognise that
they are neocons stuck in the regime change model of US foreign policy. Venezuela hasn't gone
away and if history is any clue, they're going to double down on their initial stupidity.
There is only one party, the Pentagon Party, and judging from their $750B budget, $20T
'accounting error', 60% of federal discretionary spend, zero audits and successful scare
campaigns that are building up to another Cold War, I'd say they are doing just fine thank
you very much.
As for Sheldon Adelson's pet chihuahua telling him to get stuffed? Well that would make
for a very cold day in hell.
"... On Tuesday, a New York Times article by Kenneth Vogel and Iuliia Mendel described Hunter Biden's lucrative dealings with a Ukrainian oligarch-owned energy company at a time when his father was mediating U.S. policy towards Ukraine. According to the Times , the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings paid Hunter Biden "as much as $50,000 per month in some months" for his work as a board member, despite the fact that he "lacked any experience in Ukraine and just months earlier had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine." ..."
"... A Ukrainian corruption probe into Burisma Holdings was scuttled in 2016, when Vice President Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to the country if the Ukrainian government did not fire the prosecutor who launched the corruption investigation. Withholding the loans would have thrown the former Soviet republic into insolvency at a time when it was fending off attacks from Vladimir Putin's Russia. ..."
"... Schweizer's research on Hunter Biden has already triggered Democrat strategists worried that Joe Biden's 2020 campaign could suffer the same fate as Clinton's. The similarities between the two candidates are hard to dismiss: both are Democrat establishment favorites , both are Obama administration alums , and both are tainted by accusations that they used their authority as government officials to benefit their family to the potential detriment of U.S. foreign policy. ..."
A $1.5 billion sweetheart deal Hunter Biden's private equity firm secured from the state-owned Bank of China is
"looming on the horizon" as a potential line of attack against his father's 2020 presidential campaign, according to
Vanity
Fair's
Tina Nguyen.
This comes days after a
New York Times
article
renewed interest in the revelations exposed in Peter Schweizer's 2018 bestseller
Secret Empires
concerning the sweetheart deals Hunter Biden's private equity firm secured while his father, Joe
Biden, was vice president.
But the
Times'
article "may be just the first volley in what is likely to become a broader war over Joe
Biden's conduct and record,"
Vanity Fair's
Nguyen
writes
:
Past speculation about Biden family drama has centered on Hunter's documented struggle with drug use and his
recently ended relationship with his late brother's widow. But the bigger threat might actually be Hunter's past
business enterprises. Already, there's another attack line looming on the horizon: in his latest book,
Secret
Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends
, Breitbart
editor-at-large Peter Schweizer
describes
how
a private-equity firm managed by Hunter Biden, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, negotiated a $1.5 billion investment
deal with the state-owned Bank of China at the same time that his father, then the vice president, was conducting
high-level diplomacy with Beijing. (On one of his trips, Hunter allegedly made use of Air Force Two.)
Whether or not
the Chinese hoped to curry favor with Hunter's father, Trump allies are sure to make note of the issue, especially
given Joe Biden's
controversial
remark this week
downplaying China as an economic competitor. (A spokesman for Hunter Biden disputed Schweizer's
claims to the
Journal
.)
In a March interview with Fox News Channel's Laura Ingraham, Peter Schweizer
explained
the troubling circumstances surrounding Hunter Biden's lucrative deal with the Chinese government at a time when his
father was negotiating U.S. policy with the regime.
"In December of 2013, Hunter Biden flies on Air Force 2 to Beijing, China, with his father," Schweizer said. "His
father meets with Chinese officials, he's very soft on Beijing. The most important thing that happens [is] 10 days after
they return. And that's when Hunter Biden's small, private equity firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners gets a $1 billion
private equity deal with the Chinese government, not with the Chinese corporation, with the government. And what people
need to realize is Hunter Biden has no background in China. He has no background in private equity. The deal he got in
the Shanghai free-trade zone, nobody else had -- Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Blackstone, nobody had this deal."
"There's no question when you chart what Joe Biden is doing with China -- the meetings he's having and the deals that
his son is procuring at the same time -- that they are buying off Biden through his son. I think it's crystal clear,"
Schweizer added.
In an interview last year with SiriusXM's
Breitbart News Tonig
ht, Schweizer
explained
China's foreign influence peddling tactic.
"The Chinese government has figured out that the way to get favorable treatment from policymakers in Washington, DC,
is by, basically, signing sweetheart deals with the children of politicians because they think by doing so, they'll get
better policy positions from our government," Schweizer said. "And the history indicates in the Obama administration
that that's exactly what happens."
He noted that Joe Biden's 2013 trip to Beijing came at a crucial moment for U.S.-China relations when the communist
regime's behavior was increasingly and openly menacing to U.S. allies in the region, a fact which made the former vice
president's decision to go "soft on China" all the more remarkable.
"To put this into context, in 2013, the Chinese have just exerted air rights over the South Pacific, the South China
Sea," Schweizer
said
. "They basically have said, 'If you want to fly in this area, you have to get Chinese approval. We are claiming
sovereignty over this territory.' Highly controversial in Japan, in the Philippines, and in other countries. Joe Biden
is supposed to be going there to confront the Chinese. Well, he gets widely criticized on that trip for going soft on
China. So basically, no challenging them, and Japan and other countries are quite upset about this."
On Tuesday, a
New York Times
article by Kenneth Vogel and Iuliia Mendel
described
Hunter Biden's lucrative dealings with a Ukrainian oligarch-owned energy company at a time when his father
was mediating U.S. policy towards Ukraine. According to the
Times
, the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings paid
Hunter Biden "as much as $50,000 per month in some months" for his work as a board member, despite the fact that he
"lacked any experience in Ukraine and just months earlier had been
discharged
from the Navy Reserve
after testing positive for cocaine."
A Ukrainian corruption probe into Burisma Holdings was scuttled in 2016, when Vice President Biden
threatened
to withhold $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees to the country if the Ukrainian government did not fire
the prosecutor who launched the corruption investigation. Withholding the loans would have thrown the former Soviet
republic into insolvency at a time when it was fending off attacks from Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Schweizer, the president of the nonpartisan Government Accountability Institute and a senior editor-at-large for
Breitbart News, wrote the bestselling 2015 exposé
Clinton
Cash
, which is widely
credited
for its instrumental impact on Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 presidential campaign due to Schweizer's
copious
documentation
of the former secretary of state's history of amassing wealth from donors seeking favorable actions
from her State Department.
Schweizer's research on Hunter Biden has already
triggered
Democrat strategists worried that Joe Biden's 2020 campaign could suffer the same fate as Clinton's. The
similarities between the two candidates are hard to dismiss: both are Democrat
establishment favorites
, both are Obama administration
alums
, and both are tainted by accusations that they used their authority as government officials to benefit their
family to the potential detriment of U.S. foreign policy.
Is that true? Who knows? If it is, it's only because Biden either knew Obama would not endorse him or because, given where the Democrats
are these days, an Obama endorsement would have HURT him.
Three years ago, Biden and Sanders were standing tall on the Dem platform, but now find themselves
barely hanging on with their fingertips after being pushed aside by the new Dems...With the current lineup of contenders wanting
to be the Dem nominee looking like an extended version of the "Village People", Biden, Sanders and even Warren are out of place and
in the wrong time.
Multiculturalism means that you confer political privileges on many an individual whose
illiberal practices run counter to, even undermine, the American political tradition.
Radical leaders across the U.S. quite seriously consider Illegal immigrants as candidates
for the vote -- and for every other financial benefit that comes from the work of American
citizens.
The rights of all able-bodied idle individuals to an income derived from labor not their
own: That, too, is a debate that has arisen in democracy, where the demos rules like a
despot.
But then moral degeneracy is inherent in raw democracy. The best political thinkers,
including America's constitution-makers, warned a long time ago that mass, egalitarian society
would thus degenerate.
What Bernie Sanders prescribes for the country -- unconditional voting -- is but an
extension of "mass franchise," which was feared by the greatest thinkers on Democracy. Prime
Minister George Canning of Britain, for instance.
Canning, whose thought is distilled in Russell Kirk's magnificent exegesis, "The
Conservative Mind," thought that "the franchise should be accorded to persons and classes
insofar as they possess the qualifications for right judgment and are worthy members of their
particular corporations."
By "corporations," Canning (1770-1827) meant something quite different to our contemporary,
community-killing multinationals.
"Corporations," in the nomenclature of the times, meant very plainly in "the spirit of
cooperation, based upon the idea of a neighborhood. [C]ities, parishes, townships, professions,
and trades are all the corporate bodies that constitute the state."
To the extent that an individual citizen is a decent member of these " little
platoons " (Edmund Burke's iridescent term), he may be considered, as Canning saw it, for
political participation.
"If voting becomes a universal and arbitrary right," cautioned Canning, "citizens become
mere political atoms, rather than members of venerable corporations; and in time this anonymous
mass of voters will degenerate into pure democracy," which, in reality is "the enthronement of
demagoguery and mediocrity." ("The Conservative Mind," p. 131.)
That's us. Demagoguery and mediocrity are king in contemporary democracies, where the
organic, enduring, merit-based communities extolled by Canning, no longer exists and are no
longer valued.
This is the point at which America finds itself and against which William Lecky, another
brilliant British political philosopher and politician, argued.
The author of "Democracy and Liberty" (1896) predicted that "the continual degradation of
the suffrage" through "mass franchise" would end in "a new despotism."
Then as today, radical, nascent egalitarians, who championed the universal vote abhorred by
Lecky, attacked "institution after institution," harbored "systematic hostility" toward "owners
of landed property" and private property and insisted that "representative institutions" and
the franchise be extended to all irrespective of "circumstance and character."
The franchise should be granted by whom? You're forgetting the 800 pound gorilla and where he
sits when he enters the room. Franchises and every other grant are granted by those who have
the power to grant them.
Canning's "organic, enduring, merit-based communities" will emerge, in ghastly form, as
the solipsistic constituencies of identity politics. Why do people like Omar laugh at America
and Americans? "Here's a people so stupid as to clasp the adder to its breast. You're
clasping? I'm biting."
Bernie is utopian. Utopians do terrible things if and when they have the power to do them.
But you can't fault him for insincerity.
The younger Tsarnaev who hid out near my home town was doing what his older brother told
him to do assuming that the bombing wasn't a false flag. Not an excuse. Only to say the kid
had no political convictions and probably wouldn't bother to vote if he could.
Sanders is just a wine and cheese socialist, totally an armchair theorist. He has no
background in actually doing anything besides being involved in politics which has provided a
living for him. It's doubtful he could run a couple of Walmarts. This is his last go-around
and he's out to see how much in contributions he can garner. Pushing the edge, theoretically
of course, keeps him in the conversation. He's worthless but such is the state of politics
where characters like him, Biden, and the rest of the Dem lineup could be taken seriously.
Just one big clown show.
@Jim
Bob Lassiter Yes, but, his wife could steal money from a collapsing college to serve her
daughter. Corruption must run in the family as Bernie has been conspicuously silent on this
subject. He must feel the Burn!
"... Patrick Lawrence avers that "Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him". There is absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton (and all their rivals from the 2016 presidential campaign) are Israel-Firsters deep in the pockets of the pro-Israel Lobby. Trump's current policies are not significantly at variance from Clinton's equally pro-Israel policy agenda. At a 2015 gala hosted by the Algemeiner Journal, Trump declared "We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." His bid for the presidency was announced soon after. ..."
"... Trump's whole "insurgent" campaign, including his purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were an elaborate propaganda scam engineered by the Israel Lobby from the very beginning. ..."
"... Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser on Middle East/Israel issues, gave his first on-the-record appearance at the Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution on 3 December 2017. Saban praised Kushner for attempting to derail a vote at the United Nations Security Council about Israeli settlements during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Make no mistake, Israel and the pro-Israel Lobby exploit Trump and the GOP, as well as Clinton and the Democrats. ..."
"... The Russia-gate conspiracy theory, eagerly promoted by both key right and left pro-Israel Lobby figures (including Jewish and Christian Zionists, as well as sheepdog Sanders), is partly an effort to distract attention from the pro-Israel Lobby meddling in American electoral politics and its pernicious influence on US foreign policy. ..."
Patrick Lawrence avers that "Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much
as its members have been imposed upon him". There is absolutely no evidence for this
assertion. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton (and all their rivals from the 2016 presidential
campaign) are Israel-Firsters deep in the pockets of the pro-Israel Lobby. Trump's current
policies are not significantly at variance from Clinton's equally pro-Israel policy agenda.
At a 2015 gala hosted by the Algemeiner Journal, Trump declared "We love Israel. We will
fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." His bid for the presidency was announced soon
after.
Trump's whole "insurgent" campaign, including his purported break with GOP orthodoxy,
questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian
deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were an
elaborate propaganda scam engineered by the Israel Lobby from the very beginning.
Trump's "1000 percent" efforts on behalf of Israel began immediately after the election,
prior to his taking the oath of office.
Jared Kushner, Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser on Middle East/Israel
issues, gave his first on-the-record appearance at the Saban Forum at the Brookings
Institution on 3 December 2017. Saban praised Kushner for attempting to derail a vote at the
United Nations Security Council about Israeli settlements during the Obama
administration.
Kushner reportedly dispatched former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to make
secret contact with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 in an effort to undermine or
delay the resolution, which condemned Israel for settlement construction. Saban told Kushner
that "this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very
much." Kushner thanked the audience at Brookings, a leading pro-Israel Lobby think tank,
"It's really an honor to be able to talk about this topic with so many people who I respect
so much, who have given so much to this issue."
During the keynote conversation, Kushner and Saban framed Middle East peace as a "real
estate issue". Kushner acknowledged that "We've solicited a lot of ideas from a lot of
places." Trump's understanding of "regional dynamics" in the Middle East clearly manifests "a
lot of ideas" from pro-Israel war hawks from the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Make no mistake, Israel and the pro-Israel Lobby exploit Trump and the GOP, as well as
Clinton and the Democrats.
The fracture between the Trump and Clinton contingents of the pro-Israel Lobby is rooted
in the personal predilections of their major American Jewish oligarch donors. Billionaires
Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are the Koch Brothers of the pro-Israel Lobby.
Both Adelson and Saban are staunch supporters of the Israeli military, vehemently opposed
to the global BDS movement against Israeli apartheid, and obsessed about starting war with
Iran.
When Adelson and Saban shared the stage at the Israeli American Council's inaugural
conference in Washington, D.C. in 2014, Saban quipped, "There's no right or left when it
comes to Israel". Despite their shared pro-Israel Lobby objectives, Adelson and Saban had a
fracas in 2015 over political tactics.
The Republican Party and Democratic Party campaign platforms in 2016 reflected right and
left pro-Israel Lobby orientations. Even the Sanders sheepdog campaign was a far-left
pro-Israel Lobby iteration.
The Russia-gate conspiracy theory, eagerly promoted by both key right and left
pro-Israel Lobby figures (including Jewish and Christian Zionists, as well as sheepdog
Sanders), is partly an effort to distract attention from the pro-Israel Lobby meddling in
American electoral politics and its pernicious influence on US foreign policy.
Trump's "foreign policy team", the Pompeo-Bolton axis and myriad minions, precisely
represent the pro-Israel Lobby signature "toxic combination of neoconservatives, many drawn
from the Heritage Foundation [and other decidedly pro-Israel policy think tanks], and
evangelical Christians".
Trump surrounded himself with pro-Israel Lobby "foreign policy Manicheans" devoted to an
aggressive, militaristic agenda aimed at "securing the realm" for Israel.
The results are entirely predictable.
The Trump administration's foreign policies are not so much "shambolic", "amateurish and
discombobulated" as monomaniacally pro-Israel, no matter how much damage is done to key US
interests.
michael , April 30, 2019 at 18:57
Blaming Trump for moving the Embassy to Jerusalem seems disingenuous since Congress passed
a law moving the Embassy to Jerusalem in 1995 (the Senate voted (93–5), and the House
voted (374–37 in favor of the move).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Embassy_Act
Clinton started a charade, justified by "National Security" and signed a waiver every six
months to stall the move; the game continued under Bush II and Obama and even Trump, his
first turn. But then "on June 5, 2017, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed a resolution
commemorating the 50th anniversary of reunification of Jerusalem by 90-0. The resolution
reaffirmed the Jerusalem Embassy Act and called upon the President and all United States
officials to abide by its provisions." Trump abided.
Absolutely JohnP is right, Kushner should be scrutinized for his pro-Israel positions. The
ball should be on AIPAC and Israel but instead is on Russia even now. Trump is just the
frontman for the activity of Adelson, Bibi, Bolton, Pompeo, Kushner: Bolton pushes for the
neocons post Bush II; Pompeo for evangelicals in US who know nothing, as well as for neocons;
Kushner for Israel Netanyahu politics. Trump is their foolish pawn. Iran is in crosshairs
because of Israel.
dean 1000 , April 30, 2019 at 07:56
Trump got elected by running against the empire. What he is doing in the mid-east won't
last. The demography and need for oil is against it. The birth pangs of a new mid-east
started when Russia came to the aid of Syria.
Does Bolton and Pompeo mean that Trump has been completely co-opted by the duopoly he ran
against?
His supporters say wait till 2020. Fat chance.
I agree with Joe Tedesky. Washington is going to sanction itself out of its empire. The end
of empire is hardly the end of the US. The Brits didn't get single payer healthcare until the
empire was gone. Will Washington make the same mistake? A country the size of the US will not become obscure.
Biden may cast himself as the champion of working people, but he's seeking support from the
same financial elite that he chides on the 2020 campaign trail.
"The country wasn't built by
Wall Street bankers, CEOs and hedge fund managers," Joe Biden
told a crowd at a Monday campaign rally held in a Teamsters hall, his first appearance as
an official 2020 candidate.
This is likely a different message than what Biden has been sending to hedge fund managers
themselves, whom he has spent the two years leading up to his announcement aggressively
courting. These titans of finance capital have also been among Biden's early supporters.
In fact, the first time Biden publicly opened the door to a possible 2020 run, he was
standing among figures from the hedge fund industry. After
months of flat out denials, Biden first admitted he "may very well do it" at the Skybridge
Alternatives (SALT) Conference in May 2017, where he appeared as a keynote speaker. SALT is an
annual conference bringing together hedge funds in Las Vegas organized and run by Anthony
Scaramucci, the hedge fund operator who briefly served as President Trump's White House
communications director in 2017. While Biden is not listed as a speaker for this year's SALT, his picture is
still featured prominently on the front page of its website.
Attendees at the 2017 conference included billionaire investor Sam Zell, The Carlyle Group
co-founder and Co-Executive Chairman David Rubenstein, hedge fund manager James Chanos,
Milwaukee Bucks co-owner and Avenue Capital Group co-founder Marc Lasry, as well as a host of
celebrities and political figures such as Karl Rove and Donna Brazile. Much of the coverage of
the event at the time focused on Biden's teased presidential run and his
testy, possibly misreported exchange with billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman. But
Biden was well-received at the event, receiving a standing ovation from the 2,000-strong crowd
of Wall Street bigwigs.
Biden's speech reportedly
painted an image of the kind of unified, cooperative American polity that tends to animate his
worldview, one where competing interests work together and the country functions more as a
singular team than one marked by class divisions. The United States had a plethora of research
universities and the "most nimble" venture capitalists, he told the gathering. And while
hoarding their wealth wouldn't enrich the economy, he said, investing in education and other
public goods would.
This wasn't the only time Biden spoke alongside such an ultra-wealthy crowd that year. At an
event at the University of Delaware in April 2017 to
promote his Biden Institute -- which describes itself as a "a
research and policy center" aiming to "influence, shape, and work to solve the most pressing
domestic policy problems facing America" -- Biden convened a panel called "Win-Win: How the
Long View Works for Business and the Middle Class." At the panel, Biden was joined by various
corporate executives and figures from the investment industry. He kicked things off by
expounding on the virtues of a strong middle class, whose fate, he said, depended on "what
companies decide to do with their profits": invest them in "research, training, equipment" or
plow them back into "shareholder payout."
The eight-member panel
-- consisting of Biden, various corporate executives and two university associates -- was
critical of both corporate America, which they argued was driven to short-term thinking by fear
of poor quarterly performance, and of hedge fund managers who pushed executives into such
behavior.
Yet several of these panelists were themselves members of the hedge fund world: Carsten
Stendevad of Bridgewater Associates, which recently
topped the list of the world's biggest and most profitable hedge funds; Sarah Williamson, a
former partner and 21-year veteran of hedge fund manager Wellington Management Co. who
sat on
its Hedge Fund Oversight Committee; Charles Elson, a finance professor at the university who
just months before was nominated
to run a hedge fund; and Mark Wiseman, the Global Head of Active Equity at BlackRock, the
world's largest asset manager with billions of dollars invested in hedge funds, in which the
firm is
increasing investment.
The following year, Biden looked partly to the hedge fund world to fill out his institute's
Policy Advisory Board , adding former hedge fund boss and major Obama bundler Eric Mindich
as well as a number of employees and veterans of firms such as BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and JP
Morgan Chase. The Advisory Board's
mission involved drafting "a set of new policy ideas to make sure Americans are able to
obtain quality jobs that will grow the middle class and our economy." Mindich, for his part,
has also promised
to help Biden raise money for his current campaign.
Such events continued into 2018. Early that year, Biden reportedly attended a
fundraiser at the home of Laetitia Garriott de Cayeux , a career-long hedge
fund executive, and was the special guest at a $10,000 per person dinner for House Democrats at
the aforementioned James Chanos' home. Chanos, a billionaire who made his fortune by betting on
the fall in value of company stocks,
has said Biden would "make a great president" and "hits a chord with the middle class,"
pledging to "support him any way I can."
Meanwhile, Florida billionaire Marsha Laufer, whose husband Henry served as an executive at
the $57 billion hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, had kind words for Biden before he
joined the race, saying he represents "stability of government, truth and values in a
traditional sense that people are longing for," while expressing fear about the Democrats'
leftward shift.
It appears Biden may be returning to this well even after taking a rhetorical jab at "Wall
Street bankers, CEOs and hedge fund managers." Some of those slated to attend an LA fundraiser
for Biden next
month include: Richard Blum, hedge fund manager, private equity investor and husband of
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; James Costos, board member of PJT Partners Inc.; and Martha
Karsh, whose husband, Bruce, co-founded private equity firm Oaktree Capital.
Biden's closeness to the industry is nothing new. A
2015 letter signed by nearly 50 Democratic Party donors and activists urging Biden to run
for president the following year featured longtime hedge fund manager Jim Torrey as well as
other finance executives. Biden's 2008 presidential campaign was fined $219,000
by the FEC partly because three members of the campaign took a flight on a private jet owned by
the Clinton Group, a New York-based hedge fund. And Biden's son Hunter was previously chairman
of Paradigm, a now-defunct fund of hedge
funds he ran alongside Biden's brother, James.
Alongside this relationship to hedge funds, Biden has been heavily courting labor union
support for his presidential run. He opened his campaign with an endorsement from the
International Association of Fire Fighters, has spoken in union halls and in front of union
audiences in the lead up to his run ( including on
the day he announced), and recently said that "I make no apologies -- I am
a union man." This is despite union
antipathy toward hedge funds, which have a history of
depleting
pension funds through poor performance and exorbitant fees.
These events suggest the contours of what Biden's campaign and potential governing style may
look like. Biden will likely continue seeking the support of unions while playing up his
working-class, Scranton roots in public speeches, while quietly courting hedge fund managers
and other corporate and Wall Street executives for funding.
Meanwhile, unlike Bernie Sanders, one of his chief rivals for the Democratic nomination who
frames the relationship between corporate America and working people as antagonistic, these
episodes suggest Biden sees this relationship as a fundamentally cooperative one.
As Biden said
at the Brookings Institution in May 2018, "I'm not Bernie Sanders. I don't think 500
billionaires are the reason why we're in trouble." He went on to say, "The folks at the top are
not bad guys wealthy Americans are just as patriotic as poor folks."
In this view, Wall Street and corporate executives serve as key stakeholders who must help
shape government policy, with Biden acting as a kind of broker between them and the rest of the
public. It's an approach not dissimilar from that taken by previous Democratic presidents in
the post-Reagan era.
But can such a coalition of the working class and ultra-rich executives hold together
throughout the campaign, particularly at a time of populist anger and historic wealth
inequality? With a dangerous billionaire real estate mogul in the White House, that's one risky
proposition.
"... "What if you substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me). ..."
"... "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?" ..."
"... The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say. ..."
Second hour: Journalist and TV host Ken Meyercord (also based in Washington, DC)
writes:
"I attended an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday on the Mueller Report. As is
sadly customary at DC think tanks, the panelists and the moderator were all of one mind.
Nevertheless, one panelist, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (a
court notorious for rubber-stamping any charge the government brings against those who
disrupt the smooth functioning of our foreign policy apparatus), made a curious analogy,
arguing that the contacts Trump and his associates had with Russians would be culpable even
if the contacts were with some other, less hostile country:
His remark got me to thinking, so in the Q & A I sought to ask him "What if you
substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look
right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me).
I don't know what his response would have been; but if he said it would still apply, I
would have followed up with "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller
investigation into possible collusion with Israel?"
"The more I think about it, the more intriguing I find Mr. Rosenberg's remark. He seemed
to think the sheer number of contacts by Trump folks with Russians proved culpability. It
might be interesting to compare Trump's contacts with the Russians during the campaign with
his contacts with Israelis. I suspect the latter were more numerous and of greater
significance. Certainly, Trump's acts as President would seem to indicate he's more
Netanyahu's puppet than Putin's: moving the embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to the
Palestinians, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Imagine if Putin
proposed naming a village in Russia after Trump in appreciation, as Netanyahu has proposed
doing in the Golan Heights!
"P.S. Ueli Maurer is the President of the Swiss Confederation."
The entire Western media is the enemy of the people. The Demogangsters and the mediocrats,
Public Enemy #1, were angry that Trump won the election, so they fabricated a scam called
contacts with Russians.
They are saying that Trump and his people talked to the Russians as private citizens
before the election, so it is illegal.
What? Talking to Russians is illegal? Really? Says who?
They will not tell you the law that was allegedly broken, because the law that was
allegedly broken itself is illegal.
It is the Logan Act which “criminalizes negotiations by unauthorized persons with
foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”
Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a
non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.
While I would not say this happens only in America, this sort of thing is actually
long-standing policy in the US. As long ago as 1944 in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Democrat
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for not merely raising food on his own land, but
for failing to offer the food for sale, on the rationale that the non-sale affected
Interstate Commerce as much as if he had offered it for sale. Since then it has been
‘constitutional’ to find federal jurisdiction over even private vegetable gardens
grown exclusively for domestic consumption. Under this theory, even breathing oxygen places
one under federal jurisdiction because it is followed by exhaling CO2.
One of the most surprising things I discovered when I began to practice law was the fact
that no one is ‘innocent’. I.e, there is always some law somewhere that is being
‘broken’ no matter what one does, which means that if the government wants
someone, they can always convict him because the government can always find some law he has
broken. I’m speaking ironically, of course. Many of these laws should be
unconstitutional. Just don’t bet that SCOTUS will ever rule that way because, as
Gorsuch recently pronounced, “that’s all been settled.”
The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s
impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller
pulled the plug, I can’t say.
In short and in effect, the Democratic Party itself is headed to trial
on a vector that takes it straight into November next year. How do you imagine it will look to
voters when Mr. Obama's CIA chief, John Brennan, his NSA Director James Clapper, a baker's
dozen of former Obama top FBI and DOJ officials, including former AG Loretta Lynch, and sundry
additional players in the great game of RussiaGate Gotcha end up 'splainin' their guts
out to a whole different cast of federal prosecutors? It's hardly out of the question that
Barack Obama himself and Mrs. Clinton may face charges in all this mischief and depravity.
It's surely true that the public is sick of the RussiaGate spectacle. (I know readers of
this blog complain about it.) But it's no exaggeration to say that this is the worst and most
tangled scandal that the US government has ever seen, and that failing to resolve it
successfully really is an existential threat to the project of being a republic. I was a young
newspaper reporter during Watergate and that was like a game of animal lotto compared to this
garbage barge of malfeasance.
It's a further irony of the moment that the suddenly leading Democratic candidate, Joe
Biden, is neck-deep in that spilled garbage, the story unspooling even as I write that
then-Veep Uncle Joe strong-armed the Ukraine government to fire its equivalent of Attorney
General to quash an investigation of his son, Hunter, who received large sums of money from the
Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, which had mystifyingly appointed the young American to its
board of directors after the US-sponsored overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych.
That nasty bit of business comes immediately on top of information that the Hillary campaign
was using its connections in Ukraine -- from her years at the State Department -- to traffic in
political dirt on Mr. Trump, plus an additional intrigue that included payments to the Clinton
Foundation of $25 million by Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. That was on top of
contributions of $150 million that the Clinton Foundation had received earlier from Russian
oligarchs around 2012.
Did they suppose that no one would ever notice? Or is it just a symptom of the desperation
that has gripped the Democratic Party since the stunning election loss of 2016 made it
impossible to suppress this titanic, bubbling vessel of fermented misdeeds? It seems more than
merely possible that the entire Mueller Investigation was a ruse from the start to conceal all
this nefarious activity. It is even more astounding to see exactly what a lame document the
Mueller Report turned out to be. It was such a dud that even the Democratic senators and
congresspersons who are complaining the loudest have not bothered to visit the special parlor
set up at the Department of Justice for their convenience to read a much more lightly redacted
edition of the report.
The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. The wheels are in motion
now and it's unlikely they will be stopped by mere tantrums. But the next move by the desperate
Resistance may be to create so much political disorder in the system that they manage to
delegitimize the 2020 election before it is even held, and plunge the nation deeper into
unnecessary crisis just to try and save their asses.
Color revolution is a military operation in which protesters are just a tip of the iceberg. the key
players are Embassy staff, three letter agencies, NGOs, bought and foreign owned neoliberal press,
some oligarchs (who might be pressed into submission with the threat of confiscating their
assets), compradors and bought players within the government.
The initial crash with police was organized by one of such players (supposedly Lyovochkin). One of the key instruments were huge cash
flows in diplomatic mail that feed the protest ("bombing country with dollars"). In a
sense in any neoliberal republic color revolution is designed to be a success, the fact which
EuroMaidan proved quite convincingly.
Ukraine actually was a very easy target. Yanukovich was
essentially neutralized and paralyzed by threats from Biden. Security services were
infiltrated and partially work for Americans. Several bought members of the government (Lyovochkon?)
did their dirty job in organizing the necessity clashes with policy to feed the protest.
Notable quotes:
"... The script writers of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans. ..."
Former Prime Minister Azarov explained his version of events on the Maidan. The script
writers of the Maidan, in his opinion, were Americans.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov told the NTV about how coup d'état of February of
the last year was organized. According to him, the script of the coup d'état was written at the
U.S. Embassy.
"The main puppeteers were not on the Maidan," Azarov said. The protests started because of the
decision of Ukrainian authorities to suspend the signing of the Association agreement with the EU.
"There was, of course, the enormous pressure from the leaders of the European Union, from
several European countries. The meaning of this pressure was the fact that we must put aside
all doubts and to sign this agreement," said the former Prime Minister. "They just needed an
excuse, a reason to overthrow our government. Because we were frankly told: "If you do not you sign
this agreement, it will sign another government, another President,"
In this regard, according to Azarov, they needed a provocation to start protest and such a
provocation became the use of force on Independence square in Kiev, where supporters of European
integration were staying for several nights. "The action was slow. The organizers understood
that without the sacred victims they will be unable to ignite the crowd. Suddenly around 3 am
several TV crews arrive, set lights, camera. What to shoot? This ordinary situation, when people
spend the night at the square?" - said Azarov.
Ukrainian people were cynically played. According to Azarov at this moment
"prepared by gunmen in masks" arrived to the square. They started beating on duty policemen with
metal sticks. When police called reinforcements instigators quickly disappeared. And when riot
police began detention, "they detain generally innocent people who spend night at the square as a
part of peaceful protest."
Speaking about the negotiations Yanukovich with the opposition, Azarov noted that the current
Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk "every day spend most of his time in the American Embassy and
following their instructions to the letter."
In the end, an agreement was signed between the President and opposition leaders on the peaceful
resolution of the conflict, the guarantor which were several European countries, but no one except
the Yanukovich, fulfilled their obligations. "I still do not understand, how foreign Ministers of
Poland, Germany, France, which signed an agreement on February 21 feel themselves. In the history
of diplomacy this agreement will be included as an example of the utmost degree of cynicism and
deceit," said Azarov.
"... Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran. ..."
"... Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an act of war. ..."
"... Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually. ..."
"... Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to attack and hinder a foreign corporation. ..."
"... Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history. ..."
"... Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP. ..."
The U.S. missile strike on Shayrat Airbase on 7 April 2017 was the first time the U.S.
became a deliberate, direct combatant against the Syrian government and marked the start of
a series of deliberate direct military actions by U.S. forces against the Syrian government
and its allies in May -- June 2017 and February 2018.
Trump *escalated* the war from covert support to insurgents to direct intervention and
official *invasion* in Syria. This is the equivalent of going from financing and supporting a
faction in a so called proxy war in say Vietnam to leading the US to go full Iraq WMD and
become a warring and invading faction in the conflict. Again, this is an escalation.
The number of boots on the ground vs Obama's is data you just took out of your bottom.
Sources for your cheap PR shilling? You don't have any because this statement of yours is a
blatant lie.
Trump *escalated* US-Iran and US-Venezuela conflicts and intensified the sabre rattling
towards both countries, according to all analysts. For the first time a POTUS openly said
direct US invasion to Venezuela "is on the table" and his Adelson bought appointment for
USNSA Bolton publicly showed in a notebook the writing "5000 troops to Colombia" openly
suggesting a direct invasion was imminent. For the first time the White House asked the
Pentagon to draw up options for military strikes against Iran.
Trump's administration declared a whole branch of the Iran armed forces (IRGC) as a
terrorist organisation. This is an escalation and according to most analysts, considered an
act of war.
Trump's administration ended the Iran deal without any objective reasons, ie Obama's
effort to deescalate the Israel firsters driven Iran-US conflict
Trump administration heavily increased sanctions to Iran, Russia and Venezuela and in
the latter case even instigated a failed uprising and coup d'etat, going as far as to declare
a virtual political Venezuelan nobody the "official" president of the country, which is in
itself unbelievable and has no historic precedent. Another act of war actually.
Trump administration declared Golan Heights part of Israel brought US embassy to
Jerusalem, increasing the tensions and animosity towards the US in the ME.
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation, increasing
the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This includes non Arab
country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took power.
Trump administration also escalated the tensions with China, ordered the arrest and de
facto kidnapping of Chinese corporate executives and openly used the US legal apparatus to
attack and hinder a foreign corporation.
Trump has been, objectively, the most neocon Israel-firster POTUS in US history.
Friendly reminder that voting for Republicans and expecting US Jewish lobby/Corporate
America promoted policies such as open borders and US imperialist interventions to stop is
moronic beyond belief. Republicans are the most pro corporate pro US Jewish lobby of the two
parties by far. At least there is talk and critique about how the Israel Lobby owns the USG
in the Dem party. Nothing of the sort going on in the GOP.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Non intervention and "pacifist" policies the same. How many GOP supporters were against
the Vietnam and Iraq war? Not many yeah.
Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern countries in a comparable
period of time than any modern U.S. President. Presidents Bush, Obama and now [2017] Trump
have dropped nearly 200,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia. Trump's rate of bombing eclipses both Bush and Obama; and Trump is on a
pace to drop over 100,000 [180,000 to be precise] bombs and missiles on Middle Eastern
countries during his first term of office -- which would equal the number of bombs and
missiles dropped by Obama during his entire eight-year presidency.
Here's more perspective:
The United States Government, under the Trump administration, reportedly drops a bomb
every 12 minutes, which means that 121 bombs are dropped in a day, and 44,096 bombs per year.
The Pentagon's data show that during George W. Bush's eight years he averaged 24 bombs
dropped per day, that is, 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama's time in office, his
military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. This shows that even though American
presidents are all war criminals, Trump is the most vicious of them all.
Yes, Trump is dropping almost FOUR TIMES MORE BOMBS than Barack Obama and over FIVE TIMES
MORE BOMBS than G.W. Bush -- which included military invasions of two countries.
We also know that Trump expanded America's wars in Afghanistan and Syria (and, no, he is
NOT bringing U.S. troops home from Syria) and is ramping up America's war machine against
Venezuela, Iran, China and Russia. And this does not even take into account the way Trump has
given Benjamin Netanyahu's raunchy racist regime the green light to expand its wars against
the Palestinians, Lebanon, Syria and Iran or the U.S./Israeli proxy war (with Saudi Arabia
taking the lead) in Yemen.
Then there is Somalia:
In the age of Donald Trump, wasn't that [the Battle of Mogadishu -- Black Hawk Down] a
million presidencies ago? Honestly, can you even tell me anymore what in the world it was all
about? I couldn't have, not without looking it up again. A warlord, starvation, U.S.
intervention, 18 dead American soldiers (and hundreds of dead Somalis, but that hardly
mattered) in a country that was shattering. President Clinton did, however, pull out those
troops and end the disastrous mission -- and that was that, right? I mean, lessons learned.
Somalia? Africa? What in the world did it all have to do with us? So Washington washed its
hands of the whole thing.
And now, on a planet of outrageous tweets and murderously angry white men, you probably
didn't even notice, but more than two years into the era of Donald Trump, a quarter-century
after that incident, American airstrikes in yep, Somalia, are precipitously on the rise.
Last year's 47 strikes, aimed at the leaders and fighters of al-Shabaab, an Islamist
terror outfit, more than tripled the ones carried out by the Obama administration in 2016
(themselves a modest increase from previous years). And in 2019, they're already on pace to
double again, while Somali civilians -- not that anyone (other than Somali civilians) notices
or cares -- are dying in significant and rising numbers.
And with 500 troops back on the ground there and Pentagon estimates that they will remain
for at least another seven years, the U.S. military is increasingly Somalia-bound, Congress
hasn't uttered a peep on the subject, and few in this country are paying the slightest
attention.
So consider this a simple fact of the never-ending Global War on Terror (as it was once
called): the U.S. military just can't get enough of Somalia. And if that isn't off the
charts, what is? Maybe it's even worth a future book (with a very small print run) called not
Black Hawk Down II but U.S. Down Forever and a Day.
And now that I've started on the subject (if you still happen to be reading), when it
comes to the U.S. military, it's not faintly just Somalia. It's all of Africa.
After all, this country's military uniquely has a continent-wide Africa Command (aka
AFRICOM), founded in 2007. As Nick Turse has often written for TomDispatch, that command now
has its troops, thousands of them, its planes, and other equipment spread across the
continent, north to south, east to west -- air bases, drone bases, garrisons, outposts,
staging areas, you name it. Meanwhile, AFRICOM's outgoing commanding general, Thomas
Waldhauser, only recently told Congress why it's bound to be a forever outfit -- because,
shades of the Cold War, the Ruskies are coming! ("Russia is also a growing challenge and has
taken a more militaristic approach in Africa.")
And honestly, 600-odd words in, this wasn't meant to be a piece about either Somalia or
Africa. It was meant to be about those U.S. wars being off the charts, about how the Pentagon
now feeds eternally at the terror trough, al-Shabaab being only a tiny part of the slop it
regularly digests.
And, while America's wars are way up, according to Gallup, church attendance in America is
way down:
As Christian and Jewish Americans prepare to celebrate Easter and Passover, respectively,
Gallup finds the percentage of Americans who report belonging to a church, synagogue or
mosque at an all-time low, averaging 50% in 2018.
U.S. church membership was 70% or higher from 1937 through 1976, falling modestly to an
average of 68% in the 1970s through the 1990s. The past 20 years have seen an acceleration in
the drop-off, with a 20-percentage-point decline since 1999 and more than half of that change
occurring since the start of the current decade.
Most interesting is this Gallup observation:
Although the United States is one of the more religious countries, particularly among
Western nations, it is far less religious than it used to be. Barely three-quarters of
Americans now identify with a religion and only about half claim membership in a church,
synagogue or mosque.
The rate of U.S. church membership has declined sharply in the past two decades after
being relatively stable in the six decades before that. A sharp increase in the proportion of
the population with no religious affiliation, a decline in church membership among those who
do have a religious preference, and low levels of church membership among millennials are all
contributing to the accelerating trend.
Obviously, America's Jewish and Muslim populations pale compared to its Christian
population. The vast decline of attendance to religious services, therefore, primarily means
church attendance. Notice, also, that this steep decline commenced at the beginning of this
century (2000) -- when G.W. Bush became President of the United States.
I tried to warn readers -- and listeners to my nationwide radio talk show -- that due to
his insatiable war fever, G.W. Bush was going to forever warp the perception in people's
minds of Christianity. And, sadly, I was absolutely right. After eight years of the
warmongering G.W. Bush in the White House, millions of Americans came to associate
Christianity with wars of aggression. As a result, the exodus out of America's churches began
in earnest.
Enter Donald Trump.
As noted above, Trump has expanded Bush's war fever exponentially. But Trump has done more
than that: He has aggressively put the United States smack dab in the middle of Israel's
wars. It could even be argued that Donald Trump has turned the U.S. military into a proxy
army for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Don't get me wrong: I am very cognizant of the fact that G.W. Bush's "war on terror" was
nothing more than a proxy war for Israel. But the Israeli connection was covert and
completely covered up. Not anymore. Donald Trump is unabashedly and explicitly partnering the
mission of the U.S. military with that of the IDF. No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu promises to
name a community in the Israel-seized, Israel-occupied Golan Heights after Donald Trump.
(Trumplinka would fit Netanyahu's concentration-style occupation nicely.)
So, not only are millions of Americans now associating Christianity with G.W. Bush's wars
of aggression, they are associating Christianity with Donald Trump's wars of aggression for
the racist apartheid State of Israel. The result: the steepest decline in church attendance
and church affiliation in U.S. history.
The longer evangelical Christians continue to support Donald Trump's radical pro-Israel,
pro-war agenda, the deeper America will plunge into an anti-Christian country.
The good news is that all over America, people are waking up to the Israel deception.
Support for the erroneous doctrine of dispensational eschatology is in a giant free fall; the
myth of Zionist Israel being a resurrected Old Testament Israel is being repeatedly exposed;
the attempts by Israel's toadies to characterize people whose eyes are open to the truth of
Zionism as being "anti-Semitic" is losing more and more credibility by the day; and more and
more people are becoming aware of the utter wickedness of the Zionist government in Israel.
Plus, more and more people are beginning to understand the plight of the persecuted people
(including Christian people) in the Israeli-occupied territories of Palestine.
Ron, maybe your shipmates on the USS LIBERTY didn't die in vain after all.
From an historical perspective, overextended wars are the downfall of any empire; from a
financial perspective, warfarism is the precursor to an economically depressed middle class;
and from a Scriptural/spiritual perspective, God cannot and will not bless a warmongering
nation.
Let's be clear: God is not building a "Greater Israel." God is not building a third Jewish
temple. God is not speaking through phony prophets who are attributing some sort of divine
calling to Trump's pro-Israel warmongering. God is not blessing America because we are
blessing Zionist Israel. Just the opposite: The more America aligns itself with Israel's
belligerence, bullying and bombing of innocent people, the more God will deliver us over to
becoming an antichrist country. After all, one cannot idolize and partner with antichrists
without becoming one himself.
Burning down the house. Driving like a madman on the road to nowhere has put the nation on a
path to its own demise. Our foreign policy is a disaster that does nothing to promote
democracy anywhere in the world. Our military has provided nothing but instability in the
world since the end of world war 2. Ask yourself, why are we involved in so many useless wars
that don't make the world a better place?
Don't you feel like we are being used by war hawks who see every skirmish as a threat to our
national security? Why can't we cut out all the military BS and just trade with with nations
that want to trade, and ignore those who want to kill each other. Let them figure it out on
their own. Social Capitalism is the only policy we should be supporting.
"All statements of Trump do not count. All Trump statements are results from stress of
torture by Democrats, and deep state."
When this president stated during the campaign,
that christians don't have to forgive their enemies, I rolled my eyes stated he wrong, and
understood well he doesn't know what christianity means and supported him anyway
that he supported same sex marriage, I rolled my eyes, rebuffed the the silliness of his
comments and understood, he is not a conservative and beyond that he doesn't know what
christianity means
when it was uncovered that he had in fact had relations outside of marriage, I rolled my
eyes, and understood that alone could be a disqualifying factor in light of the competition
and supported him anyway
when some of the most respected departments of government leaders said he colluded with
Russians, based on the evidence, I said "poppycock" and supported him anyway
when media swirled with tales of Russian bath houses and carousings abounded, I thought
nonsense and supported hum anyway
when the rumors of underage girls and same sex parties and orgies seped into the main, I
rolled my eyes and supported him anyway . . .
when he spouted off about Charlottesville prematurely, I supported him anyway . . .
when became clear he actually advocated torture, I choked, spat and supported him anyway,
afterall he's not schooled in international relations and the consequences for our service
personnel, much less apparently the basics of tortures effectiveness, especially in large
scale strategies such as the US is engaged in
when it came to light he was completely ignorant of how our criminal justice system gets
it wrong as exampled by the Cen 5 case, I supported him anyway . . .
I supported him in spite of his comments about the poor and people like me who supported
him
There's a long list of tolerance is support of this president based on his advocacy
regarding turning the attention to the US welfare . . .
And when he actually agreed that the Russians had sabotaged the US elections and even
engaged in murder in the states of our European allies -- I knew, that in all liklihood the
turn inward was dead.
Here' a man who beat all the odds because of stalwart support of people like me, who
repeatedly bit the sides of our cheeks in the understanding that the returns would exceed the
price only to discover that the man who beat the odds doesn't seem to have a spine to stand
on ideologically which were the foundations of my advocacy: national security, less reckless
spending, holding business and financial organizations accountable for misbehavior, investing
in the US citizen, restructuring our trade deals to benefit the US, not merely shooting up
tarrifs that would in turn be priced to the citizens the supposed tarrifs were intended to
protect, tax cuts that actually gave middle americans less, no evidence of a draw down in our
careless ME behaviors, i even gave him some room to deal with israel as perhaps a new way
forward -- it's a new way alright – no pretense of acting as honest brokers –
that's new, Immigration is worse and by worse he might as well be serving tea and crumpets at
the border welcoming illegals . . .
If the man you elected to turn the corner actually becomes the vehicle for of what you
elected him to reject and change, eventually one has to acknowledge that fact. he beat the
deep state, he just either had not the courage, the integrity, or the ability, perhaps all
three to withstand the victory and do the work. Of course he had opposition and not much of
it very fair and nearly all of it damaging to the country. But he had support to stand
against it -- he chose an easier path.
And while I support him still, I have no intention of pretending that he is fulfilling the
mandate for which he was elected. I would be lying to myself and doing a disservice to
him.
I have not changed, I knew he was a situational leader, I knew what that meant, but I
voted for a particular agenda, he left the reservation on his own accord and the "deep
state", the establishment", the democrats, the liberals, the libertarians, can only be held
to blame for so much --
But several weeks ago, on top of a complete failure to ensure US order security, the armed
forces paid homage to Mexicans on US territory by relinquishing their weapons and
surrendering -- and given the tenure thus far -- - it devastatingly fitting that this
occurred under this admin.
And in the midst of all this, he is pandering to those engaged in same sex behavior --
– deep state my eye . . .
the path of least resistance. I cling to the belief that having voting for any of the
other candidates -- matters would have been far worse.
I make no apologies for being a conservative and Christian and holding a loyalty to the
US.
I reject your whine, it had legs and even some salience still, but at this stage, very
little.
Now he is bed with Sen. Rubio, Sen. Cruz and others on mucking around in SA -- I can only
consider your comments as an attempt at humor.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is using the US military as muscle to fight
wars on behalf of Israel and to keep the dollar-based global financial system operating to
their benefit.
Republican Party politician whores are led by the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative foreign
policy faction and the Democrat Party is led by the Jew-controlled Humanitarian
Interventionist Harpy foreign policy faction.
Debt-based fiat currency systems must always expand or they implode.
Empires must expand or they implode.
The JEW/WASP ruling class of the American Empire is stuck with a federal funds rate of
2.50 percent or so when the normal level is 6 percent.
Yellen was talking about 4 percent being the new normal level, but she was off by 1.5
percent.
Tucker Carlson is another charlatan who still refuse to hold the Jewish mafia servant, Trump,
responsible for the massacre in Venezuela. He is trying to please both sides to collect his
$$$.
He is complicit in Trumps' crimes against Venezuelan people. Trump is a terrorist and mass
murderer who tried to assassinate Maduro few months ago unsuccessfully. This does not dilute
the fact that TRUMP IS AN ASSASSIN. All these criminals must be arrested and put on trial to
be executed, if not possible then people must assassinate these scums who have no shame to
starve millions of people to death by violating international laws to grab their land and
resources. The world cannot wait. Their complicit, like Tucker Carlson, should be exposed all
over the world. We are fed up with these criminals who received $$$$$ for their lies,
continue to help the criminals at the Pentagon and WH.
Those criminals who spread the lies that Venezuela is Maduro's fault. Carlson and other
CHARLATANS refuse to see the role of the US criminals against Venezuelan people for over 20
years, attacking the population, country's infrastructure well being, economic system and
engaging in assassination , staging riot using their traitor pawns in the country to topple a
legitimate government in order to steal Venezuela's RESOURCES where pays for the liars like
Carlson's salary to spread his propaganda. The US criminals who have assassinated many
leaders to bring down the governments around the world should be assassinated themselves
along with their propagandists.
You criminals have been exposed all over the world and soon should go into your graves,
one by one. These criminals including trump and Carlson, hold Chavez responsible for the
chaos in the country and now Maduro, but ignore the US criminals acts even assassination of
the leaders.
Carlson should stop supporting the Jewish mafia illiterate and mass murderer Trump and
shut up on blaming Maduro, a victim of US brutality and its complicit media like Carlson.
This is why "reparations bills" are introduced and supported by many Democratic
candidates...
Notable quotes:
"... The main message on identity to come out is that whites, esp. white males are the main cause of every ill since the dawn of time, even if they don't know it. Whites are not the majority anymore, and the factions outnumber them. There are the votes. ..."
R and D are different sides of the same coin. Democrats have developed the "unite the
factions" strategy with targeted campaigns to wronged and victimized groups. The main
message on identity to come out is that whites, esp. white males are the main cause of every
ill since the dawn of time, even if they don't know it. Whites are not the majority anymore,
and the factions outnumber them. There are the votes.
If you lean towards the left and are white you are encountering a mixed message of duty and
guilt. Your identity is being painted on you. And much of that paint is colored by the
projection of white nationalism on even the left leaning whites.
It can be said that that's what whites, in their arrogance, do to everyone else. It might be
true. From my observation I don't see that most people think about their identity in relation
to other identities, but there are a few that stick out that you mostly don't want to know.
This is where the republicans are filling a vacuum, a space that didn't need to be filled. A
space where whites HAVE to choose identity, according to the r's. If you don't feel you fit on
one side anymore, then there's the other side. Many shades of white nationalism. Much of it is
about feelings. It's where passion lies.
The law used to be the embodiment of justice and fairness. We knew what good law was, in
it's fairness, and bad law. This has been replaced by fear,emotion, taunts and anger.
And so, it's one side or the other, or turn your back and take no side.
@edg rabidly anti-Muslim, pro-war in the Middle East (against Muslims) and sicially conservative
in general. They are roughly 50% Republican, 50% DNC Democrats. They LOVED Hillary.
FBN's Trish Regan and Trump 2020 Strategic Communications Director Marc Lotter discuss a new
report that the Obama administration sent spies to gather dirt on the Trump campaign in
2016.
FOX Business Network (FBN) is a financial news channel delivering real-time information
across all platforms that impact both Main Street and Wall Street. Headquartered in New York --
the business capital of the world -- FBN launched in October 2007 and is the leading business
network on television, topping CNBC in Business Day viewers for the second consecutive year.
The network is available in more than 80 million homes in all markets across the United States.
Owned by FOX, FBN has bureaus in Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and London.
Barack Hussein O gave the order to Spy on the Trump Campaign and on President Trump. BHO
is up to his Ears with all this Spying, Russia Gate, and making dirty deals with Ukraine.
We already know Obama weaponized the IRS, the CIA and the DOJ... the Obamanation is
corrupt to the core, so why would it be a surprise that he also weaponized the FBI?
Pencil Neck Adam Schiff is cleaning up all the CRAP left over from Barack Hussein O. This
weasel is running interference and making all the noise he can against A.G. William Barr who
is a good and decent man. God Bless A.G. Barr and his Family.
Obama weaponized just about all departments during his term. He used the EPA against
farmers and land-owners. He used the IRS against conservative groups. He used the
Intelligence groups against the American people, and the FBI and DOJ against anyone else that
annoyed him. Obama and his people need to be investigated and if warranted, charged. But,
this is what the left does.
Good Lord!! Obama.. Hillary.. Biden.. The FBI.. Then we have Omar, and Tlaib, and AOC
getting all of the new praise. The media CONTINUES to cover it up. Amazing that the NYT ran
it.
Joe Friday 2 hours ago
"what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."
DEM's think, 'Obama anti-Trump crimes in Ukraine STAY IN UKRAINE'.
"... Will the overthrow of disputed President Nicolas Maduro make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for the United States? Lots of people claim to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected. Few things ever do. ..."
"... Are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and work here, in effect, permanently, as many have before, with no fear of deportation. Are we prepared for that? ..."
TUCKER CARLSON: There is much we don't know about the situation in Venezuela. What we do
know is that Venezuela's current government has done a poor job of providing for its own
people. Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, yet it remains one of the most
impoverished and the most dangerous places on the planet. That is beyond dispute.
Everything else is up for debate. Will the overthrow of disputed President Nicolas Maduro
make Venezuela a more stable and prosperous country? More to the point, would it be good for
the United States? Lots of people claim to know the answer to that, but they don't. They have
no idea. If recent history is any guide, nothing will turn out as expected. Few things ever
do.
But that has not stopped the geniuses in Washington. It has not even slowed them down. On
Tuesday afternoon, on a bipartisan basis, they agreed that the United States ought to jump
immediately, face-first, into the Venezuelan mess. When asked whether U.S. presence in
Venezuela would make any difference, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida told Neil Cavuto the following:
"Absolutely. I was down at the Venezuelan border last Wednesday. This is just pure genocide.
Maduro is killing his own citizens."
When asked whether Venezuela was worth risking American troops' lives, Scott said, "Here is
what is going to happen. We are in the process, if we don't win today, we are going to have
Syria in this hemisphere. So, we can make sure something happens now, or we can deal with this
for decades to come. If we care about families, if we care about the human race, if we care
about fellow worldwide citizens, then we've got to step up and stop this genocide."
All right, I just want to make sure that it is clear. If you care about families and you
care about the human race -- if you want to stop genocide -- you will send your children to
Venezuela to fight right now, without even thinking about it, without even weighing the
consequences. You will just do it. Assuming you are a good person, of course.
If you don't care about families or the human race -- if for some reason you despise human
happiness and support genocide -- then you will want to join Satan's team and embrace
isolationism, the single most immoral of all worldviews. That is what they're telling you. That
is what they are demanding you believe.
Message received. We've heard it before. But before the bombers take off, let's just answer
a few quick questions, starting with the most obvious: When was the last time we successfully
meddled in the political life of another country? Has it ever worked? How are the democracies
we set up in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, and Afghanistan right now? How would Venezuela be
different? Please explain -- and take your time.
Are we prepared for the refugees a Venezuelan war would inevitably produce? A study by the
Brookings Institution found that the collapse of the Venezuelan government could force eight
million people to leave the country. Many of them would come here. Lawmakers in this country
propose giving them temporary protected status that would let even illegal arrivals live and
work here, in effect, permanently, as many have before, with no fear of deportation. Are we
prepared for that?
Are we prepared to absorb millions of new Venezuelan migrants? All of them great people, no
question, But many would have little education or skills or would not speak English.
Finally, how, exactly, is any of this good for the United States? Our sanctions on Venezuela
have already spiked our gas prices. That hurts our struggling middle class more than virtually
anything we could do. So what's is the point of doing that? So our lawmakers can feel like good
people?
And if they are, indeed, good people, why do they care more about Venezuela than they care
about this country, the one that they run? They are happy to send our military to South America
at the first sign of chaos. But send U.S. troops to our own border to stem the tide of a
hundred thousand uninvited arrivals a month? "No way," they tell us. "That is crazy talk!"
Millennial and generation Z workers are becoming increasingly miserable with their jobs and careers. Since we are told several
times a day by the media that the economy is booming, why are so many young workers so disastrously melancholy all the time?
"When you're struggling with your mental health it can be much harder to stay in work or manage your spending, while being
in debt can cause huge stress and anxiety – so the two issues feed off each other, creating a vicious cycle which can destroy
lives," said Helen Undy the institute's chief executive.
"Yet despite how connected these problems are, financial services rarely think about our mental health, and mental health
services rarely consider what is happening with our money."
So why are we constantly being told everything is fine? The mainstream media loves to say that the U.S. is nearly ten years into
one of the longest economic expansions in history, unemployment is the lowest it's been in almost half a century, and employees have
more job choices than they've had in years. But there's just one problem. That's not actual truthful when taking all of the data
into consideration. Sure, unemployment is low the way the government calculates it, but there's a reason for that.
102 million Americans are no longer "in the workforce" and therefore, unaccounted for.
When a working-age American does not have a job, the federal number crunchers put them into one of two different categories.
Either they are categorized as "unemployed" or they are categorized as "not in the labor force".
But you have to add both of those categories together to get the total number of Americans that are not working.
Over the last decade, the number of Americans that are in the "unemployed" category has been steadily going down, but the number
of Americans "not in the labor force" has been rapidly going up.
In both cases we are talking about Americans that do not have a job. It is just a matter of how the federal government chooses
to categorize those individuals. –
Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog
That could partially explain the misery some are feeling, but those who have jobs aren't happy either. They are often reeling
from student loan and credit card debt. Being depressed makes shopping feel like a solution, but when the bill comes, the depression
once again sets in making this a difficult cycle to break for so many just trying to scrape by.
Depression and suicide rates are rising sharply
and other than putting the blame on superficial issues, researchers are at a loss as to the real reason why. But could it possibly
be that as the elite globalists continue to take over the world and enslave mankind, people are realizing that they aren't meant
to be controlled or manipulated, but meant to be free?
There's something we are all missing all around the globe. Could it possibly be free will and a life of freedom from theft and
violent coercion and force that's missing?
When even your own article lies to everyone... so the modern person that does well are those who lie the best and are the best
con artists. Trump is an example. Low talent High con.
Example the US unemployment number.
Only the pool of unemployed that is Presently eligible for unemployment benefits is counted in the Unemployment number. That
means self employed, commissioned workers, contractors etc are not included in the pool of unemployment even if they are out of
work because they are unemployment ineligible.
Thus, over time, as unemployment benefits are lost, the unemployment pool shrinks. This is called a mathematical regression.
How far does it shrink? To the point of equilibrium which is roughly 4% in which new persons enter the work force to the same
extent of those losing benefits and being removed and become invisible.
Thus, Unemployment is a bogus number grossly understating truthful Unemployment. This method was first used under Obama and
persists today under the Orange poser.
Nepotism and Affirmative action
Why would this make people unhappy? Chronic underemployment. Advancement is mostly by nepotism or affirmative action the flip
side of the same coin. The incoming Harvard Class this year was 30% legacy student... and 30% affirmative action and the rest
be damned. Happy?
Feminism has gripped the workplace.
Men hate working for female bosses. They don't trust them, they don't trust their judgment which often looks political and
never logical. Men feel those women were promoted because of gender.
I saw this years ago in a clean room at National Semiconductor. A woman was put in charge of a team of roughly 30 white nerd
males. She was at them constantly for not locking doors behind them and other menial infractions. She could not comprehend the
complexity of the work or how inspiration operates but she would nag them and bully them.
At another facility there was a genius that would come to work and set up a sleeping bag and go to sleep under his desk. He
was a Unix programmer and system engineer. So when something went wrong they would wake him and he would get up, solve the problem
and go back to sleep.
Then the overstuffed string of pearls showed up as the new unit boss. She was infuriated that somebody would dare sleep on
the clock and so blatantly. So she would harass him and wake him. Then one day she got so mad she started kicking him while he
was sleeping. He grabbed his sleeping bag and briefcase and stormed out.
Ultimately the woman's boss took her to task and explained to her that it didn't matter if that employee slept under his desk
because when he worked to solve problems only he could solve he saved the company millions. She was fired. As a token stipulation
the sleeping genius came back and a sign was posted on his desk. "Kicking this employee is grounds for immediate dismissal."
Usually the nerd walks and just gets replaced by some diversity politician and string of pearls then sets the tone by making
the workplace ****. Women simply are not as intelligent as men and pretending they are just wrecks morale of the people who are
really intelligent. The rise of the shoulder padded woman string of pearls bully is a scourge to one and all.
Simple answer: because people are spineless and terrible negotiators.
Long answer: for years the adage has been "do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life" or "find a good job and
never leave" or "work your way to the top" or "be a hard worker, trust your leadership, keep your head down, and don't make waves."
********.
If you do what you love, you'll learn to hate it. Welcome to misery.
Upward mobility doesn't happen unless you leave. If you're a good little productive worker drone, management has no incentive
to give you more than 1-3% raises every year to keep you 'loyal.' Once you've wasted 20 or so years being a robot, welcome to
misery.
Nobody gets promoted unless you're a useless ***-kisser who fails to be productive and hasn't done anything egregious enough
to get canned. Once you've been passed by for that promotion you want enough times, welcome to misery.
The people making the decisions at the top are the useless ***-kissers that can't do what you do but they talk a good game.
Most of them are case studies in the Peter Principle. Once you realize that the 'top' consists of nothing but fuckwads, welcome
to misery.
The only way to get ahead and get what you want out of a career is to develop the skills you need and market yourself top someone
who'll pay you what you're worth.
Develop strong negotiation skills early, know your market value, and don't be afraid of change.
Employer loyalty is a farce; if you think your employer is loyal to you, I've got some oceanfront property in New Mexico to
sell you.
A sinister plan is underway, its objective: to destroy Bolivarian Venezuela.
The details
of this project appear meticulously specified in a secret document dated February 23, 2018,
that bears the signature of Admiral Kurt Walter Tidd, current commander-in-chief of the U.S.
Southern Command.
One does wonder at the esteemed Admiral K W Tidd .
Of
course Nuremberg itself was long ago trashed by the esteemed and courageous Bushie, but the
US Constitution and the Senate's ratification of the UN Charter make the planning a crime
under US law, today, right now...
I am not complaining, simply astonished at the crime.
Evangalicals make up a 25% voting block in the US. Both Venezuela and Iran are anti
Israel. They would most likely back Trump in war against either country. US voter turnout is
around 60% which means Trump needs no more than 30% to win. I doubt re-election would be an
issue if Trump launched a hot war against Venezuela. It would only be an issue if there were
large numbers of US boots in body bags.
"It is a particularly loyal base which wholly concurs with the Israeli Right that
Revolutionary Iran stands as an impediment to the coming into being of the prophesied
'Greater Israel' – and concomitantly, with the return of the Messiah. This 'base'
(25% of Americans profess Evangelism), has turned a collective blind eye to all Trump's
moral failings, and totally disdained the Russiagate allegations. Unmoved by either, they
just have come to believe that Trump is the amoral, secular, flawed – yet somehow
'chosen' – instrument who can lead Christians in the Cosmic war of good versus evil
– with Iran cast as the cosmic evil. And, behind in the shadows, lies ring-master,
Sheldon Adelson and his billions, fusing together the (non-Evangelical) Bolton to
Netanyahu's Greater Israel project with the whole sitting atop Trump's extraordinary loyal
Evangelical base on which his continuance in office beyond 2020 may one day hang."
Trump won't be gaining any "wave" from attacking Venezuela. In fact, it stands to alienate
a large part of his base and energize the meekly antiwar Democrats.
It might be moot since it looks like this putsch has failed to get more support, and if so
Guadó will spend the next months in a cage.
To repeat the mantra of US as the world's leading harbinger of regime change, mass murder
and war crimes would be to belabor the point.
The question that goes begging is where are the people, of whom, for whom and by whom the
government is supposed to be? Where are the voices of reason and sanity? When will the
enforced silence in the face of the frank colonization and stranglehold of our country by the
Anglozionists be broken once and for all, the feeble but courageous proclamations of Ilhan
Omar notwithstanding?
Also let us ask ourselves this: if African Americans (12% of the US population) or Latin
Americans (18% of the population, 30% combined total) were to have a similar stranglehold on
our foreign policy, would we simply fold our hands and say or do nothing as we are doing with
the AngloZionist takeover of our country?
Is there any other group of people anywhere else that has been rendered as impotent --
stripped of their balls, moral eunuchs really -- accepting widespread abuses of their rights,
their humanity and self-determination by Israel Firsters in such bizarre and total silence?
Wake up America!
Even the Daily Mail's readership is starting to have doubts about the press feed "Maduro's
plane waiting on the tarmac -- talked out of it by Putin story" repeated word for word.
If half the Daily Mail's readers see this as BS -- and see Guaido as a US Regime Change
guy, then the Empire really is in trouble.
And as for a US invasion of Venezuela, it's not going to happen since it would mess up the
all important planned attack on Iran.
What’s so hard to understand? Mike Pompeo……is former head of the CIA.
This is another fucked up CIA op. There are two Israeli factions in the CIA according to
former people that I know who use to work at the CIA in some capacity.
Just add the lying Ziomedia and they will continue this nonsense to a dimwitted American
public who are too busy playing with their phones. The American Empire has been done for a
long time. They have been raped monetarily, socially, and politically by their wonderful ally
Israel.
Trump is nothing but puppet for Israel and basically Jared the Magic Jew is calling the
shots.
I believe that if the USA , a country with many talents , offered a real economic
collaboration , and some respect , to Venezuela , Cuba , and Latinamerica in general , real
alliances could prosper for the common good . But the USA is mistreating latinamerican
friends like Argentina ‘s Macri , the IMF is bleeding again Argentina with usury so
that in the next elections this year the peronists may win and befriend China instead of the
USA . The USA is constantly threatening militarily , economically , insulting , whatever
country that dares not to obbey the USA 100% , what provokes resentment .
It is very worrying the lack of shape , of class , of manners , of the US nomenklatura ,
too old , fats , weirdos , simpletons , low political abilities . Querulant elderly picking
up too many useless fights around the world what is not good for the USA . A pity .
Those who consider Trump to be the puppet of the deep state should explain to himself why are
the mainstream media so 24/7 mad adTrump. Why is the whole establishment in America and in
the whole West so anti-Trump. He has broken all their plans for world domination and creation
of the one world government. He broke TAP and TPP, he has not signed the Paris climate
accord, he is against free trade and the WTO, he is against all UN institutions, he is the
first american president ever who rebeled against the Federal Reserve, he ist the frst who is
really fighting the mas immigration, he is deregulating the american job market, he is
resisting a coup of the deep state, he is apointing the new judges who ar pro constitution,
he is actually desolving the Obamacare and so much more. But he is not the king he has not
the loyal Republican party yet which he is not chosen and he must make the deals to go any
further and in that sense he still needs the help of Neocons in some degree. It would be much
easier when american pople would be a lot more politicaly active and halped him in the way
por example to put the presure on the Rpublican party operatives on the local and national
level, or to be much more active in expousing the woter fraud and so on. American simply
expect that the vote alone can do the job. But the system is so broken that the real
revolution is needed. Otherwise the country would go broke and be dessolved. American must
also put the pressure on the secret owners of everything of importance especially banks and
media whose ownership is seecret, and this secrecy must be remuved because on the ownership
level the most crime occur.
Trump wants Colombia and Brasil to attack Venezuela . Has he thougt that if there is a big
war in South America she will end up like the middle East ,and there will be millions and
millions of refugees emigrating to the USA ?
“Cadres determined everything”. They determined everything for later USSR and
later USA. This constant concentration of imbeciles, liars, traitors and scumbags at the very
top is disturbing sign for humanity. With people of such caliber consistently moving to the
top positions over time leaves little optimism for humanity fate.
“Does that dialog look credible to you? I sure hope not!” Put it in the New York
Times, on CNN or some other mainstream outlet and apparently 90% of our low IQ population
will believe it. Many believe the Russia Stole the US Election Conspiracy Theory, Trump and
Putin are golf buddies, and Trump was awarded with beautiful Russian prostitutes. I think it
was Hitler who, commenting on Germany’s enemies said, “the bigger the lie, the
more believable it is to common people because they themselves would never think of telling
such an outrageous lie”. That’s a paraphrase, not word for word. With liars like
Adam Schiff, Bolton and Pompeo, much of the US population believes much of what these
criminals say.
The oil fields around Deir Ezzor are occupied by Kurdish terrorists working for Israel.
They are surrounded by Iraq and Syria, with Russia and Hezbollah providing reserves and air
support. Syria is afraid to take it back even though their people wait days in line for
gasoline, all while the Kurds and the US steal the oil and booby trap the oil
infrastructure.
@Milisic
Radomir Being anti Trump is just theatre, not because of his actions but because what he
represents ie nationalism.
I don’t believe Trump was always part the deep state. I believe they coerced him
into doing the neocons bidding by using the Mueller report. Though, he was always in Isreals
camp from the beginning.
“Check out this interesting news snippet: Eric Prince wants Blackwater to send 5,000
mercenaries to Venezuela (does anybody know why and how these clowns came up with the 5,000
figure)…”
That’s simple for anyone with an inkling of how Washington works. The first axiom is
that it is just a huge market – everything is for sale, usually to the highest
bidder.
So my guess is that Prince estimated that the budget he could get would be just about
enough to fund 5,000 mercenaries. Of course he wouldn’t be going himself, as they might
all be killed by the angry Venezuelans. But he would still have the money in his bank.
Indeed, he might make out “like a bandit” if all the mercenaries got killed, so
he wouldn’t have to pay them.
“Venezuela is one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and has the
world’s largest proven oil reserves at an estimated 296.5 billion barrels (20% of
global reserves) as of 2012.” Wikipedia
@Anon
It’s simple enough to understand. In his book “How the World Works”, Noam
Chomsky explained.
“One document to look at if you want to understand your country is Policy Planning
Study 23, written by Kennan for the State Department planning staff in 1948. Here’s
some of what it says.
“‘We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its
population… In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment.
Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit
us to maintain this position of disparity… To do so, we will have to dispense with all
sentimentality and daydreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on
our immediate national objectives… We should cease to talk about vague and…
unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and
democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power
concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better’”.
In the same book, Chomsky writes,
‘Along the same lines, in a briefing for US ambassadors to Latin American countries
in 1950, Kennan observed that a major concern of US foreign policy must be “the
protection of our [i.e. Latin America’s] raw materials”. We must therefore combat
a dangerous heresy which, US intelligence reported, was spreading through Latin America:
“the idea that the government has direct responsibility for the welfare of the
people”.
‘US planners call that idea Communism, whatever the actual political views of the
people advocating it. They can be church-based self-help groups or whatever, but if they
support this heresy, they’re Communists’.
This also completely explains why there is so little resistance among US citizens to their
government’s systematic, deliberate, massive, unforgivable crimes against humanity.
Namely they (US citizens) believe that they gain materially by those crimes. (Most of them
may be wrong about that, but that’s not important right now).
Consider Kennan’s first sentence:
“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its
population…”
Today the US population, while rapidly increasing, is less than 4% of world population.
Yet resource consumption is still far, far greater than for any other country.
To learn more try searching online for (e.g.) “us population resource consumption
percent global”. Here are two of the first hits that query will bring up:
Venezuela is a sea of tricky cross currents though which the Saker has not done a good job
navigating. He imposes a narrative on events that is too simple.
Start with a difficult topic: the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro. A timeline is helpful:
2012: Hugo Chavez dies.
2013: Elections are held for the office of President. Maduro wins with 50.61% of the vote,
beating Enrique Capriles who comes in at 49.1%.
April 2015: Elections are held to select deputies to Venezuela’s legislative body, the
National Assembly. In these elections a coalition of opposition parties, the MUD (Mesa de
Unidad Democrcatica), wins 56.3 % of the vote and 112 of 167 seats, the first electoral
defeat of the Chavistas (the “Bolivarian Revolution”) in 16 years.
May 2015: In a lame duck session of the National Assembly, the Chavistas – at that
moment still in the majority –- pass a law that removes all sitting members of
Venezuela’s supreme court (called the TSJ, Tribunal Supremo de Justicia), and puts in
place a new set of judges, every one of whom is a Maduro partisan. The TSJ soon becomes a
polit-bureau ratifying Maduro’s decrees and nullifying every measure of the National
Assembly.
May 2018: A presidential election is established by decree, without the authority of the
National Assembly as stipulated in the Constitution of 1999. Every aspect of this election is
irregular, false, manipulated or controlled, including a significant detail: no opposition
candidates are allowed to run, including Leopoldo Lopez (in jail or under house arrest) and
Enrique Capriles (banned from participation in politics).
The Saker says: “…yes, both Chavez and Maduro have made mistakes. But this is
not about Chavez or Maduro, this is about the rule of law inside and outside
Venezuela.”
The Saker is just saying words here. The absence of the rule of law is precisely the
problem.
The Saker dismisses Maduro’s opponents as “puppets” of the Empire.
Leopoldo Lopez is a puppet? He chose to remain in Venezuela and share the difficulties of
life there, a decision not coming cheap. Until yesterday he was in jail or under house
arrest. Before being sent to jail, a car he was riding in was riddled with bullets. In March
of 2006, a bodyguard of his was shot and killed. One might not agree with Lopez, but he is a
man of conviction and courage.
Or consider Juan Guaido: he did NOT select himself. He was chosen by the National Assembly
(based on authority granted to it by the Constitution of 1999). In the fractured political
landscape of Venezuela the National Assembly is now the only body to have received its
mandate via an election in which real alternatives existed and honest vote counting occurred.
The selection of Guaido represents an attempt to start from a point as legally valid as
possible, and from there by peaceful means guide Venezuelan political life back to legality.
What is at issue is the rule of law.
The Saker lets abhorrence of the Neocon regime in Washington distort his judgment. Yes,
the Neocons are brutal, stupid and dangerous, but their assessment of the Maduro regime in
Caracas is accurate. Sorry if this assertion is found to be offensive. Chavez, Maduro,
Cabello and their gang narco-traficantes have not “made mistakes,” they have
destroyed a country.
(Is it necessary to argue this point? Hundreds of thousands of people do not walk –
WALK – out of a country unless desperate. The currency is deep into hyper-inflation,
meaning, there is no currency. PDVSA — before the Bolivarian Revolution a well-run
state-owned operation producing 3 to 3.5 million barrels of oil per day — now produces
under one million barrels a day. The grid is in a state of collapse. These and many more
disasters were NOT visited upon the Venezuelan people by the gringos or by anybody else: they
were visited upon the Venezuelan people by a corrupt, incompetent government operating behind
the facade of a phony revolution.)
The Maduro regime in Caracas and the Neocon regime in Washington are equally repellent,
and in fact similar. Both are mafia type organizations. Why grant legitimacy to the little
mafia in Caracas. All this does is allow the big mafia in Washington to parade around as
champions of “rights,” “democracy” and “freedom,” which
words, when said by the Neocons, induce nausea.
Among the people in the Venezuelan drama the most attractive are the opposition leaders on
the ground: Leopoldo Lopez, Enrique Capriles, Maria Corina Machado, and many others,
including Juan Guaido. They have been jailed, banned, threatened, shot at, roughed up and
harassed, yet they stay at home and in the game. Their flaws are balanced by a great virtue:
courage. I don’t think that any of them would make a good puppet.
One last point: pay attention to Ivan Duque, the current president of Colombia. He is an
intelligent, thoughtful, close to the situation and has a big stake in what happens. (A
million refugees from Venezuela are in his country.) If there is a good outcome to this
drama, he will probably be part of it.
Pompeo is filthy fucking cockroach…….Just like the filthy cockroach JFK who
gave Latin America Death Squads and the Alliance for Progress….and the Cuban Missile
Crisis…
@joeshittheragman
That’s mostly because 1899 was about the time when the USA had overrun the whole of
North America (apart from the frozen north and the poverty-stricken south, which it
considered stealing but decided to leave).
Having grabbed all the resources (natural, human, etc.) available in their own continent,
they started looking avidly abroad for more plunder. China, for instance. South America.
Japan… the Middle East…
{The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless and, most
importantly, run by a sad gang of incompetent thugs who think that they can scare everybody
into submission in spite of not having won a single significant war since 1945. The inability
to break the will of the people of Venezuela is only the latest symptom of this mind-boggling
weakness.}
A fairly accurate assessment.
However, The Empire still has immense capacity to cause death and destruction all over the
world. It may not have enough warrior-troops to send boots to Venezuela (thank God), but it
has a LOT of hardware to cause mass deaths remotely and from above without setting foot on
somebody’s land.
And the weaker and more impotent The Empire becomes as time goes by, the more irrational
and dangerous it will become, consumed with rage at the realization of its inability to
longer being able to run/control the globe.
Hopefully there will be some cooler heads where it counts in US civilian&military
leadership, before the irrational rage spills over and we all get nuked – by accident
or by design.
@Realist
A lot of intelligent, educated British people tend to read the Daily Mail, because –
incredible to relate – it is perhaps the closest organ remaining to an old-fashioned
newspaper with actual news.
I know, I know, it’s horribly bad. But all the others are worse. Even “Private
Eye” now regurgitates government propaganda.
@Anonymous
“The US cut the supply of debt to Venezuela…”
Does anything about that statement strike you as really, really weird? Why would anyone
running an independent nation with plenty of natural resources and intelligent, hardworking
people want any foreign debt?
(Except for the tiny handful of bought-and-paid-for traitors who negotiate those deals and
then retire and go and live in Florida).
@A123
1. Even if Maduro were “massacring his own people” that would be absolutely no
concern of the USA.
2. Even if it did concern the USA, the UN Charter absolutely forbids the USA to interfere
in the internal or external affairs of Venezuela. Under any circumstances whatsoever –
unless ordered to do so by the UN Security Council (won’t happen) or if Venezuela wages
war against the USA (certainly won’t happen).
3. Maduro has not been “massacring his own people”.
Empire is an illusion, because it is built on the need for power, and power is ephemeral. It
has been present in every conflict of the past. It is the underlying motivation for war.
Other cultural factors might change, but not power. As a result every civilization/nation
eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. But emperors and their advisers
delude themselves, thinking they can avoid that fateful war, that it can be limited in scale
or even won. History always proves them wrong. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@Digital
Samizdat Tucker asked – apparently genuinely mystified – why the Democrats
are just as keen as the administration to attack Venezuela.
That too is very, very simple.
They don’t care about laws.
They don’t care about treaties.
They don’t care about the UN Charter.
They don’t care about the Nuremberg Principles.
They don’t care about the US Constitution.
They don’t care about the teachings of Jesus Christ.
They don’t care about the Ten Commandments.
They don’t care about democracy.
They don’t care about freedom.
They don’t care about the Venezuelan people. (Sorry, let me rephrase that. They
don’t give a flying fuck about the Venezuelan people).
They don’t care about ordinary human decency.
All they care about is their entitlement to go on plundering all the world’s
resources – which they consider to be their legitimate property – and to kill
anyone who gets in their way.
@Chris
Bridges Chris, there seems to be an important typo in your comment. I have fixed it for
you.
“There is not one particle of “patriotism”, dignity, or pride in any of
Guaido’s supporters. Miami is full of this human garbage. Having shit in their own nest
they flee with their stolen, narcotics-traficking millions to the hated imperialist
USA.”
April 13, 2019 US Military Attack on Venezuela Mulled by Top Trump Advisors and Latin
American Officials at Private DC Meeting
Away from the public eye, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think
tank hosted a top-level, off-the-record meeting to explore US military options against
Venezuela.
The US is in the end-stage Empire State…..and this is what make the US Empire so
dangerous at this point in time….The US Empire will start lashing out in its final
death throes……
If anyone is interested in the CIA regime changes , read the book The Secret Team, the cia
and its allies in control of the world, by the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, it can be had on
amazon, or possibly on line, and see his videos of youtube.
The CIA is satan incarnate and the chain dogs of the zionists who rule America!
I don’t think the Deep State can give up.
They give up, Venezuela starts selling whatever oil it can produce for anything but dollars
– euros, gold, maybe yuan or even roubles. And then who’s next?
Why, you think, all the pressure on Iran? Big oil producer, outside the petro-dollar
nexus.
That’s unpardonable to the Deep State. It can’t be allowed.
They’ll keep fighting and plotting until the threats to the petro-dollar are removed.
@Thulean
Friend Either the Deep State finally found footage of Rabbi Trump on epstein’s
rapegirl island, or the incident with the kushnercopter–w/ ivanka aboard–having
to immediately land upon takeoff due to a “malfunction” deballed him for good.
By God I wish I was paid by the Government. Anytime someone posts words with a whiff of
truth, they are framed as a secret agent. Do I get a decoder ring, too?
Trump is not a Machiavellian mastermind. Neither he nor Pompeo caused Madero to turn
Venezuela into his own ATM to the detriment of the masses. (The elite are AOK)
Furthermore, they MUST take a position. Sweat hog Maduro is crushing protestors with
tanks. If the US can somehow benefit from his repellent actions, we should.
Most of you revere Putin, notwithstanding your complete lack of understand that any
postings- like these!- would result in some dead eyed thugs banging on your door at 3AM. Do
you believe Putin wrings his hands over plucking meat from a dead carcass?
THAT’S history. THAT’S politics. A steely eyed focus on your own
country’s bottom line. I know its troubling to digest that the world is not FortNite.
Slink back to your safe space and make some play dough balls.
You mean the thousands frantically attempting to cross over into Columbia?
In unfree societies, people can’t leave, so your point undermines another one from
the Establishment narrative, namely that Venezuela is a society dominated by a dictator, and
yearning to be free.
"... In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020 ..."
"... If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become. ..."
"... Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command. ..."
"... Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. ..."
"The president has said he doesn't want to see this country wrapped up in endless wars and I agree with that," Bernie Sanders
said to the Fox News audience last week at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Then, looking directly at the camera, he added: "Mr. President,
tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia must not determine the military
or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a resolution on the War Powers Act that would put an end to U.S. involvement in the 5-year civil war
in Yemen. This war has created one of the biggest humanitarian crises in the world of our time, with thousands of children dead in
the middle of a cholera epidemic and famine.
Supported by a Democratic Party united in Congress, and an anti-interventionist faction of the Republican Party headed by Senators
Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged the President to sign it, Trump vetoed the resolution, describing it as a "dangerous attempt
to undermine my constitutional authority."
According to journalist Buchanan J. Buchanan, “with enough Republican votes in both chambers to resist Trump’s veto, this could
have been the end of the matter; but it wasn’t. In fact, Trump gave the Democrats his theme for peace by 2020.”
If Sanders emerged as the nominee, we would have an election with a Democrat running with the catchphrase “no more wars” that
Trump had promoted in 2016. Thus, Trump would be defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman of Saudi Arabia.
In 2008, John McCain, hawk leader in the Senate, was defeated by the progressive Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who had won his
nomination by defeating the bellicose Hillary Clinton who had voted for authorizing the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, who was much more aggressive than Obama in his approach to Russia lost.
However, in 2016, Trump presented himself as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war, an anti-interventionist,
and promising to get along with Russian Vladimir Putin and getting out of the Middle East wars.
None of the main candidates for the 2020 Democratic nomination — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg,
Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker– seems as aggressive as Trump has become.
Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear agreement with Iran, negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry, and re-imposed
severe sanctions against the Iranians. He declared the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran responded with the same action against the U.S. Central Command.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the consulate that was in charge
of Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to Palestinians, recognized the annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights snatched from Syria
in 1967 and kept silent about Netanyahu’s threat to annex the Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Trump has spoken of getting all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they are still there.
Although Sanders supports Israel, he says he is looking for a two-state solution, and criticizes Netanyahu’s regime.
Trump came to power promising to get along with Moscow, but he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced the US
withdrawal of the 1987 Treaty of Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) subscribed by Ronald Reagan, who banned all ground-based
nuclear intermediate range missiles.
When Putin sent a hundred Russian soldiers to Venezuela to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged
in the recent blackouts, Trump provocatively ordered the Russians to “get out” of the Bolivarian and Chavista country. According
to Buchanan, the gravity center of U.S. policy is shifting towards Trump’s position in 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of
the Republican Party is growing.
The anti-interventionist wing of the Republican Party together with the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party in Congress are
capable — as they were War Powers Act resolution on Yemen– to produce a new bipartisan majority.
Buchanan predicts that in the 2020 primaries, foreign policy will be in the center and the Democratic Party would have captured
the ground with the catchphrase “no more wars” that candidate Donald Trump exploited in 2016.
Bernie Sanders kicked off his campaign just about two months ago in Brooklyn, New York
opening with a speech saying, "we are going to defeat the most
dangerous president in modern history." He urged for "an economy which works for all, not
just the 1%." In the first sentences of his speech he remarked that "the underlying principles
of our government will not be greed, hatred and lies. It will not be racism, sexism,
xenophobia, homophobia and religious bigotry." The tone and approach of the speech sounded like
a new and improved Bernie Sanders ready to tackle "identity" issues and oppression head on.
This however did not stop the Democratic establishment from staying on their
anti-progressive message. Zerlina
Maxwell , a paid Clinton operative and "MSNBC analyst" lamented that "twenty-three minutes
in, Bernie finally mentioned race and gender." For Democrats that watch MSNBC and didn't hear
Sanders's Brooklyn speech, it reinforced what they already thought about him and 2016. The only
problem is that Maxwell's assertion was demonstrably false and the Sander's team should have
been quick to correct the misinformation. In any event, the well-disciplined
MSNBC panel sat silent after Zerlina Maxwell's untrue remarks just like the Sanders
team.
Since his opening speech, Sanders has been ineffective in answering certain questions or has
been beaten to the punch, on what too many white social democrats call, "identity politics."
Sanders was in fact, one of two white elected officials that supported one of the most
progressive political platforms in memory,
Jesse Jackson's 1984 bid. For his Brooklyn speech, he was introduced by three prominent
African-Americans, most notably, former Ohio state Senator
Nina Turner .
Sanders discussed the current state of inequality as it relates to both the carceral state
and xenophobic impulses. This was an enormous step for him and an incredibly important point of
distinction from his previous run, but for some reason these points were nonexistent at his
recent She the People Forum
appearance. Sanders should avoid reading his press and needs to stop giving canned answers on
race.
Why Sanders continues to stumble on the trail and has much more difficulty than he indicated
in his speech is confounding. Why DSA rushed an endorsement vote when some Afro-Socialists
Caucus members wanted to wait is also troubling. Few, if any, assume he himself lacks
sincerity or principle on these matters. In his opening speech, he pointed to the GOP that
actually 'weaponizes' "by color, origin, gender, religion, and sexual orientation." Also in his
kickoff speech
Sanders referenced his own family that "escaped widespread anti-Semitism."
He addressed these issues openly and repeatedly and incorporated them with a message about
progressive foreign policy, single payer healthcare, housing, rent control, labor, and a living
wage, to better "address the racial disparities of wealth and income," while reminding his
base, "we are going to root out institutional racism wherever it
exists." For many, all of these sentiments were indications that his 2020 run would be new and
improved.
Update 10: Though she isn't in the room today, Sen. Elizabeth Warren felt she needed to
communicate a very important message to Barr: That she would like him to resign.
AG Barr is a disgrace, and his alarming efforts to suppress the Mueller report show that
he's not a credible head of federal law enforcement. He should resign -- and based on the
actual facts in the Mueller report, Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against the
President.
This is
the second in two recent
Real News Network interviews with Bill Black, white collar criminologist and frequent Naked
Capitalism contributor. Bill is author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and teaches
economics and law at the University of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC).
Bill argues that the problem isn't deficient laws, which is Warren's focus. He says
instead:
It's far better to focus on using the existing criminal laws but changing the things in
the system that are so criminogenic and changing institutionally the regulators, the F.B.I.,
and the prosecutors, so that you go back to systems that we've always known how to make work.
The simple example is task forces. What produced the huge success in the savings and loan,
the Commercial Bank, and the Enron era fraud prosecutions? It was these task forces where we
brought everyone together to actually bring prosecutions. They killed those criminal task
forces, both under the Bush administration and under the Obama administration.
I think this is cause for optimism. For it means we don't have to go through the long and
torturous process of passing new laws to get somewhere with fixing a deeply broken system. The
Dodd-Frank Act wasn't passed until July 2010, despite the huge clamor to do something about the
banks that created the Great Financial Crisis. And then it took many years for all affected
agencies to finish rule-makings necessary to administer and enforce the law. Imagine if we had
to do that again to get somewhere with the necessary clean-up.
Instead, we merely have to elect politicians who will appoint necessary personnel to
confront the prevailing criminogenic environment. I know, I know – that's a big ask too.
But believe me, it would be even bigger if we must also take the preliminary step of passing
new legislation as well.
MARC STEINER Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Mark Steiner. Always good to have you
with us. Now if you were watching the previous segment and you saw what Bill Black and I were
talking about, you saw that we were kind of diving into the history of this. Why it's so
difficult to prosecute or maybe it's not, and we're finding out why. But what we didn't jump
into was about Elizabeth Warren's proposal. Do they make sense? If they passed, will they
actually make a difference. What is it that we do we need, more laws like that or do we need
more regulation? What would solve the crisis that we seem to constantly be falling into? And
we're still here with Bill Black as always, which is great. So Bill, let me just jump right
into this. Her proposals -- do they meet muster? Do they actually make a difference? Some
people say she's piddling around the edges. What do you think?
BILL BLACK So for example, the proposed bill on Too Big to Jail would largely recreate the
entities that we had during the great financial crisis, which led to virtually no prosecutions. So yes, we need more resources, but bringing back SIGTARP, the special inspector general for
the Treasury, would have next to no effects.
The criminal referrals have to come from the
banking regulatory agencies. They have essentially been terminated. You need new leadership at
those entities that were actually going to make criminal referrals. The second part -- would it
change things to be able to prosecute simply by showing negligence? Well yes, but it would
still be a massive battle to show negligence in those circumstances and at the end of the day,
the judge could just give probation. And judges are going to be very hostile to it,
particularly after Trump gets all these judicial appointees.
You would just see a wave, if you
used a simple negligence standard of conservative judges who didn't think it was fair to make
it that easy to prosecute folks. They would give people probation. Prosecutors wouldn't want to
go through a huge fight just to get probation and such. And so, it would be immensely
ineffective, and it would break.
There'd be maybe some progressive judges that would actually
give the maximum term, but that's only one year under her proposal. So you're not going to get
significant deterrence through those mechanisms. It's far better to focus on using the existing
criminal laws but changing the things in the system that are so criminogenic and changing
institutionally the regulators, the F.B.I., and the prosecutors, so that you go back to systems
that we've always known how to make work. The simple example is task forces.
What produced the
huge success in the savings and loan, the Commercial Bank, and the Enron era fraud
prosecutions? It was these task forces where we brought everyone together to actually bring
prosecutions. They killed those criminal task forces, both under the Bush administration and
under the Obama administration. So we don't have to reinvent the bike. We don't have to design
a new vehicle. We have a vehicle that works for successful prosecutions. We actually need to
use it and to do that, we need people in charge who have the will to prosecute elite
white-collar criminals.
MARC STEINER So you do agree with a critique of these bills, saying what we need is just to
have greater regulation and enforce regulations we have? We don't need new prosecutorial tools?
Is that what you're saying?
BILL BLACK No I completely reject that view in Slate that is by two folks who have really
extreme views. One thinks that we prosecute and sentence elite white-collar criminals way too
much and much too heavily. And the other, for example, has written an article saying, we
shouldn't make wage theft which is theft, a crime.
Even though it's Walmart's dominant strategy
and it makes it impossible for more honest merchants to compete against Walmart, that is an
insane view. And of course, it will never happen because you're going to put the same people in
charge who don't believe. If they don't believe in prosecuting, you think seriously they
believe in regulating the big banks?
MARC STEINER What I'm asking you though Bill, to critique that, what do you think? Are the
bills that Elizabeth Warren is suggesting unnecessary, other than maybe putting more money into
regulatory agencies to oversee all of this? Are you saying that we have enough prosecutorial
tools?
BILL BLACK They're unnecessary. The specifics in the bills are unnecessary. But that doesn't
mean that regulation is the answer to it, although it's part of the issue.
MARC STEINER I got you. Right.
BILL BLACK What you need is leaders who will use the tools we know work, to do the
prosecutions. And they made absolutely sure -- that's Lanny Breuer who you talked about in the
first episode of this thing, that actually said to a nationwide audience on video that he was
kept awake and fearing not what the bank criminals were doing but fearing that somebody might
lose their job in banks because of it.
You know he doesn't represent the American people at
that point. If you put Lanny Breuer in, you could put 10,000 F.B.I. agents and you would still
get no prosecutions, because Lanny Breuer simply isn't going to prosecute just like Eric Holder
simply wasn't going to prosecute.
It's not just the US, but the UK, too. Readers may be aware that the British government is seeking a successor to Mark Carney at
the Bank of England, which has resumed most, but not all, of its former supervisory
responsibilities this decade.
One of the candidates, Andrew Bailey, a former Bank official and currently head of the
conduct risk regulator, is desperate for the Bank job and publicly and privately speaking
about lightening the regulatory load. Not only that, Bailey is also reluctant to take action
against the well connected and have anything going on that will have an impact on his
application, vide the current London Capital Finance scandal.
At a recent address to asset managers, Bailey said that not on Brexit + day 1, but soon
after the red pen would be applied to the UK rule book. He implied that prosecutions would be
a rarity. It was very much a plea to firms to stay after Brexit and to lobby for his
candidacy.
I am old enough remember clearly the Blue Arrow case in the 1980's ( easily looked up )
but essentially a share rigging operation. The smokescreen advanced by the establishment in
these cases had always been the same; that company fraud is far to complicated for ordinary
mortals to understand . But in the Blue Arrow case they ( the jury ) did understand it, which
terrified the establishment, and word came down from on high that no such prosecutions should
ever happen again . And then we had ' light touch regulation '. And then we had the Great
Financial Crash.
I do indeed Colonel. Both scandals seem almost quaint in the light of the scale of the
manipulation and fraud in the years leading up to the GFC and subsequently; and the
unwillingness of both the UK and US government to even attempt to bring about prosecutions.
The intertwining of politics and big business ( ' the revolving door ' ) has played a large
part in this and IMHO distressed the wider public to such an extent that when they had the
opportunity to show their displeasure they did so and voted for Brexit and Trump.
Those regulators and their ilk need trips to the Old Bailey, although that is not likely
to happen in the foreseeable future. Too much is riding on the Brexit preparations, until the
next panic, and then the following panic. All of those militate against any action that would
harm the fabric of, ahem, pay packets.
If you put Lanny Breuer in, you could put 10,000 F.B.I. agents and you would still get
no prosecutions, because Lanny Breuer simply isn't going to prosecute just like Eric Holder
simply wasn't going to prosecute.
IMHO, you could put Bill Black in, many, if not most of those 10,000 F.B.I. agents would
passively resist, and you would still get no prosecutions.
We're seeing, with Trump, what passive resistance looks like, the same will be done to
Bernie if elected.
The massive momentum of neo-liberal rule is baked in, and has been quite successful at
making sure Trump doesn't screw any of their plans up, in fact Trump derangement syndrome
seems to be working better than they could ever have dreamed to cover the really nasty stuff
that's going on while the people are treated to Russia, Russia, Russia! 24/7.
Bernie would face the same, but probably worse, more intense resistance from what would be
a unified, bi-partisan resistance, the 10%, with forty years worth of Washington Consensus
training under their belts, all either chanting in unison against the evils of socialism, or
sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting Na, Na, Na, Na!
After 9/11, the FBI pulled thousands of agents off white collar crime and switched them to
fighting terrorism, in hindsight, this seems closer to evidence of a plan than an accident of
history.
By now, most, if not all those agents have decided that for the sake of their careers,
they had better forget about what they used to think was important.
It would probably take all of Bernie's first term to bring the public up to speed, and in
alignment with the effort to prosecute the banksters, and that's being optimistic.
Right now, half the electorate believes that dead-beat borrowers crashed the economy in
2008.
You don't need the FBI to prosecute bank crimes. In his book version of Inside Job,
Charles Ferguson laid out the evidence for WaMu (and IIRC another bank) that was sufficient
to be able to indict executives. There was plenty of evidence in the public domain.
Yes, and what is it we are discussing, the reasons why no indictments were made, and what
is to be done about it?
My point is that changes in leadership, IMO are insufficient to prompt those indictments
into being in the near term because in the period since 2008, everything possible has been
done to load the federal bureaucracy with politically reliable persons dedicated to helping
defend the status quo.
I might add that ' The Resistance' has, IMO, been focused almost exclusively on
making sure Trump is not reelected, thereby protecting democratic rice bowls, and sadly, not
so much on preventing his destroying regulatory systems, the courts, and every remnant of the
New Deal.
The situation we're facing is the Augean Stables, except that it's been 40 years, not 30,
that the filth has been building up without a proper cleaning.
So, being wildly optimistic, we elect Bernie Sanders, and if we're lucky, start a
generation long process against a strong head wind.
That said, I remain wildly optimistic that that is what will happen, I just can't help
myself.
I'm not a legal expert but what about going after banks, most of which do business in NY
state, by using the existing Martin Act like Eliot Spitzer. According to
this older article :
"Spitzer's big gun was New York's Martin Act. The law allowed him to subpoena virtually
any document from anyone doing business in the state. Because the law permits prosecutors to
pursue either civil or criminal penalties, Spitzer could refuse to tell suspects which one he
was seeking. Spitzer's willingness to wield the considerable powers permitted by the Martin
Act turned the New York AG's office from a backwater into a rainmaker and made the SEC, which
could impose only puny civil penalties, look like a peashooter.
Spitzer used the Martin Act
to drag angry and unwilling corporate executives into his office for questioning. Then he'd
subpoena huge company files.
Dedicated staff combed through them and, almost inevitably,
found a smoking gun: secretive after-hours trading between mutual funds and hedge funds;
alleged bid rigging at Marsh; and emails from Wall Street analyst Jack Grubman bragging to
his mistress about how he'd recommended a shoddy company in a three-way deal to help his
boss, Citigroup chairman Sandy Weill, humiliate a corporate foe.
Spitzer would then wave "the
bloody shirt," as journalist Roger Donway puts it, in front of the cameras, show off the
worst offenses he had uncovered and use them to tar and feather an entire industry."
"... it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies? ..."
"... It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave markets? ..."
"... Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason? ..."
Please refrain in using the term "democracy" so easily. US is a republic with the surface of
elected representative system, and we know exactly how that works. See the election of Truman
as VP instead of Wallace in 1944 or so or very recently the election of Hillary Clinton as
democratic representative.
A true democracy is done via a sortition system that selects randomly from the roster of
eligible citizens to represent the will of the people.
Imagine that in the Second Amendment instead of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed" we would have: "A well educated Citizenry, being necessary to the security and
well-being of a free, moral, and ethically sound State, the right of the people to get a
sound Education in Philosophy, Ethics, Civics, Logic, Finance, and Health, shall not be
infringed".
it was Russia that attacked Iraq on the basis of lies?
It is China that is gleefully assisting the Saudi tyrants to commit genocide?
It must have been Russia that turned Libya into a failed state, complete with slave
markets?
Is China now that is frantically threatening war on Iran?
Russia must have been responsible for supporting jihadists to turn Syria into another failed
state, right?
For that matter, is it Russia and China that are threatening war on the elected and UN
recognized government of Venezuela?
Seriously, after America's long and bloody track record of failed and bloody
interventions, it baffles me that anyone could say something so ridiculous.
" fearmongering about the "Yankee" empire to the north."
What, this isn't justified?
Instead of spinning fantasies about Maduro going into exile or being overthrown by some
kind of joint (and illegal) Latin American task force, how's about we consider the very
reasonable idea of Guaidó being arrested and tried for treason?
Villains of the day: Random Guy, Pompeo, and nefarious band of willie, barovsky etc.
Pompeo is perhaps green with envy, why Boris Johnson should keep the mantle of the most
clownish top diplomat of a major state? He can do better! But once the tall tale was said, it
was duly echoed in supine media. NYT made a paragraph, and actually noted how Pompeo
explained his alleged knowledge of Maduro preparing for departure: >>Pressed about the
source of this information, Mr. Pompeo said it was drawn from "open-source material," and
conversations with "scores and scores of people on the ground," including members of the
military and opposition leaders. "He was headed for Havana," he said of Mr. Maduro.<<
The Guardian made a separate article on the topic, with no notes of caution, damn the
torpedoes, copy with full speed!
So "people on the ground" could have reliable, ha ha, info on the conversations between
Maduro and "Russians". "Scores of people" were interviewed, hm., seems that the wily Maduro
eschew a usual step of information blockade, letting the little golpistas -- and him -- look
silly. I actually do not believe in those "scores of interviews", Most generously, there were
that many conversations from which his people could "draw" a rumor prepared ahead of time,
probably by his own Department.
Finally, the nefarious long linkers. Is it really THAT hard to learn how to make neat
links this
one ? Join lines and remove all spaces from the text below
@Thulean
Friend The NYT cartoon showing a blind, yarmulked Trump being led by Nuttinyahoo should
have put Kushner's face on the seeing-eye dog instead.
span y OPOL on Sat, 04/27/2019 - 2:52pm While it may be foolish to look to our
political system for solutions to our problems, it is arguable that who is president at any
given time matters. I used to be less certain about this. I had come to the view that any
president was basically a spokes-model for the 1%, and hence the military industrial complex,
Wall Street, the establishment, the oligarchy, etc. I had become inured to the notion that even
'good' presidents could do very little to change the god-awful trajectory of a nation driven
mad by greed. Now, having seen the wreckage a horrible president can wreak on a helpless
nation, I'm starting to re-question why none of the 'good' presidents ever had much impact.
They had the same power to do good as he has to do evil. I'm starting to think they didn't want
to change anything. Or were paid not to. (Shocking, I know.)
Yeah, I'm starting to think they all bamboozled us, promising change and justice, but with
forked tongues as they blithely went about the business of the 1% and the great American war
machine. Our government has been for many years a playground for lobbyists and profiteers, who
often write their own laws. The government may seem dysfunctional, but it's just serving a
purpose other than the well-being of the American people - and certainly not the well-being of
the rest of the world.
I'm beginning to think it does matter who's president – you know, assuming we could
ever have one who wasn't a turn-key functionary of the 1%. Even if they could get no
support or cooperation from congress, four years of a true anti-Trump in the bully pulpit
couldn't hurt. We need much more of course, but that alone would be manna from heaven at this
point.
So assuming the presidency matters, I am endlessly perplexed by the criteria by which people
decide which candidates to support. I am especially agog at how many people are single issue
voters – people who vote for someone because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion,
geographic origin, appearance or a better-than-average ability to speak the language. If you
vote for a presidential candidate for dumb reasons, you may well end up with a dumb president.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Presumably, everyone wants a composed, well spoken president, one that can conduct him or
herself with a trace of grace, some modicum of decorum, one who won't embarrass us every time
they speak or try to close an umbrella. Being nice looking also matters since we have to look
at this person a great deal more than we really want. A good smile, nice teeth, real hair; all
of that matters – to some extent. Just not all that much. An attractive appearance and a
suave command of the language actually guarantees very little. If anything such characteristics
have the potential to conceal deep flaws and questionable actions and policies. Glib
good-looking people get away with a lot of crap.
I'm often struck by how little people question these things. Or just how incurious they can
be. Many people seem to be on some kind of weird cultural auto-pilot, cruising through daily
life, checking all the boxes, meeting expectations, not questioning anything too rigorously,
settling for simplistic propaganda because the truth these days seems so hard. I mean who has
the time to go rooting about?
I sympathize really. It can be the devil to find untainted news. And the world is awash in
corporate bullshit.
One of the few things the American people agree on is that the mainstream media is
woefully inadequate. According to a 2016 Gallup poll, only about 20 percent of Americans have
confidence in the television news and in newspapers. Donald Trump effectively harnessed this
distrust during his campaign, and still attacks the media before his fans when he wants to
prompt applause.
Americans recognize that the media does not represent their views, and media consolidation
is largely to blame. It depends how you count, but, today, about six corporations control
around 90 percent of our broadcast and print news -- down from 50 corporations in the early
1980s
Six giant, billionaire-owned corporations control 90 percent of the information that gets
disseminated. They decide what merits attention and what doesn't, and they decide how it is
framed and spun. That amounts to a massive domination of the public conversation and a
dastardly manipulation of the public mind.
So little is actually what it seems, especially in the present environment, that
intellectual caution and a certain minimum rigor would seem well advised. It's important to be
skeptical. It can be astonishing how quick people are to jump to conclusions. It's baffling how
dead certain so many people are – even on the most complex and nuanced subjects. As a
society, we perhaps failed to teach people how to think things through, how to be rigorously
critical, how to respect logic and reason, how to appreciate nuance and complexity.
The dumbing down of society has had some alarming consequences. The buy-in of the public to
the national mythology is a fait accompli and it's hard to get anyone to question it. It's as
if they sense that picking at the threads could unravel the whole thing, then where would we
be?
Decades of Madison Avenue social programming have led to a culture where it is commonly
believed (generalizing of course) that: as much as possible, everything should be easy,
convenient and affordable (preferably on sale); for every problem there is a solution available
at Amazon; for every ill a pill; for every need an instant fix.
It's as if we are meant to snuggle up to our TV-land dream world, consume mindlessly and be
milked dry by capitalist predators at every step of the way through both life and death –
as opposed to thinking hard about what we're doing: to the planet; to each other; to the future
of humanity. All in the interest of those few who profit as long as nothing changes.
People don't want to admit how horrible the status quo is. It's too horrific to face. So we
buy into the bullshit. We're heroes fighting for democracy and so on. In truth we are
aggressors occupying and exploiting foreign lands. We fight not for democracy or liberty but
for Halliburton, Teledyne and Exxon-Mobil. If we are ever going to change, this is a truth we
have to face. This is what we will have to undo.
We will have to reimagine a world at peace going forward. We have to fundamentally change
who we are and how we relate to the rest of the world. We need to go from swords to plowshares.
This whole living off of death thing is a nightmare from which we need to awaken. Making war in
the nuclear and biological age is irresponsible, morally reprehensible and eminently
unsustainable, as are so many of our other practices (e.g. rainforest depletion, fossil fuel
extraction, ocean pollution, etc). Humanity deserves better.
If you objectively and consistently observe the mainstream media and its interpretation of
global events, its omissive and deceptive character soon becomes abundantly clear. This could
hardly be called incompetence. The coverage, which is popularly called "news," is in fact
nothing but a propaganda mechanism, designed to persistently shape public opinion in favor of
war.
For the presidency, we need the person most likely to create substantial change -- in all
the right directions, which is an important caveat. We need the person whose policies make the
most sense at the present moment, someone with policies that acknowledge and confront climate
change and sustainable living. And preferably someone with capability and integrity to burn.
Even if we can find all of this, will it be enough? We can't know, we have to try.
We need someone who will rock the boat but be smart about it. We need a change agent devoted
to changing what any honest broker must brand a dishonest and hostile society into something
better for us all. It is a matter of existential survival for us to remake ourselves into the
wise, supporting and nurturing society we all deserve – and often claim to be.
If humans are to last, we must make these deep changes to align our best ideas and values
with our actual day-to-day realities. It's time to be the peace-loving nation we claim to be
and to prove it by leading the rest of the world to peace. We could do this if we chose to. We
could be pushing peace instead of war. All those bomb makers could be doing something else for
a living. We need a president who will get us there and help us undertake the great changes
that we must.
Whoever that might be.
Don't vote for hair, teeth, gender, race or pretty words. This is much more serious than
that.
Why boil something as complex and weighty as a choice of national/international leadership
at this critical juncture of history down to something so simplistic as to be absurd? She's
nice, he's good looking, she's well spoken, he's part Irish. Well, who would want to miss the
chance to vote for someone who's part Irish?
If there is one thing this country needs, it's a deep and profound systemic change in the
way we conduct ourselves in the world and here at home. We need to become the humanitarians we
claim to be. We need to live up to our lofty ideals – that all people are created equal
and are equally deserving of decent treatment. We need a society based on peace, love and
compassion; not war, hate and fear.
We need to uncouple from our single-minded focus on war and profiteering, and focus on
planetary survival and the well-being of the human family. Because if we don't, simply put, we
are done.
We've got to stop doing what we've always done. Not an easy thing. Maybe not even a possible
thing. But we have got to try. We've got to learn to live in a world without violence and
aggression, fossil fuels, reckless pollution and the thoughtless exploitation of resources and
people. We need to become cooperative when it comes to the overall well-being of the planet and
all of its inhabitants. It's going to take all of humanity working together to manage the
future that's coming at us.
If we cannot overcome our violent and brutish ways, if we can't become smart about our
collective behavior, if we can't all pull together, it doesn't bode well for posterity.
We can keep the peace if we are determined to do so. We do it in our everyday lives
(mostly). If we can do it in our neighborhoods, why can't we do it in the world?
The answer is we can. World peace is possible and with real leadership, America could usher
it into being.
With world peace, humanity will be so much better off. We'll invest our treasure in our
people and make this world a better place in a million ways.
A passionate pursuit of world peace is the only rational, caring, decent thing to do...and
probably the only way to ensure a reasonable future for our species. I mean we all want to do
that, right?
"... Biden intends to revive the Democrat/Labor coalition that has become increasingly tenuous since Bill Clinton - a badly frayed relationship that Trump took full advantage of in 2016 ..."
"... Gabbard is hugely critical of US military interference and general warmongering around the world. As we see in Venezuela today. So the conservative and liberal mainstream media will be shunning her. ..."
"... Biden is not there to win. He's there to help dilute Bernie's win in the Dem primary race. If Bernie wins with less than 50% of the votes then the party can choose to nominate somebody else (Kamala Harris?). ..."
"... The Democrat elites' purpose in life is to intercept and neutralize demands for change from below and to the left. They will get more exercised against Sanders and Warren then they ever would against Trump or the Republicans ..."
"... Biden like Clinton is a moderate conservative, the ideal stooge for the banks and the military industrial complex that runs the USA. ..."
"... "No Joe!" by Andrew Cockburn in last month's 'Harpers' clearly delineates how completely anti-working class the corporate stooge Joe Biden is. ..."
"... Political or legal outcomes that can be substantially bought with money are corrupt. Period. ..."
"... The GOP has sold out entirely to the patronage of extreme financial power. The DNC is more shy about it and promotes noblesse oblige, but the Clinton school https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/hillary-clinton-kissinger-vacation-dominican-republic-de-la-renta / of Democrat is not going to rock the world of mega-donors. ..."
"... The "love" of money is said to be "the root of all evil". I take "love" in this case to mean a willingness to sell out anything and anyone get it. Left? Right? Corruption is an equally opportunity despoiler, and the point is it dangerous and it is wrong. ..."
"... There is no far-left in the USA today. The farthest-left "progressive" Democrats are the only non-Republicans on the charts anymore. ..."
Clinton-era politics refuses to die. Joe Biden is its zombie that staggers on
Hamilton Nolan Biden thinks he's well positioned
because after the shock of the Trump years, people want to go back to where we were. Wrong
Joe Biden is well on his way to uniting everyone who likes to watch the world burn. Photograph: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images Y ou
cannot understand politics in America until you understand that in the Democratic party, which ostensibly represents the left side
of our nation's political spectrum, there are a significant number of people who genuinely believe that ->
Joe Biden is the best possible presidential nominee. Their
belief is not cynical, or at least not wholly cynical.
His constituency is real. It is not illuminating to think of them just as centrists, arguing for the gentlest sprinkling of sugar
over the top of America's poison. It's better to think of them as zombies: the product of three decades of self-serving, triangulating
brainwashing. They are the Democrats who had their eyelids propped open and were forced to watch the Clinton era, year after year
after year. It is not so much that they do not, deep down, harbor a vague wish for a better world; it is that, like stray dogs dining
exclusively on garbage, life has taught them that this is the best that they will ever get.
Consider what it says about the state of America's political system that in the left party, the presumptive frontrunner
for the presidential nomination did not think twice about kicking off his campaign with a fundraiser
hosted by the founder
of a union-busting law firm, days before appearing at a major union-hosted rally. And why should he? He gets the money, and then
he gets the union support. He knows his audience well. This is how Democratic politics has been done in Joe Biden's lifetime. This
is how it works.
It is not remarkable in the least for Joe Biden to come right out of the gate by filling his coffers with
money from telecom
and health insurance executives. Who is going to tell him that he shouldn't? The lobbyists advising his campaign? The zillionaire
media executives feting
him in a Hollywood mansion? The superstructure of Obama administration functionaries who see him as the most established of the
establishment brand names? For the people who matter, Joe Biden is doing just what he is expected to do.
Good luck on the campaign trail, Joe. You're about to meet an America that has already left you behind
And that is just it. Millions of people – including, most importantly, Joe Biden himself – have yet to see any evidence that he
is not playing the game exactly as it should be played.
We are talking about a person who built his career as the credit card industry's
man in Washington , while simultaneously
cultivating a reputation as a down-to-earth everyman. We are talking about a man who voted
against
gay marriage when it was unpopular – and then won plaudits for his bravery by changing his mind years later, when it was popular.
We are talking about a man who played a
key role in launching America's war on drugs and mass incarceration epidemic, yet who is widely perceived as a sensitive man
with hard-won empathy after losing a son. We are talking about a man who
voted in favor
of the Iraq war even while giving every indication that he knew it was a bad idea.
Later, he apologized. After that, he became the vice-president for a president whose bona fides on the left were based in large
part on his opposition to that war. And now, he will try to ride his connection to that popular ex-president into the White House.
And all of the pundits will say that he is the man to beat, and all of the
money will come flooding
in, and the corporate executives will wink at him even as the
firefighters union gives him that big labor endorsement. He is well on his way to uniting everyone who likes to watch the world
burn.
I am not mad at Joe Biden. He is a type. His type is "The Old Way of Doing Things." Now that he is in the race, his type is represented.
He rounds out the field. Now, Democratic voters truly have the entire buffet of choices, from "True Leftist Insurgent" to "Bland,
Winning Young Résumé-Polisher" to "Indistinguishable Ambitious Congresspersons" to "The Same Old Kind of White Guy As Always".
This is nothing to fear. This is healthy. This is a perfect referendum on where our country is now. Joe Biden, the avatar of the
past, believes that he's well positioned because after the shock of the Trump years, people want to go back to where we were. Wrong.
People want to go somewhere new. I fully expect Joe Biden to step out of his campaign headquarters and fall directly into the huge
pit that has opened up as America moved tectonically to the left. There is nothing scary about the candidate that represents the
political philosophy that produced in the public the deadly cynicism that gave us Donald Trump. This plain fact will never be accepted
by the sort of people who believe that Joe Biden is the answer, because accepting it is an indictment of an entire generation of
leaders who consider themselves quite successful.
The Republican party has long been a corrupt tool for serving the interests of the rich by lying to the poor; dwelling on their
role in bringing us here is like scolding an alligator for biting off your hand after you stuck it in his mouth. The Democrats are
the ones who were supposed to save us. It was their failure in this duty that allowed the catastrophes to pile up. They failed to
stop the post-Reagan explosion of economic inequality; they failed to stop the militarism that has embroiled us in endless war; they
failed to argue for things like healthcare and education as rights rather than purchases; they fed our most vulnerable citizens to
an evil machine labeled "criminal justice" in exchange for votes from racists. They earned their turn in power by agreeing not to
use that power for the common good. And here we are: incredibly divided, hopelessly unequal, justifiably sick of our broken institutions,
and very, very angry.
Good luck on the campaign trail, Joe. You're about to meet an America that has already left you behind. I'm sorry you'll have
to find out the hard way.
Hamilton Nolan is a senior writer at Splinter. He lives in Brooklyn
I think that it's noteworthy that nobody here is talking about Biden's speech in Pittsburgh. Lots of talk about policy, lots of
gutter sniping, but no awareness of what's going on on the ground.
Biden intends to revive the Democrat/Labor coalition that has become increasingly tenuous since Bill Clinton - a badly frayed
relationship that Trump took full advantage of in 2016. This is a big deal, and Biden can do it. He would have made a very good
labor organizer. He knows what to say, and how to say it. He is going to get the support of every union in America.
We can be assured that Trump and his people, who already recognize Biden as the front runner, are paying plenty of attention
to the speech. Shortly before, Trump sent Tweets that try to drive a wedge between union leaders and union members. This is not
going to work. Indeed, I think that it will backfire. A revived Democrat/Labor coalition is a genuine threat to Trump in what
will be key states in 2020, not least Pennsylvania.
The new CNN poll, done before Pittsburgh, has Biden leading Democrats at 39%, and he is already leading Trump. I believe that
his numbers will go up in post-Pittsburgh polls.
Democrats who can see past their noses will watch the speech, which The Guardian and others have up on YouTube, regardless
of which candidate they support. No matter who is the eventual nominee, that person has to build on what Biden is doing.
This is good news for the Democratic Party, and for all who want to defeat Trump in 2020.
Exactly and the gleam of hope is actually the midterms, who had if we are to look at it in total, the most progressive candidates
winning the house for the dems not the republican light candidate. Many are not progressive in the overall of things in their
particular places, but compared to republicans are. NO more playing conservative as HRC did with her conservative Syrian war statements,
to win the day. Republcians are simply most suited to play the conservative game.
WE must make them hold their nose and vote progressive as we did for years their candidates vote centrists.
You might well be right, he was all luvvie with the Dems today. MCConnell has managed Trump well, using Racism and the Wall but the pragmatic old bird Pelosi might be running Trump soon and
as a Dem before long. A two Trillion infrastructure plan repairing potholes Bridges etc really would be a Trumps Wet Dream. I don't think even the silly old MCConnell can stand in front of this train.
Pelosi knows impeaching Trump is a waste of time MCConnell is obstructionist has been for 15 yrs perhaps the most hated politician
ever. Pelosi knows if the Dems can get 4 Trillion of Infrastructure spending its game over does it matter if they build a shiny painted
steel fence it's a Border.
Trump wants Rating ps above anything else. Pelosi is a nasty old politician it's the End game that matters. As Winston Churchill said I would sleep with the "Devil it that would end this War."
If Biden wins the Democratic nomination.....they will lose again to Trump. Hillary was the face of "centrism".....Biden shares
the exact same platform. A platform that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the voters. Over 1000 seats lost in legislatures
across the country, the House, the Senate, the courts, and the people. But it's "progressives" who are delusional about "what
voters want"???.....Again.....Trump already beat them by beating Hillary. Facts are facts. The definition of insanity is doing
the same thing over and over and each time expecting a different result. It's mind boggling.....a strategy, proven by several
elections now, to be a total loser...the strategy that gave us Trump.....and still they scream "but but but listen to us...we
know what we're doing!!! it's the only way to get rid of Trump"......
I don't have illusions about how "socialist" Bernie Sanders really is, but in a debate he'd mop the floor and the inside of a
small plastic garbage pail with Donald Trump. I would love to see an irreligious guy who was raised Jewish and calls himself a
socialist take the gibbering, drooling mediocrity Trump apart in public.
With some thirty is it now? people running for the Democratic nomination, the Democrats seem to be already in a difficult
position to find the best candidate that can possibly successfully lead their party to the Oval Office.
How many more will throw themselves into an already complicated pool?
This long list of candidates is not a bug, it's a feature.
The Dem party bigwigs expect Bernie Sanders to win. They are trying to dilute the race with candidates and get his total votes
down below 50%. If they do, then the party's rules say they are free to disregard the results and choose their own candidate even
if Bernie was clearly the winner.
Gabbard is hugely critical of US military interference and general warmongering around the world. As we see in Venezuela today. So the conservative and liberal mainstream media will be shunning her.
AS opposed to the echo chamber of the NYT CNN or MSNBC supporting centrists. They aired a empty podium with trump scheduled to
speak rather than show a Bernie rally with thousands in attendance CNN did. Liberal media my foot.
Biden is not there to win. He's there to help dilute Bernie's win in the Dem primary race. If Bernie wins with less than 50% of
the votes then the party can choose to nominate somebody else (Kamala Harris?).
There were 13 candidates in 1988. That included David Duke and Lyndon LaRouche as well as to-be-convicted felon James Traficant.
Schroeder and Biden withdrew in 1987.
The Democrat elites' purpose in life is to intercept and neutralize demands for change from below and to the left. They will
get more exercised against Sanders and Warren then they ever would against Trump or the Republicans.
"No Joe!" by Andrew Cockburn in last month's 'Harpers' clearly delineates how completely anti-working class the corporate stooge
Joe Biden is.
CNN love love loves Joe Biden because he's cut from the same corporate cloth as them, and when Biden inevitably
loses to Trump, CNN can continue to be Fox News for people with BAs and keep raking in those big time advertising bucks.
"Consider what it says about the state of America's political system that in the left party, the presumptive frontrunner for the
presidential nomination did not think twice about kicking off his campaign with a fundraiser hosted by the founder of a union-busting
law firm, days before appearing at a major union-hosted rally."
I think that the terms "left" and "right" party or ideology are, while not entirely useless, misleading, and help to support
the notion that somehow some point in the middle is "just right". For one thing, two wrongs can't make a right, and sometimes
the cat and dog fights that dominate headlines miss the more important point entirely.
Political or legal outcomes that can be
substantially bought with money are corrupt. Period. It does not matter if the payment is direct, the traditional wad of bills
in an envelope, or indirect de facto bribery so long as how much you are able to spend can influence political results. That is
everything that justice and democracy is not. Money does buy influence and to some degree the impact of money on politics is unavoidable,
just as it is impossible to entirely rid a courtroom of bias; but we are crazy if we don't try to do the best that we can.
The "love" of money is said to be "the root of all evil". I take "love" in this case to mean a willingness to sell out anything
and anyone get it. Left? Right? Corruption is an equally opportunity despoiler, and the point is it dangerous and it is wrong.
If Biden has an ethos, it's an antiquated, anachronistic centrism, not even focused on finding a pragmatic middle that most of the
public can get behind, but on "reaching across the aisle." In other words, somewhere between centrist Democrats and an increasingly
far-right GOP lies the sensible, moderate, center-right voter that he believes populates the country.
Nothing epitomizes Biden's politics better than the speech he gave in
2011 at the University of Louisville's McConnell Center, named after the Republican Senate Minority Leader who had at that point
just finished up historically routing Biden and the administration he served. McConnell, who had
candidly admitted his top
goal was making sure Obama was "a one-term president" unless he did the GOP's bidding, had turned a sixty-vote Democratic supermajority
into an unavoidable necessity, stifling Obama's legislative agenda and even
slowing economic
recovery to produce the Democrats' "shellacking" in 2010. He then used this as leverage to get one of the most lopsided
legislative "deals" in memory, trading the
extension of unemployment insurance for the continuation of tax cuts for the rich, a markedly lower estate tax, and other giveaways
that infuriated Democrats.
Three months later, Biden warmly celebrated McConnell and his success
at having crushed the Democrats at their moment of historically rare political power. He painted the tax giveaway, which House Democrats
angrily
rebelled against and even Obama compared to negotiating with hostage-takers, as a textbook example of effective bipartisan compromise.
And he reminded the audience about the essential unity of those who ran the government: whether they were liberal or conservative,
Tea Party or Blue Dog, "they all ran for office because they love their country" and "because we basically all agree on the nature
of the problems we face." McConnell had bulldozed Biden's house, and Biden sent him a gift hamper.
But Biden's delusions about how the institution he had spent most of his adult life serving in functions is just one part of the
story. Biden is a Third Way Democrat with a seemingly congenital aversion to anything that smacks of populism, at least of the left-wing
variety. With a career in politics forged mainly in the "long Reagan era," Biden has built up an image based on loudly shunning and
bucking "liberal special interests" -- that era's code word for civil rights activists, unions, women's groups, and the poor. As
he told the National Journal in 2001, the Clintonite Third Way is both "where the American people are" and "where the Democratic
Party should have been." Resorting to "class warfare and populism" will only hand power to Republicans.
Of course, now that Biden is preparing to run on
Obama's legacy , he will tell you that
he's always been the darling of liberal groups. "The traditional judgements of whether or not you were, quote, a 'liberal,'" he recently
said, was "what your positions on race were, on women, what's your position on LGBT community, what's your positions on civil liberties.
You know, I'll stack my record on those things against anybody who's ever run, who is running now, or who will run."
The trouble for Biden is, his record on all of these matters and others isn't particularly great.
Biden catapulted to prominence in the 1970s by
rebelling against school integration
through busing. Biden reached across the aisle to his friend Jesse Helms -- one of the most virulent racists in modern politics --
to launch relentless verbal and legislative attacks on school busing that, if taken literally, would have scaled back the government's
power to desegregate more broadly, and he bragged that he'd made it okay for other liberals to do so. This was all OK because, as
Biden frequently claimed, he had been a civil rights activist. Later he was forced to admit he had simply
worked at an all-black swimming pool during the Civil Rights Movement.
The next couple of decades saw Biden
turn his attention to
another issue : waging "war" against drugs and crime. Eliminating parole, civil asset forfeiture, harsh mandatory minimums for
drug possession, the crack and powder cocaine sentencing disparity, dozens of new death penalties, and unprecedented resources poured
into building new prisons and arresting people to fill them with: Biden was not a marginal player in enacting all this and more.
He was one of the driving forces, constantly bragging about his role in policies that devastated black communities, policies adopted
for nakedly electoral purposes. "I would like to see the conservative wing of the Democratic Party," he once
quipped .
It's no coincidence that the two issues Biden leaned on most heavily in the first half of his career to show off his centrist
credentials were also ones that made life markedly worse for African Americans: political "moderation" after the 1960s usually meant
how far you were willing to go to thumb your nose at the cause of civil rights. So Biden's close relationship with another of Congress's
most storied racists -- Strom Thurmond, whom he later
warmly eulogized as a "brave
man" who "truly wanted to help" -- is no surprise either.
The 1990s-era crackdown on immigrants -- the period when the vast deportation apparatus now in the hands of Trump was largely
built -- was another Biden cause. He
was a loyal soldier
in this crusade, supporting a special ban on accepting immigrants if they were HIV positive; easing rules for deportation, even
for legal residents with families; restricting immigrants' access to welfare; and even at one point suggesting deploying troops to
deal with undocumented immigrants. A plan later devised by Biden to slow migration from Latin America only further fueled the violence
and misery that migrants were fleeing in the first place, paving the way for future migration crises, for which, as vice president,
he would prescribe the same self-defeating solutions.
The 1990s also saw Biden take
aim at civil liberties , authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal writ of habeas corpus
," as one legal scholar
later reflected . It
was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era Patriot
Act, which, in his view, didn't go far enough . He inserted a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization
of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military within US borders, before transforming into a civil liberties
defender in the latter part of the Bush presidency, once the political winds had shifted.
Biden also spent the 1990s voting for a
string of neoliberal
policies : NAFTA, one of the most devastating political defeats for unions in recent memory, and one where Biden was a crucial
vote that switched to help it pass; the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which he had earlier decried as "mak[ing]
Herbert Hoover's economic policy a constitutional mandate," a claim that if anything understates the case; Clinton's appalling welfare
reform; and the repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall prohibition on banks engaging in risky securities dealings. He did this
all while moaning endlessly about excessive government spending.
Not long after the turn of the twentieth century, Biden enthusiastically voted for the greatest foreign policy disaster of the
twenty-first: the Iraq War ("I voted to go into Iraq, and I'd vote to do it again"). It was the worst of a pattern for Biden, who
backed Margaret Thatcher's war in the Falklands and was one of the key figures pushing for NATO's eastward expansion in the 1990s,
a needless provocation of Russia that the famed Cold War diplomat George Kennan, speaking more than a year before Vladimir Putin
took office, presciently denounced as "the beginning of a new cold war." Biden's strategy for Afghanistan is indistinguishable from
the one the Trump administration is now pursuing, and his "counterterrorism plus" approach -- the use of drone strikes and special
forces anywhere in the world -- became Obama's anti-terror policy, one that visited death and carnage to a long series of countries
and fueled the very threat it was supposed to extinguish.
Needless to say, Biden isn't just pro-Israel -- he's one of the
most Israel-friendly politicians
of his generation. Through speaking fees and campaign donations, Israel has been good to Biden his whole career, and Biden's
been good right back, from pushing for more US aid to voting to move the embassy to Jerusalem -- another extremist policy Trump cribbed
from Biden and his friends -- and even chiding the Bush administration for its criticism of Israel's assassination program. But being
"the best friend of Israel" in the Obama administration didn't get him far with Benjamin Netanyahu, who openly rebelled against the
US under Obama, and humiliatingly announced new illegal settlements in the middle of an official visit from Biden.
Finally, the
Biden family's propensity for engaging in money-making ventures that -- gee whiz, just somehow seem to constantly overlap
with Biden's political career -- will make him a perfect foil to Trump. Whether it's Biden's son, Hunter, being hired as a lobbyist
for a Delaware credit card company whose favored legislation Biden was voting for; Biden's brother mysteriously getting hired by
a mid-size construction firm shortly before it received a $1.5 billion government contract; or Hunter, again, joining the board of
a corruption-tainted Ukrainian gas producer while Biden spearheaded US policy on Ukraine. That last issue is likely a ticking time
bomb, with Ukrainian officials recently
disclosing to the Hill that Biden leaned on the country's government to fire its top prosecutor just as he was set to
investigate the gas company, including interviewing Biden's son.
The most damning thing is that Biden hasn't changed. While other candidates with similarly troubling records at least understand
the need to pay lip service to progressive ideas, there's little indication Biden has moved an inch in his thinking. He doesn't think
"five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble," and has
"no
empathy" for millennials. He still
supports the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. He
still thinks adding to the conditions that fuel migration is the best way to stop it. He still
wants to cut Medicare and Social Security.
In short, a Joe Biden nomination would likely be a disaster, alienating the same voters who deserted Hillary Clinton in 2016,
while running on a similarly lackluster platform. The only thing that could be more harmful is a Joe Biden presidency, which, to
take him at his word, would see the former vice president collaborate with an increasingly extreme GOP in an effort to achieve some
of the Right's most long-cherished goals, including paring back the last remnants of the New Deal. Even scarier is the likelihood
that such a disillusioning presidency could subsequently pave the way for a far-right populist even more virulent -- and competent
-- than Trump.
The good news is, a Biden nomination is far from inevitable, and his choice to run on a continuation of Obama's legacy will provide
the broad left an opportunity to relitigate that administration's shortcomings without taking aim at the preternaturally popular
ex-president himself. In the meantime, if someone you know is unfamiliar with Biden's record on
busing ,
mass incarceration
, neoliberal economics
, war and civil liberties
, abortion , or
immigration , there's
an easy way to acquaint them.
Branko Marcetic is a Jacobin staff writer. He lives in Toronto,
Canada.
"... Cut it out, Joe. This is just not credible. Even he cannot believe Trump had in mind the neo-Nazis and Klansman chanting, "Jews will not replace us!" when Trump said there were "fine people" on both sides. ..."
As he debated with himself whether to enter the race for the 2020
Democratic nomination,
Joe Biden knew he had a problem.
As a senator from Delaware in the '70s, he had bashed busing to achieve racial balance in
public schools as stupid and racist.
As chairman of Senate Judiciary in the hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas in
1991, Biden had been dismissive of the charges by Anita Hill that the future justice had sexually
harassed her.
In 1994, Biden had steered to passage a tough anti-crime bill that led to a dramatic
increase in the prison population.
Crime went down as U.S. prisons filled up, but Biden's bill came to be seen by many African
Americans as discriminatory.
What to do? Acting on the adage that your best defense is a good offense, Biden decided
to tear into President Donald Trump -- for giving aid and comfort to white racists.
His announcement video began with footage of the 2017 white supremacist rally in
Charlottesville, highlighting Trump's remark, after the brawl that left a female protester dead,
that there were "very fine people on both sides."
"With those words," said Biden, "the president of the United States assigned a moral
equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it. And in
that moment, I realized that the threat to this nation was unlike any I had seen in my
lifetime."
Cut it out, Joe. This is just not credible.
Even he cannot believe Trump
had in mind the neo-Nazis and Klansman chanting, "Jews will not replace us!" when Trump said there
were "fine people" on both sides.
Dirty old Papa Joe needs to build a party platform that delineates
policies he would support and work to enact as president. Policies
that would advance the interests, prosperity and freedom of all
Americans might win some votes.
Slinging **** and playing to the
wild-eyed commies will not be a winning strategy. It never has
been. People are catching on to identity politics and perpetual
victimhood, and it's about time.
Trump needs to have FBI tap Biden's phones immediately. Also his
family and everyone he interacts with in his daily life. That's
the new murkan way and it is what our media stands behind
i think you're on to something there. wasn't biden and son
involved in the ukraine? didn't biden intervene in some
lawsuit there involving his son? aren't the ukies paying his
son millions for, umm, nothing except being related to his
daddy? didn't the ukies release some "intelligence" during the
campaign in order to help the colostomy queen?
i'm smelling collusion! we need a special persecutor
immediately!
"... The unfortunate thing is that this is all genius. Incredibly stupid, cringe-inducing, fourth-rate Dick Morris triangulating drivel -- but genius nevertheless. It's exactly what older Democratic voters, especially the ones who feel nostalgic about Obama's eight years in office, want to hear. Uncle Joe is "someone who has what it takes to make a great president." ..."
"... Sanders might be the only person with the political authority to punch down at Biden. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by heaping scorn on Biden as yesterday's candidate, a shill for big banks and other corporate interests, a buffoonish throwback with nothing to contribute to American politics ..."
Biden's candidacy is going to be a parody of itself. Get your bingo cards
ready for the debates, folks. He's going to talk about being "a little rough around the edges,"
about how "times have changed," about how he admires young people for their "energy" about
things like the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-all but that he's "seen a few things" in his
time. He knows the difference between what sounds like a good idea and what's practical. He
cares about doing what's right, but also about getting things done, even if it means "reaching"
-- no pun intended -- "across the aisle." Has he made a few mistakes over the years? Yeah,
sure, and he owns up to them. But he knows better now. He's "willing to listen," maybe even "to
learn." Did I say to bring your bingo cards? Make that a barf bag.
The unfortunate thing is that this is all genius. Incredibly stupid, cringe-inducing,
fourth-rate Dick Morris triangulating drivel -- but genius nevertheless. It's exactly what
older Democratic voters, especially the ones who feel nostalgic about Obama's eight years in
office, want to hear. Uncle Joe is
"someone who has what it takes to make a great president."
It might just work, too. A lot will depend on how hard the other 2020 candidates are willing
to go after Biden. The old adage about what you shouldn't do when you come at the king applies
here. If someone like Kamala Harris can successfully turn Biden's record against him -- without
drawing too much attention to her own
shortcomings in the more recent past -- good for her. But if she and the other would-be
nominees attack him as a racist, sexist handsy old fogey and he ends up being the nominee
anyway, they might as well say goodbye to their futures in centrist liberal circles. There is a
reason Jeb Bush did not become secretary of education in the Trump White House -- and why Paul
Ryan was cut out of the president's decision-making process long before he announced his
retirement as speaker of the House.
... ... ...
Sanders might be the only person with the political authority to punch
down at Biden. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by heaping scorn on Biden as
yesterday's candidate, a shill for big banks and other corporate interests, a buffoonish
throwback with nothing to contribute to American politics
"... Currently the only countries on Earth with production capacity above their production is Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, and possibly Russia. The rest are producing at their capacity. ..."
"... Russia is within 100,000 barrels per day of their peak possible production. ..."
"... Sending troops into Venezuela in the 2020's might be the coup de grace to both our budget and sense of unity as a nation. Here's hoping the politicians don't go there. ..."
"... For years and years Ukraine paid GAZPROM a price for natural gas roughly 1/3 what the EU was paying. But heavens, that must never actually have happened because no one would ever price things lower than the "free market". Coup actions were then taken to put a stop to this, because of the evils of Ukraine paying a lower price. ..."
"... And, is that Brent or WTI, not that it makes that much of a difference. I don't think it will ever get close to the $50 range in my limited lifetime. ..."
"... The law of supply and demand is an example of a perfectly useless law. It can be used neither to predict future prices nor supply. What is it good for? I think it much more instructive to think about feedback cycles. ..."
"The OPEC nations are not philanthropists. They don't give a shit about what Trump wants.
They are laughing at him."
I don't believe they are laughing at him at all. All they need to do is recall what
happened in Iraq and Libya to know the US controls them. KSA, Kuwait, Iraq, etc are all
puppet states of the US. To believe otherwise is just folly. The USA seeks to control all of
the remaining independent Oil producers. This is why the US is in Syria, and is working on
controlling Venzeula via a political Coup. If the Coup fails in VZ, it will eventually send
in Troops (probably by the early 2020s)
It does not matter who the President it is, Obama followed the path after Bush with Wars
in Syria & Libya. if Hillary won, she would be doing the same thing as Trump. Who ever
wins in 2020 will continue the same long term plan to control as much foreign oil as they
can.
Just what would be the definition of a "Puppet State"? That would be someone who does the
bidding of the puppeteer. No OPEC state does the bidding of Trump, or did the bidding of any
previous president. Yes, we played havoc with their people and sometimes their economy. But
the King of Saudi Arabia or the Emir of any of the other OPEC states are not at the beck and
call of Trump.
And yes they are laughing at him. Trump actually thinks he could pick up the phone and
tell the King of Saudi Arabia, or the director of OPEC, to do what is necessary to lower the
price of oil. That is laughable. Trump is an embarrassment to all the people of the United
States.
On Wednesday Saudi Arabia's energy minister Khalid al-Falih said that the kingdom will
not be taking any immediate action to increase oil production, ..
"Inventories are actually continuing to rise despite what is happening in Venezuela and
despite the tightening of sanctions on Iran. I don't see the need to do anything
immediately," Falih was quoted by CNBC in Riyadh. "Our intent is to remain within our
voluntary (OPEC) production limit."
One major group, however, seems surprisingly unruffled. Even after Trump mentioned the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by name, suggesting that they will be
stepping up to fill in any supply gaps once Tehran is edged out, members from OPEC themselves
have remained extremely measured on the issue, saying that they will not be rushing to ramp
up production.
They are saying, "screw you, Trump, we are not raising production."
On Wednesday Saudi Arabia's energy minister Khalid al-Falih said that the kingdom will
not be taking any immediate action to increase oil production, adding that they respond to
market fundamentals as opposed to pricing and that the nation, the top oil exporter in the
world, will remain focused on maintaining a balanced global oil market above all other
concerns.
"Other concerns", meaning doing Trump's bidding. Or more correctly, not doing Trump's
bidding.
In my opinion, if there's no sustained output increase before the end of the year from the
big OPEC producers Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Iraq, it's because these countries have
peaked. And I don't count emptying storage tanks as output increase.
Currently the only countries on Earth with production capacity above their production is
Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, and possibly Russia. The rest are producing at their
capacity.
They are in the driver's seat now. Of course they are not going to ramp up production. They
are going to make a nice profit, before doing anything. By then, it will be far, far too
late. But, it's already too late, anyway. I don't even think reversing directions on Iran
would stop the slide.
Sending troops into Venezuela in the 2020's might be the coup de grace to both our budget and
sense of unity as a nation. Here's hoping the politicians don't go there.
Let's examine this absurdity of pricing oil lower, because this would ignore the "free
market." Imagine how absurd it is to think anyone would do such a thing.
My God, if you did that then Iran would not ship oil to Syria, knowing Syria cannot pay
for it. They would never do such a thing. And if you dared to laugh at the concept of free
market, my God, then Saudi citizens from 2000-2006 would have had to endure the horrors of
paying $1/gallon for gasoline while the rest of the world paid double or triple that. No one
would ever do such a thing.
Argentina's Vaca Muerta is going to flow about a 50% increase in shale oil and gas this
year over last year, because they, too, would never dare to declare a price to be something
other than what this "free market" says.
For years and years Ukraine paid GAZPROM a price for natural gas roughly 1/3 what the EU
was paying. But heavens, that must never actually have happened because no one would ever
price things lower than the "free market". Coup actions were then taken to put a stop to
this, because of the evils of Ukraine paying a lower price.
Of course, if you owe $22 Trillion and are absolutely desperate to have inflation cheapen
that debt, maybe lower prices for anyone for anything becomes, indeed, the horror of
horrors.
Watcher, of course, nations often subsidize their products to their own citizens. They
sacrifice the price they could get on the open world market in order to keep their citizens
happy and supporting the status quo. That doesn't prove a goddamn thing as far as the free
market goes.
Bottom Line: People, companies, and nations sell their product for the highest price they can get.
People, companies. and nations buy products for the lowest price they can find.
That is just common sense. You arguing against supply and demand reminds me of people who
still argue that the earth is flat.
Never paid any attention to the technicals. Only fundamentals. Made some good money on calls
over the past year, but I don't see it in puts for a good while. Only short term swings, and
I don't have the nerve for those. And, is that Brent or WTI, not that it makes that much of a
difference. I don't think it will ever get close to the $50 range in my limited lifetime.
The Earth is measurably not flat. Curvature is a physical parameter. It can be measured from
orbit. It has been measured from orbit.
The number of occasions when a transaction takes place with a price determined by
something other than this alleged psychological behavior derived from supply and demand
almost certainly far exceeds the number of occasions when such a thing might determine price.
We've done this before. Through all history, every item ever stolen, every item ever acquired
via conquest, every item ever acquired via donation, every item ever acquired via
inheritance, via Royal award -- these far, far exceed the number of, and certainly the value
of, transactions in a marketplace.
So why aren't these methodologies considered the definitive pricing technique for
transactions in general, and simply accept that only the most rare and quaint of transactions
take place via a marketplace.
Oh and by the way, since this pricing process is psychological, determined by the minds of
buyer and seller, you do realize you are saying that the price is determined by something
imagined by both parties, meaning their presumption of supply and demand. You do realize this
means that the actual supply and the actual demand does not determine the price, even for
these rare transactions.
You are saying that reality doesn't determine the price. Only imagination. How can anyone
think this is a science or a law of nature.
Watcher, you've likely seen the following scenario. Two service stations kitty corner to each
other. One sells gas for a few pennies less than the other one and has way more people
filling up than the more expensive one. This is a real life example of demand driven by lower
cost.
The law of supply and demand is an example of a perfectly useless law. It can be used
neither to predict future prices nor supply. What is it good for? I think it much more
instructive to think about feedback cycles.
A couple of other examples off the top of my head:
A school, I believe in Israel, experimented with charging parents for bringing their
children to school late. The result was more late children when the parents were charged. The
explanation was that parents felt less guilty for bringing children to school late if they
could pay off the school.
Paying people to give blood can reduce the number of donors. Giving blood for a cause can
make people feel good, if they get paid to give the blood they lose the good feeling. The
hospital taking the blood decided to give an option to have the payment go to a charity.
During times of famine, farmers do not make more money (this is a comment in Graeber's
book). For example in Venezuela where food security is currently very critical the government
is forcing farmers to sell their production below cost.
It seems that there are 230 legacy rigs still working in the USA. These are the less
efficient & slower rigs. And so there is still some room for efficiency gains when those
legacy rigs are replaced.
It reads like he is saying that 600 to 700 legacy rigs have gone since 2014
2019-04-25 (Seeking Alpha) Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (HP) CEO John Lindsay on Q1 2019
Results – Earnings Call Transcript
I think it's also important when we have this conversation that we also mentioned that
there's still about 230 legacy rigs, mostly SCR but even some mechanical rigs that have been
upgraded in some capacity or another to do some of this more challenging horizontal work. And
those rigs are out there working today, obviously, much fewer SCR rigs working today than
what you saw in 2014.
Seeking Alpha ->
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4256850-helmerich-and-payne-inc-hp-ceo-john-lindsay-q1-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
If you continue making outrageous false equivalence arguments, mister, you'll have have to
spend time in a reeducation camp, I'm afraid.
It's been explained to you a million times already:
"Earlier, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that the situation with recognizing
Crimea as part of Russia differed from acknowledging Israel's sovereignty over the Golan
Heights.
According to him, what US President Donald Trump did is to "recognize the reality on
the ground." Pompeo stressed that Washington seeks to work on Middle East stability, noting
that "America is a force for good in the region" and its intentions are noble."
"... Trump's apparent popularity isn't hard to understand at all. Many Americans felt let down and left behind by big government, saw their jobs and factories move to Mexico, see a large illegal immigration problem, and felt, with a large measure of justification, that traditional politicians were really only in it for themselves. ..."
"... They saw the US involved in wars and conflicts in places they had never even seen on a map, the banking robber barons take everyone for a sub-prime ride, and Wall Street largely get a pass from Obama. ..."
"... Trump may not be the answer. He's a skilled Vegas shyster selling them something they don't really need - the lie that America has failed and needs to be made "great again". ..."
"Just another rich white guy". With Obama you even managed to get a black guy who was just
another rich white guy. He continued the wars, backed rich megabillionaires who run the
country as a means only to making more billions, and had almost no social conscience...if he
did, he certainly didn't act on it.
You have democrats who are what anyone else in the West outside of Israel consider hawkish
right wingers, almost extreme. Your Republicans are not rightwing...they're one iota short of
being out and out fascists. You have a complete establishment who seem to think government is
not about governing (you know...things like running education, healthcare, social setups,
transport, infrastructure....that kind of thing ).
I can't think of any mainstream right wing politics in any
European/Australasian/democratic Asian countries where Democrats wouldn't be considered to
far right to be called mainstream. Your Democrats have created wars, backed Republican wars,
enabled business to stop the formation of any kind of social government. They support profit
being the driver for everything. They take business bribes the same way Republicans do, only
it's called "lobbying".
Clinton didn't lose because she was a woman, she lost because she was in business's pocket
and was an avid backer of every war she could think of. Even Republicans were heartily sick
of their own corrupt warmongering extremists...otherwise why do you think they voted for
Trump? Unfortunately they were too stupid to realise Trump was exactly the same under a
different marketing brand.
Should Biden be the nominee, it would be manna from heaven for Republicans. His record is
such that the GOP can spend the entire campaign on the offensive (in more ways than one),
correctly painting Biden as the darling of the Deep State, "The Swamp!", the M$M, and Wall
Street (while the Mango Messiah of the MAGAT-Hats reprises his 'working class hero' role from
'16), while the seamier side of the internet goes after Joe's shady brothers, James and Beau,
and his even shadier son (if you're unfamiliar with the accusations, wait five minutes; the
RNC is preparing the talking points as you read).
As the nominee, Sanders puts the GOP on the defensive until election day because 1) Sanders
is on the right side of the practical issues that have been driving elections--and election
results--since 2017 and particularly in '18; and 2) mud doesn't stick to Sanders the way it's
naturally adhesive to Clinton or Biden...and Trump. And he also has one advantage over Trump
that no other DP candidate (with the possible exception of Warren) has: a direct, no-nonsense
personality of the sort Dear Leader finds admirable in sycophants, and utterly intimidating
in opponents.
If Biden is the nominee, he'll get the same plurality of the popular vote as Clinton, and
still be vulnerable in the electoral college. The Senate will remain a GOP-controlled bastion
of obstructionism. The DP's House majority will be eroded (though probably not lost). And the
legislatures up for grabs will mostly remain Republican, just in time to continue in 2021 the
gerrymandering they did in 2011. If anyone is voting for Biden out of Obama nostalgia you're
going to get it in the form of divided government.
If Sanders is the nominee, the DP can take back the Senate, hold on to, or expand, its House
majority, and pick up a few red state governors and legislatures. He also makes more red
states competitive, forcing the GOP to devote far more time, resources and money into holding
on to what they already have, and leaving less to contest elsewhere, while Biden does the
opposite, making blue states competitive for Republicans without affecting red states.
I think that it's noteworthy that nobody here is talking about Biden's speech in Pittsburgh.
Lots of talk about policy, lots of gutter sniping, but no awareness of what's going on on the
ground.
Biden intends to revive the Democrat/Labor coalition that has become increasingly tenuous
since Bill Clinton - a badly frayed relationship that Trump took full advantage of in 2016.
This is a big deal, and Biden can do it. He would have made a very good labor organizer. He
knows what to say, and how to say it. He is going to get the support of every union in
America.
We can be assured that Trump and his people, who already recognize Biden as the front
runner, are paying plenty of attention to the speech. Shortly before, Trump sent Tweets that
try to drive a wedge between union leaders and union members. This is not going to work.
Indeed, I think that it will backfire. A revived Democrat/Labor coalition is a genuine threat
to Trump in what will be key states in 2020, not least Pennsylvania.
The new CNN poll, done before Pittsburgh, has Biden leading Democrats at 39%, and he is
already leading Trump. I believe that his numbers will go up in post-Pittsburgh polls.
Democrats who can see past their noses will watch the speech, which The Guardian and
others have up on YouTube, regardless of which candidate they support. No matter who is the
eventual nominee, that person has to build on what Biden is doing.
This is good news for the Democratic Party, and for all who want to defeat Trump in
2020.
Trump's apparent popularity isn't hard to understand at all. Many Americans felt let down and
left behind by big government, saw their jobs and factories move to Mexico, see a large
illegal immigration problem, and felt, with a large measure of justification, that
traditional politicians were really only in it for themselves.
They saw the US involved in
wars and conflicts in places they had never even seen on a map, the banking robber barons
take everyone for a sub-prime ride, and Wall Street largely get a pass from Obama.
Trump may not be the answer. He's a skilled Vegas shyster selling them something they
don't really need - the lie that America has failed and needs to be made "great again".
But
the Democrats need to get their act together quickly. Over 2 years down, and realistically
only months away from the beginning of a new election campaign, we really should be hearing
about new and hopeful rising stars. People with vision and energy, who can get beyond the
navel-gazing self indulgence of why Hillary lost, or whether they should have gone for Bernie
instead. And it's definitely not Biden. That's all history now. If they don't reenergise,
reinvigorate, and refresh, Trump will sail into a second term of spin, swamp draining and
salesmanship.
Should Biden be the nominee, it would be manna from heaven for Republicans. His record is
such that the GOP can spend the entire campaign on the offensive (in more ways than one),
correctly painting Biden as the darling of the Deep State, "The Swamp!", the M$M, and Wall
Street (while the Mango Messiah of the MAGAT-Hats reprises his 'working class hero' role from
'16), while the seamier side of the internet goes after Joe's shady brothers, James and Beau,
and his even shadier son (if you're unfamiliar with the accusations, wait five minutes; the
RNC is preparing the talking points as you read).
As the nominee, Sanders puts the GOP on the defensive until election day because 1)
Sanders is on the right side of the practical issues that have been driving elections--and
election results--since 2017 and particularly in '18; and 2) mud doesn't stick to Sanders the
way it's naturally adhesive to Clinton or Biden...and Trump. And he also has one advantage
over Trump that no other DP candidate (with the possible exception of Warren) has: a direct,
no-nonsense personality of the sort Dear Leader finds admirable in sycophants, and utterly
intimidating in opponents.
If Biden is the nominee, he'll get the same plurality of the popular vote as Clinton, and
still be vulnerable in the electoral college. The Senate will remain a GOP-controlled bastion
of obstructionism. The DP's House majority will be eroded (though probably not lost). And the
legislatures up for grabs will mostly remain Republican, just in time to continue in 2021 the
gerrymandering they did in 2011. If anyone is voting for Biden out of Obama nostalgia you're
going to get it in the form of divided government.
If Sanders is the nominee, the DP can take back the Senate, hold on to, or expand, its
House majority, and pick up a few red state governors and legislatures. He also makes more
red states competitive, forcing the GOP to devote far more time, resources and money into
holding on to what they already have, and leaving less to contest elsewhere, while Biden does
the opposite, making blue states competitive for Republicans without affecting red
states.
"... Let's be clear: If he runs, Biden will be the only candidate -- out of up to 20 Democrats running for the nomination -- to have voted for the Iraq War. ..."
"... Friend of Wall Street? Check. Clinton had a Goldman Sachs problem; Biden has an MBNA problem. Headquartered in his home state of Delaware, the credit card giant MBNA was his biggest donor when he served in the Senate. In 2005, Biden threw his weight behind a bankruptcy bill, signed into law by President George W. Bush, that shamefully protected credit card companies at the expense of borrowers. ..."
"... Champion of mass incarceration? Check. Clinton took flak for supporting the 1994 crime bill, which helped push up the U.S. prison population, introduced new federal death penalty crimes, and hugely exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system. And Biden? Well, he wrote the damn thing! ..."
"... Establishment-friendly? Check. Biden arrived in D.C. in 1973; he spent 36 years in the Senate and eight years in Obama's cabinet.When Trump tries to run again as an anti-establishment outsider in 2020, what will Biden's response be? ..."
"... Loser? Check. Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2016, at the second attempt, having been defeated by Obama eight years earlier. For Biden, it would have to be third-time lucky. ..."
According to one poll , Joe
Biden has an almost insurmountable lead over every other Democratic challenger, of 14 points
over second-place Bernie. Another
poll gives him a 24 point lead.
It's possible that these polls are accurate. It's also possible that they are predictive.
But I
wouldn't count on it .
The Democratic frontrunner in April 2007: Hillary Clinton. In April 2003: Joe Lieberman. In
April 1991: Jesse Jackson. In April 1987: Gary Hart. In April 1983: Walter Mondale (ok, that
one worked out). In April 1975: Ted Kennedy. In April 1971: Edmund Muskie.
There is no way, NO WAY, on Gawd's Green Earth that I would ever vote for Biden.
I would sooner chew my hand off. I would sooner vote for f*cking Trump. Seriously. I would vote
for Trump over Biden, and I think Trump is the worst president this country has ever seen.
What presidential campaign is Biden's most like?
Trump's attack on Biden will strengthen Biden amongst Dems.
The establishment
loves Joe Biden , but then the same people that love Biden also loved Hillary, and were
confident that she could beat Trump.
The Democratic establishment has decided that all that they need is a more likeable
candidate.
Biden is more favorable with the public than Hillary right now, but then Hillary's favorability
was much higher before she kicked off her campaign. When people learn about his Hillaryesque
voting record his
ratings will drop.
Iraq War supporter? Check. Clinton was pilloried by the left and the right alike as a
wild-eyed hawk; her vote in favor of the Iraq invasion haunted both her 2008 and 2016
campaigns.
...Let's be clear: If he runs, Biden will be the only candidate -- out of up to 20 Democrats
running for the nomination -- to have voted for the Iraq War.
Friend of Wall Street? Check. Clinton had a Goldman Sachs problem; Biden has an MBNA
problem. Headquartered in his home state of Delaware, the credit card giant MBNA was his
biggest donor when he served in the Senate. In 2005, Biden threw his weight behind a
bankruptcy bill, signed into law by President George W. Bush, that shamefully protected
credit card companies at the expense of borrowers.
Champion of mass incarceration? Check. Clinton took flak for supporting the 1994 crime
bill, which helped push up the U.S. prison population, introduced new federal death penalty
crimes, and hugely exacerbated racial disparities in the criminal justice system. And Biden?
Well, he wrote the damn thing!
Establishment-friendly? Check. Biden arrived in D.C. in 1973; he spent 36 years in the
Senate and eight years in Obama's cabinet.When Trump tries to run again as an anti-establishment outsider in 2020, what will Biden's
response be?
Loser? Check. Clinton won the Democratic nomination in 2016, at the second attempt, having
been defeated by Obama eight years earlier. For Biden, it would have to be third-time
lucky.
And I'm going to just skip over Biden's history of mild misogyny and racism. We'll be
hearing about that endlessly.
Like with Russiagate, the Democratic establishment is in deep
denial .
Voters want change, and Joe Biden is most certainly not that. He's an attempt to return the
country to a pre-Trump era and pretend that 2016 never happened.
The bigger question is what would a Biden presidency look like?
So a Biden presidency means a less-articulate
Obama , a president that oversaw the nationwide destruction of the Democratic party.
Except that it's even worse than that.
Biden may be like Hillary and Obama, but who he's most similar to is the guy that Dem voters
most want to defeat - President
Donald Trump.
Despite the outrage directed by liberals and others at Trump's racism, Biden is far from his
polar opposite. On the contrary, he shares several of the president's blemishes. Perhaps
that's the point -- polling indicates that ousting Trump is the Democrats' top priority, even
more so than supporting a candidate who shares their values. Still, it's ironic that, if
Biden runs and his current polling lead holds, the Democrats would nominate a man who is, of
all their available options, arguably the most similar to the president they're seeking to
depose.
@Pricknick
Trump as a fuck you vote against Her but I got over that very quickly. Can't go there and
will not vote Dem. Maybe Bernie, we shall see. Might be Nobody. Giant Meteor perhaps?
I would sooner vote for f*cking Trump
But I guess my vote for anybody but the dim is a vote for trump again.
So glad I demexited. Never going back.
span y The Aspie Corner on Tue, 04/30/2019 - 6:43pm
"Hello, I'm (Insert Capitalist Party USA Favorite here). And I'm running for president
because we can't afford Commie Bernie's far-left ideas. Single-payer? Come on, the insurance
companies are buying my next yacht, and it'll have two other yachts in it. Clean energy?
Sorry kids, I gotta pay the mortgage on that 10th summer mansion in Wine Country with the car
port elevator. Basic Income? You serfs toil for our amusement and our enrichment, not the
other way around. You're lucky we even pay you in packing peanuts. I may not have any ideas
of my own besides policies the Republicans want anyway, but hey, at least I can look good on
TV and appear to be smart while not actually being smart. And I'm not Trump, so I'm your only
choice. Suck on that, voters."
"I'm (Insert Capitalist Party USA Favorite here) and I approve this message."
"Hello, I'm (Insert Capitalist Party USA Favorite here). And I'm running for president
because we can't afford Commie Bernie's far-left ideas. Single-payer? Come on, the
insurance companies are buying my next yacht, and it'll have two other yachts in it.
Clean energy? Sorry kids, I gotta pay the mortgage on that 10th summer mansion in Wine
Country with the car port elevator. Basic Income? You serfs toil for our amusement and
our enrichment, not the other way around. You're lucky we even pay you in packing
peanuts. I may not have any ideas of my own besides policies the Republicans want anyway,
but hey, at least I can look good on TV and appear to be smart while not actually being
smart. And I'm not Trump, so I'm your only choice. Suck on that, voters."
"I'm (Insert Capitalist Party USA Favorite here) and I approve this message."
Is going to show the many clips of Joe creeping on little girls, the Republicans would be
smart to hold off pushing them until the Dem convention picks Joe.
There is no way in all the realms that he survives those clips going viral.
span y Dr. John Carpenter on Tue, 04/30/2019 - 7:27pm
That was the 2016 primary, they might as well have their Trump too. Biden might be Hillary
without the good points (ha!) but he's also a Trump the establishment can trust.
...I think Biden LOOKS a bit feeble (even in comparison to Trump and Bernie). And, while
most folks might not get that, I do believe--for these most superficial reasons, especially
after grinding through another 6, 8, or 10 months--he will not make it to the White House. I
don't think he'll even win the primary.
Senator Elizabeth Warren's Q&A at the March 7, 2013 Banking Committee hearing entitled
"Patterns of Abuse: Assessing Bank Secrecy Act Compliance and Enforcement." Witnesses were:
David Cohen, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, United States Department
of the Treasury; Thomas Curry, Comptroller, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency; and
Jerome H. Powell, Governor, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
HSBC has a long history dealing in illicit, immoral drugs. In fact, the bank was
established to facilitate such. "After the British established Hong Kong as a colony in the
aftermath of the First Opium War, local merchants felt the need for a bank to finance the
growing trade between China and Europe (with traded products including opium). They
established the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Company Limited in Hong Kong (March 1865) and
Shanghai (one month later)." ~ Wikipedia Another good source is the book "Dope, Inc." RESIST
!!!
Obviously nobody wants to take responsibilities. They would not even consider what is
morally wrong or acceptable. These are the people we pay salaries to protect us, 316 million
Americans? So we still pay a hefty salary to Senator Powell and David Cohn in Treasury
department? Are these people in cahoots with those who laundered money at J P Morgan ? Do
they make money from both sides? Peel off the tax payers and get bribes from the banks which
launder the money ? I assume this is just a game. Banksters on Wall Street who suck our blood
are still outside on the prowl. They did it in 2008 and are looking for the next move
soon.
What gets me is these banks are part of the illicit drug trade with no chance of jail
time, but if one of the peasants gets busted with a single joint.Prosecution,jail, fines, you
name it, it's throw the book time.We need more people like Warren in government.
Elizabeth Warren may have smart policies. But Bernie Sanders has mass politics.
Last week I wrote
an article
praising Elizabeth Warren for advancing the student debt conversation. While I think her proposal falls short of what we
deserve -- a full-on student debt jubilee, no means-testing or exceptions -- I'm impressed by how seriously it takes the
problem of student debt, leaving Obama-style "refinancing" behind in favor of large-scale debt forgiveness, commensurate
with the gravity of the crisis.
The student debt proposal was one of many recent plans released by Warren in recent
months, ramping up in the last few weeks. Some are better than others. Her
Ultra-Millionaire Tax
is a winner, as is her
Real
Corporate Profits Tax
. Warren's universal childcare plan is promising overall, though it retains
unnecessary
fees
for users. Her
affordable
housing plan
is one-sidedly market-based: its central proposal is to incentivize local governments to remove zoning
restrictions. That needs to be complemented by heavy investments in social housing, a policy
recently
floated
by the People's Policy Project.
But criticisms aside, Warren's proposals trend in a
positive direction. At the very least, they demonstrate a willingness to tackle working people's real problems
with debt, housing, health, and childcare. If they were to materialize, many of these proposals would
significantly improve life for working people -- maybe not as much as we'd like, but enough to be considered a
positive development, especially after decades of Democratic disinterest in policies that threaten corporate
profits or meaningfully redistribute wealth.
So it's understandable why many on the Left have reacted to
Warren's policy blitz with delight. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. The proposals she's pumping out are
exciting, but more to the point, they are a strategy for raising her campaign's profile.
It's not standard in presidential politics to bust out
of the gate with a constant stream of detailed policy ideas. The other candidates aren't
behind
on
releasing policy proposals -- Warren is way ahead, doing something unusual. Bernie Sanders doesn't even have
his policy team fully assembled yet, nor do the others. We need to ask why Warren feels compelled to adopt
this early traction-gaining strategy to begin with.
In my view, Warren's policy blitz is a bid to
distinguish herself in light of her difficulty thus far in cohering an organic base. Put bluntly, Warren is
turning her campaign into a policy factory because she's had trouble inspiring people with a broad-strokes
political vision the way her closest ideological competitor, Bernie Sanders, has.
This strategy may work to boost her campaign prospects, but it's a bad omen for any presidential
administration seriously committed to taking on the ruling elite. If you can't impart to millions of working
people the sense that they are carrying out a historic mission during your campaign -- a "
political
revolution
" driven by "
Not
Me, Us
" -- you won't be able to mobilize them to exert pressure on the state to challenge the interests
of capital when it really counts, during your presidency.
Part of Warren's trouble in the area of mass politics can be traced to the fact that she's neither an
establishment plaything nor an opponent of capitalism. To her credit, Warren won't take corporate money (at
least
during the primary
), and she evades the regular donor circuit. That means that to make her campaign
viable, she needs masses of ordinary people to believe in her project strongly enough to donate their own
hard-earned money to her campaign. Unlike Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, or certainly Joe
Biden, she can't
paper
over
her lackluster popular support with fat checks from elites.
So far, those masses have failed to materialize. That's largely because Warren's temperate political
ideology makes it hard for her to say the things necessary to get their attention. She's great at diagnosing
the worst problems of capitalism and has plans to address them, but her rhetoric doesn't polarize along
class lines. She therefore struggles to define her constituency and identify who exactly that constituency
is up against.
Warren hates egregious inequality, but
fundamentally believes
in the superior rationality of markets. She has unwavering faith in capitalism,
calling herself
"a capitalist to my bones" -- her primary concern is that it has been led astray. At a
time when socialism is
becoming synonymous
with efforts to put people over profit, Warren disavows it. When Donald Trump
declared that "America will never be a socialist country" a couple of months ago, Sanders stayed slouched in
his chair, while Warren
rose to
her feet
in applause.
This means that while Warren knows down to the last detail what she'd like better regulations to look
like, she's not quite solid on the antagonists and protagonists, i.e. which broader social forces need to be
arranged against which other forces to make change.
Sanders's vision of social conflict is quite clear, and is summed up by the name of his
town hall
last year:
CEOs vs. Workers. To make favorable policy materialize and to protect it from reversal, the forces of
workers need to be arranged against the forces of CEOs. Nearly everything Sanders says and does leads back
to this core belief in the power of ordinary working people to take on capitalist elites themselves. As he
puts it
, "Real change never takes place from the top on down. It always takes place from the bottom on
up."
In Warren's case, where oppositional rhetoric appears at all, the contest more often comes across as
"Smart Progressive Policymakers vs. Bad Rules." Not only is there no room in that rivalry for ordinary
people, but the enemy is also faceless. The enemy is incorrect policy, and it must be corrected by expert
policy correctors. Elect Warren, on the basis of her demonstrated expertise, and she will deftly set about
changing the rules so that capitalism doesn't produce so many awful externalities.
Sanders may as well have been winking at Warren when he said, in a
video
screened recently to thousands of self-organized groups of Bernie supporters in every congressional
district:
No president, not the best intentioned, not the most honest person in the world, no one person can do
it alone. Now why is that? Because this is what is not talked about in the media, not talked about in
Congress: the power structure of America is such that a small number of wealthy individuals and large
corporate entities have so much influence over the economic and political life of this country that no
one person can do it.
You think we're gonna pass Medicare for All tomorrow because the president of the United States says
that's what we should do? You think we're gonna take on the fossil fuel industry and effectively and
aggressively combat climate change change because the president of the United States thinks we should do
that? A lot of presidents say, "Gee I have a great idea. I woke up yesterday and I think health care
for all's a good idea." That's not the way it happens. It happens when millions of people stand up and
demand it.
It's unsurprising that Bernie's broad vision of social conflict is more inspiring than Warren's. After
decades of skyrocketing living costs and stagnating wages, many working people are spoiling for a fight.
That nascent fighting spirit can be seen in the popular protest movements that began in 2011, the
unprecedented popularity of Sanders's dark-horse candidacy in 2016, and the teachers strike wave that kicked
off last year.
Unencumbered by an awkward mixture of admiration for capitalism and disapproval of its ugliest excesses,
Bernie Sanders is uniquely capable of picking that fight -- and making ordinary working people feel like
they're at the center of it, that it's theirs to win.
It's the trouble Warren has had breaking through in this way that explains why she has turned to cranking
out hyper-detailed proposals. She's making up with wonkery what she lacks in big-picture political clarity.
In the process, she's successfully grabbing headlines and winning the hearts of left technocrats with
prominent platforms. That might translate into some boost in popular support. But it's not obvious that such
support will ever rival that of a
candidate who tells workers
, "This is class warfare, and we're going to stand up and fight."
We are right to admire many of the ideas coming out of the Warren campaign. Best-case scenario, they will
spur a progressive policy arms race, which would be to the benefit of all.
But we shouldn't see her policy blitz purely as a sign of strength. It may actually be an SOS message, a
panicked response to her campaign's shortcomings in the field of mass politics. And of course, mass politics
are necessary for creating durable and militant constituencies that can
self-organize
outside the state, which is in turn necessary to win and preserve a progressive policy
agenda against the interests of capitalists -- an agenda that Warren and Sanders largely share.
Warren's policy blitz strategy may pay off in the short term. But in the long term, there's no substitute
for naming the sides, picking a side, and building up your side to fight the other side. And that's Bernie's
game.
She rips the Obama White House for its allegiance to Citibank. But she does nto understadn that the problem is not with
Citibank, but with the neoliberalism as the social system. Sad...
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin as for neoliberalism. Which presuppose protecting banks, like
Citigroup, and other big corporations. The USA political system is not a Democracy, we have become an Oligarchy with a two Party
twist (Poliarchy) in whihc ordinary voters are just statists who have No voice for anyone except approving one of the two
preselected by big money candidates. It's time we put a stop to this nonsense or we'll all go down with ship.
Anyway, on a positive note
"Each time a person stands up for an ideal to improve the lot of others, they send forth a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistence." RFK
This budget deal is absolutely disgusting. More financial deregulation, the potential for
a second TARP, cuts to pensions, and cuts to funding for Pell Grants to help out students.
Once again, the people lose.
So tough, so strong, and so right. And I love that she's not afraid to rip into Democrats
and the White House for their complicity in selling out our country and tax dollars to the
big banks. We need more strong politicians on both sides of the aisle like this.
It's not party specific, though the Republicans are the worst. Both parties are to be
blame. The biggest blame goes to the Americans who do not vote and those who have no clue who
or what they are voting for. The government is the way it is, it's because of the attitude of
Americans towards politics. Majority do not give a shit and hence you have that pile up in
Washington and states legislature.
Elizabeth Warren is like a fictional do gooder character from Hollywood. No one take her
seriously.
Blame all the politicians you want, you Americans voting or not voting are the lousiest
employers in the world, because you hire a bunch of corruptors into your government. These
corruptors in fact control your lives.
They abuse your money, spending every penny on everything but on you. You would not hand
over your wallet or bank accounts to a strangers, yet are precisely doing that by putting
these corruptors in the government.
This speech encapsulates and exposes all that is wrong with America in general and with
our governance in particular. Taking the heinous provision out of the bill would be a great
first baby step toward cleaning up our politics, economy and collective spirit as a nation.
All the "smart money" says that Warren is engaged in a Quixotic attempt to do something good
in a system that is irredeemably corrupted by money and the lust for power. The cynics may be
right, perhaps America is doomed to be consumed by the parasites to the last drop of
blood...but maybe not. Maybe this ugly indefensibly corrupt malevolent move to put the
taxpayers back on the hook for the next trillion dollar bail out theft will be sufficient to
wake up hundreds of millions of us. When the people wake up and turn on the lights, the
crooks and the legally corrupt will slither away back into their hole...and many may just
wind up in prison, where they belong. But so long as corrupt dirty dastardly interests can
keepAmerica deceived and asleep, they will continue to drain our nation's life's blood dry.
Please share this video widely. If half as many folks watch this speech as watched the Miley
Cyrus "Wrecking Ball" YouTube, the provision to which Warren is objecting will be taken out
very quickly indeed.
As George Carlin said a decade ago,who are we going to replace these politicians with?
They did not fall out of the sky or come from a distant planet. They are US. You can vote all
you want and replace every last one of them but nothing will change. It is human nature.
Besides the road from being on the local town council, to the mayor,Gov then into the Capital
is littered with test to weed out anyone who might really pose a danger to the system. The
occasional odd one that does make it to power is castrated or there simply to give the
illusion that elections matter. Unless you can eliminate the attraction of greed,ego and
power nothing will ever change. Just a quick look back at history tells you what is happening
now and what will be going on in our future. The only difference is there are more zeros.
"... Although the causal relationships are difficult to untangle, there are solid grounds for believing that the rise in monopoly power has played a role in exacerbating income inequality, weakening workers' bargaining power, and slowing the rate of innovation. ..."
"... The debate about how to regulate the sector is eerily reminiscent of the debate over financial regulation in the early 2000s. Proponents of a light regulatory touch argued that finance was too complicated for regulators to keep up with innovation, and that derivatives trading allows banks to make wholesale changes to their risk profile in the blink of an eye. And the financial industry put its money where its mouth was, paying salaries so much higher than those in the public sector that any research assistant the Federal Reserve System trained to work on financial issues would be enticed with offers exceeding what their boss's boss was earning. ..."
"... It is a problem that cannot be overcome without addressing fundamental questions about the role of the state, privacy, and how US firms can compete globally against China, where the government is using domestic tech companies to collect data on its citizens at an exponential pace. And yet many would prefer to avoid them. ..."
"... At this point, ideas for regulating Big Tech are just sketches, and of course more serious analysis is warranted. An open, informed discussion that is not squelched by lobbying dollars is a national imperative. ..."
The debate about how to regulate
the tech sector is eerily reminiscent of the debate over financial regulation in the early 2000s. Fortunately, one US politician
has mustered the courage to call for a total rethink of America's exceptionally permissive merger and acquisition policy over the
past four decades.
CAMBRIDGE – Displaying a degree of courage and clarity that is difficult to overstate, US senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth
Warren has taken on Big Tech, including Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple. Warren's proposals amount to a
total rethink of the
United States' exceptionally permissive merger and acquisition policy over the past four decades. Indeed, Big Tech is only the poster
child for a significant increase
in monopoly and oligopoly power across a broad swath of the American economy. Although the best approach is still far from clear,
I
could not agree more that something needs to done, especially when it comes to Big Tech's ability to buy out potential competitors
and use their platform dominance to move into other lines of business.
Warren is courageous because Big Tech is big money for most leading Democratic candidates, particularly progressives, for whom
California is a veritable campaign-financing ATM. And although one can certainly object, Warren is not alone in thinking that the
tech giants have gained excessive market dominance; in fact, it is one of the few issues in Washington on which there is some semblance
of agreement . Other
candidates, most notably Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, have also taken
principled stands
Although the causal relationships are difficult to untangle, there are solid grounds for believing that the rise in monopoly power
has
played a role in exacerbating income inequality, weakening workers' bargaining power, and slowing the rate of innovation. And,
perhaps outside of China, it is a global problem, because US tech monopolies have often achieved market dominance before local regulators
and politicians know what has happened. The European Union, in particular, has been trying to steer its own course on
technology regulation . Recently,
the United Kingdom commissioned an expert group, chaired by former President Barack Obama's chief economist (and now my colleague)
Jason Furman , that produced a
very useful report on approaches to the tech sector.
The debate about how to regulate the sector is eerily reminiscent of the debate over financial regulation in the early 2000s.
Proponents of a light regulatory touch argued that finance was too complicated for regulators to keep up with innovation, and that
derivatives trading allows banks to make wholesale changes to their risk profile in the blink of an eye. And the financial industry
put its money where its mouth was, paying salaries so much higher than those in the public sector that any research assistant the
Federal Reserve System trained to work on financial issues would be enticed with offers exceeding what their boss's boss was earning.
There will be similar problems staffing tech regulatory offices and antitrust legal divisions if the push for tighter regulation
gains traction. To succeed, political leaders need to be focused and determined, and not easily bought. One only has to recall the
2008 financial crisis and its painful aftermath to comprehend what can happen when a sector becomes too politically influential.
And the US and world economy are, if anything, even more vulnerable to Big Tech than to the financial sector, owing both to cyber
aggression and vulnerabilities in social media that can pervert political debate.
Another parallel with the financial sector is the outsize role of US regulators. As with US foreign policy, when they sneeze,
the entire world can catch a cold. The 2008 financial crisis was sparked by vulnerabilities in the US and the United Kingdom, but
quickly went global. A US-based cyber crisis could easily do the same. This creates an "externality," or global commons problem,
because US regulators allow risks to build up in the system without adequately considering international implications.
It is a problem that cannot be overcome without addressing fundamental questions about the role of the state, privacy, and how
US firms can compete globally against China, where the government is using domestic tech companies to collect data on its citizens
at an exponential pace. And yet many would prefer to avoid them.
That's why there has been
fierce pushback against Warren for daring to suggest that even if many services seem to be provided for free, there might still
be something wrong. There was the same kind of pushback from the financial sector fifteen years ago, and from the railroads back
in the late 1800s. Writing in the March 1881 issue of The Atlantic , the progressive activist Henry Demarest Lloyd
warned that,
"Our treatment of 'the railroad problem' will show the quality and caliber of our political sense. It will go far in foreshadowing
the future lines of our social and political growth. It may indicate whether the American democracy, like all the democratic experiments
which have preceded it, is to become extinct because the people had not wit enough or virtue enough to make the common good supreme."
Lloyd's words still ring true today. At this point, ideas for regulating Big Tech are just sketches, and of course more serious
analysis is warranted. An open, informed discussion that is not squelched by lobbying dollars is a national imperative.
The debate
that Warren has joined is not about whether to establish socialism. It is about making capitalist competition fairer and, ultimately,
stronger.
Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University
and recipient of the 2011 Deutsche Bank Prize in Financial Economics, was the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund
from 2001 to 2003. The co-author of This Time is Different:
Eight Centuries of Financial Folly , his new book, The Curse of Cash , was released in August 2016.
April 29, 2019 Most
Americans Reject Trump's "America First" Policy by Lawrence Wittner As president, Donald Trump has leaned heavily upon what he has called an "America First"
policy. This nationalist approach involves walking away from cooperative agreements with other
nations and relying, instead, upon a dominant role for the United States, undergirded by
military might, in world affairs.
Nevertheless, as numerous recent opinion polls reveal, most Americans don't support this
policy.
The reaction of the American public to Trump's withdrawal of the United States from key
international agreements has been hostile. According to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll conducted
in early May 2018, shortly before Trump announced a pullout from the Iran nuclear agreement, 54
percent of respondents backed the agreement. Only 29 percent favored a pullout. In July 2018,
when the Chicago Council on Global Affairs surveyed Americans about their reaction to Trump's
withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate agreement, it found that 66
favored remaining within the Iran accord, while 68 percent favored remaining within the Paris
accord―an increase of six percent in support for each of these agreements over the
preceding year.
Most Americans also rejected Trump's 2019 withdrawal of the United States from the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia. A survey that February by the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs reported that 54 percent of Americans opposed withdrawal from
this nuclear arms control treaty and only 41 percent favored it. Furthermore, when pollsters
presented arguments for and against withdrawal from the treaty to Americans before asking for
their opinion, 66 percent opposed withdrawal.
In addition, despite Trump's sharp criticism of U.S. allies, most Americans expressed their
support for a cooperative relationship with them. The Chicago Council's July 2018 survey found
that 66 percent of Americans agreed that the United States should make decisions with its
allies, even if it meant that the U.S. government would have to go along with a policy other
than its own. Only 32 percent disagreed. Similarly, a March 2019 Pew Research poll found that
54 percent of American respondents wanted the U.S. government to take into account the
interests of its allies, even if that meant compromising with them, while only 40 percent said
the U.S. government should follow its national interests when its allies strongly
disagreed.
Moreover, despite the Trump administration's attacks upon the United Nations and other
international human rights entities―including pulling out of the UN Human Rights Council,
withdrawing from UNESCO, defunding UN relief efforts for Palestinians, and threatening to
prosecute the judges of the International Criminal Court―public support for international
institutions remained strong. In July 2018, 64 percent of Americans surveyed told the Chicago
Council's pollsters that the United States should be more willing to make decisions within the
framework of the UN, even if that meant going along with a policy other than its own. This was
the highest level of agreement on this question since 2004, when it was first asked. In
February 2019, 66 percent of U.S. respondents to a Gallup survey declared that the UN played "a
necessary role in the world today."
But what about expanding U.S. military power? Given the Trump administration's success at
fostering a massive military buildup, isn't there widespread enthusiasm about that?
On this point, too, the administration's priorities are strikingly out of line with the
views of most Americans. A National Opinion Research Center (NORC) survey of U.S. public
opinion, conducted from April through November 2018, found that only 27 percent of respondents
thought that the U.S. government spent "too little" on the military, while 66 percent thought
that it spent either "too much" or "about the right amount." By contrast, 77 percent said the
government spent "too little" on education, 71 percent said it spent "too little" on assistance
to the poor, and 70 percent said it spent "too little" on improving and protecting the nation's
health.
In February 2019, shortly after Trump indicated he would seek another hefty spending
increase in the U.S. military budget, bringing it to an unprecedented $750 billion, only 25
percent of American respondents to a Gallup pollstated that the U.S. government was spending
too little on the military. Another 73 percent said that the government was spending too much
on it or about the right amount.
Moreover, when it comes to using U.S. military might, Americans seem considerably less
hawkish than the Trump administration. According to a July 2018 survey by the Eurasia Group
Foundation, U.S. respondents―asked what should be done if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program"―favored diplomatic responses over military responses by 80
percent to 12.5 percent. That same month, as the Chicago Council noted, almost three times as
many Americans believed that admiration for the United States (73 percent) was more important
than fear of their country (26 percent) for achieving U.S. foreign policy goals.
Unlike the president, who has boasted of U.S. weapons sales to other countries, particularly
to Saudi Arabia, Americans are also rather uncomfortable about the U.S. role as the world's
pre-eminent arms dealer. In November 2018, 58 percent of Americans surveyed told YouGov that
they wanted the U.S. government to curtail or halt its arms sales to the Saudi Arabian
government, while only 13 percent wanted to maintain or increase such sales.
Finally, an overwhelming majority of Americans continues to express its support for nuclear
arms control and disarmament. In the aftermath of Trump's withdrawal of the United States from
the INF treaty and announcement of plans to build new nuclear weapons, 87 percent of
respondents to a February 2019 pollby Chicago Council said they wanted the United States and
Russia to come to an agreement to limit nuclear arms.
The real question is not whether most Americans disagree with Trump's "America First"
national security policy but, rather, what they are willing to do about it. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Lawrence WittnerDr. Lawrence Wittner
is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb
(Stanford University Press.)
Creepy neocon Joe Biden has a lot of skeletons on his closet. Especially on Ukraine. They
will be gradually exposed. The expose of his dealings in Ukraine already stated.
Notable quotes:
"... He is the distilled essence of neoliberal Fake Resistance and Inauthentic Opposition. ..."
"... You even hold votes, but the system is rigged, and in fact, it's become effectively you have a one-party rule ..."
"... A second Trump term is not a pleasant thing to contemplate. Biden says he "can't stand by and let that happen." ..."
"... The irony is the best thing he could do to stop a second Trump term is to stand aside and tell the rest of the candidate field and voters to congeal behind Sanders. The corporate-neoliberal Democratic Clinton-Obama model is what put the supremely dangerous orange monster in the White House in the first place in 2016. ..."
"... If Joe really hates fascism as much as his launch video suggests, then he needs to de-launch. Maybe some activists in Iowa or New Hampshire can set up for his final, politically fatal gropes. ..."
Joe Biden can wave the bloody flag of Charlottesville all he wants.He is the distilled
essence of neoliberal Fake Resistance and Inauthentic Opposition. Barring an economic
meltdown between now and the first Tuesday in November of 2020, look for him to get knocked out
by the orange beast in the general election if the "Stop Sanders" Democrats are successful.
Keep your passports up to date. Trumpism is Amerikaner fascism, eager to up its ugly game by
stepping beyond mere flirtation with mass violence. As Paul Krugman recently told a nonplussed
Anderson Cooper on CNN, "if you're not terrified" yet, then "you]re not paying attention":
Cooper: "You write that it's very much up in the air whether America as we know it will
survive."
Krugman: "Institutions depend upon the willingness of people to obey norms, and occasionally
to say, okay, 'this is not how we do things in our country.' This didn't start with Trump.
There's been a steady erosion of those norms. This has been building for a long time, and we're
very close to the edge right now."
Cooper: "When you say close to the edge, what does that mean to you?"
Krugman: "You know, on paper, we'll stay a democracy
, but I worry very much about a sort of Hungary-type situation where you have on paper the
institutions of democracy. You even hold votes, but the system is rigged, and in fact, it's
become effectively you have a one-party rule We're very close. If Trump is re-elected if
the Republicans retake control of the House, what are the odds that we will really have a
functioning democracy after that?"
Cooper: "I mean, that's a pretty terrifying idea"
Krugman: "If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention"
What Biden said in his launch video yesterday morning is correct: "If we give Donald Trump
eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this
nation We can't forget what happened in Charlottesville." A second Trump term is not a pleasant
thing to contemplate. Biden says he "can't stand by and let that happen."
The irony is the best thing he could do to stop a second Trump term is to stand aside and
tell the rest of the candidate field and voters to congeal behind Sanders. The
corporate-neoliberal Democratic Clinton-Obama model is what put the supremely dangerous orange
monster in the White House in the first place in 2016.
The establishment Democrats, who prefer barbarism to even the mildest hint of socialism, are
working to give the monster a second term. If Joe really hates fascism as much as his launch
video suggests, then he needs to de-launch. Maybe some activists in Iowa or New Hampshire can
set up for his final, politically fatal gropes. Extreme times call for extreme measures.
His candidacy is terrifying.
Since Joe Biden has entered the race for the presidency, some media outlets have been
pointing to his atrocious legislative record as a Senator, including his support for
tough-on-crime bills, loose gun control measures, opposition to school desegregation, and his
vote in favor of the Iraq War, among other things.
Greater scrutiny, however, should be placed on Biden's role in supporting dubious foreign
policies during his tenure as Vice-President under Barack Obama.
In Iraq, for example, where he took the lead on foreign policy initiatives, Biden curried
favor with the corrupt Nouri al-Maliki whom locals considered to be a "Shia Saddam." After
Arab-Spring style protests erupted, Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry quietly worked to
help install Haidar al-Abadi who was committed to privatizing Iraq's economy in line with the
original goals of the 2003 U.S. military invasion.
On Afghanistan, Biden was the supposed dove of the administration; however, his blueprint
called for heavier reliance on Special Forces, air power and drone strikes. He ultimately sided
with military commanders in authorizing a broader mission that came to assume many parallels to
the Vietnam War.
As one who came of age in the 1960s and opposed the Vietnam War during his first run for
Congress, Biden should have known better.
However, as the ultimate Washington insider, Biden long ago had learned to make friends with
the military and to master the rhetoric of framing overseas military interventions in a liberal
humanitarian rhetoric.
Following the ouster of Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi in the Operation Odyssey Dawn,
Biden bragged that the United States "didn't lose a single life," and that"this is more of the
prescription for how to deal with the world as we go forward than it has been in the past."
However, Libya has since fallen into sectarian warfare, with over 180,000 Libyans risking their
lives to escape to Italy. The country is being taken over by a brutal CIA-trained warlord,
Khalifa al-Hiftar, whose forces have been accused of committing unlawful executions, torture,
beheadings and bombing schools.
Biden's Russophobia was apparent in a January-February 2018 essay in Foreign Affairs,
where he claimed that Russia had refused cooperation with the West at the end of the Cold War
and was now "brazenly assaulting the foundations of Western democracy around the world"
including by invading neighboring countries such as Georgia and Ukraine.
However, it was the United States which failed to abide by a promise made by the George H.
W. Bush administration that it would not expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
into Eastern Europe, and a European Union investigation blamed then-Georgian leader Mikheil
Saakashvili for instigating the 2008 Russia-Georgia war after trying to seize South
Ossetia.
Sober analysts such as historian Stephen Cohen have also made clear that Russia acted
primarily in a defensive capacity in Ukraine where the Obama administration supported an
illegal coup in February 2014 that ousted the corrupt but democratically elected pro-Russian
Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and led to a civil war when the Eastern Donbas and Luhansk
provinces voted to separate.
Biden visited Kiev numerous times during Ukraine's subsequent military campaign that had
a destructive local effect and became close with the new Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko,
CEO of a chocolate conglomerate with a net worth of $1.3 billion who was so unpopular that he
lost the recent 2019 election to a comedian with no previous political experience.
Right after the coup, Biden's son, Hunter joined the board of one of Ukraine's most
profitable and corrupt energy companies, Burisma, which gave the potential to the Bidens of
becoming billionaires. Journalist Peter Schweizer points out that Biden regularly consulted
with Poroshenko by telephone and made five trips to the Ukraine while his son's business
partners prepared to strike a profitable deal with controversial and reportedly violent
oligarchs Ihor Kolomoisky and Mykola Zlochevsky.
Joe Biden may want to tout his foreign policy experience during the 2020 campaign and
present himself as an elder statesman who can bring dignity back to the Oval Office and repair
America's relationships around the world.
However, his record as Vice-President and his long record as a Senator demonstrate that both
his judgment and ethics are dubious and that we need a new generation of leaders.
Why The Tax Cuts And Jobs Act (TCJA) Led To
Buybacks Rather Than Investment
Anne Marie Knott
Contributor
Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Manufacturing
The Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA) of December 2017 had two main provisions affecting
corporate taxes. First, it reduced corporate taxes, changing them from a graduated structure with a maximum rate of
35% to a flat rate of 21%. Second, it changed taxation of foreign profits. Previously these profits weren't taxed
until repatriated, so companies kept their profits abroad. In fact, an
estimated $2.8 trillion of foreign profits had been accumulated
. The TJCA changed the law such that profits are
taxed only where earned. To facilitate the transition between the two systems, the TJCA offered a tax "holiday" on
pre-2018 foreign profits at a reduced rate of 15.5% on liquid assets (and 8% percent on other assets). The underlying
logic for the TCJA was that allowing companies to keep a greater share of profits, would stimulate investments in
long term growth. Instead, the dominant company response to the TCJA was stock buybacks. For the first three quarters
of 2018,
buybacks were $583.4 billion
(up up 52.6% from 2017). In contrast,
aggregate capital investment
increased 8.8% over 2017, while R&D investment growth at US public companies
increased 12.5% over 2017 growth.
What are buybacks
Stock buybacks (also known as share repurchases) refer to company purchases of stock from its existing
shareholders. These shares are purchased at the market price, then returned to the treasury, thereby reducing the
number of shares outstanding. Because there are fewer shares, earnings per share (EPS) goes up, and because stock
price is based on multiples of EPS, stock price typically goes up as well.
Accordingly, buybacks are a way of returning excess cash to shareholders. The other way to return cash to
shareholders is by paying dividends. The advantage of buybacks over dividends, is they are more flexible, in that
they don't imply a permanent commitment to return cash to shareholders. Prior to a 1982 rule change by the SEC,
dividends were the most common means of returning cash to shareholders. Since that time, buybacks have risen
steadily, such that by 1997 buybacks exceeded dividends, as shown in the figure below. The figure shows the trend
toward buybacks was in effect long before the TCJA. The TJCA merely put more cash in the hands of companies,
triggering a surge in buybacks.
Buybacks Have Grown Since 1982
MSCI
This surge created a backlash culminating in the The Accountable Capitalism Act, a federal bill introduced by
Senator Elizabeth Warren in August 2018.
"The surge in corporate buybacks is driving wealth inequality and wage
stagnation in our country by hurting long-term economic growth and shared prosperity for workers," said Sen Tammy
Baldwin (D-Wis.) one of the bill's co-sponsors, in a
news release
.
The record on buybacks and growth
Is Senator Baldwin right that the surge in buybacks is hurting economic growth? The short answer is, no. A
study by MSCI
looking at the impact of buybacks on long-term growth, concluded, "Contrary to concerns expressed
by many observers, we found no compelling evidence of a negative impact from share buybacks on long-term value
creation for investors overall. In each of the areas we examined, beginning with MSCI ESG Ratings but also including
CAPEX, R&D, new debt issues, and, most importantly, value creation, the companies that were most actively
distributing cash to their investors were also the strongest companies."
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
Why did the TCJA trigger buybacks rather than investment?
To answer the question of why buybacks, it's helpful to focus on R&D, because R&D is a leading investment -- it
creates opportunities. Capital investment then follows to exploit those opportunities. In short, the reason the
TCJA didn't increase R&D investment is that most companies were already
over-investing
in R&D.
Companies who conduct R&D, can be characterized by how productive their R&D is, using a
measure called RQ
. Because RQ is based on simple economic principles relating a company's R&D to its revenue
growth, it can be used to compute the optimal level of R&D spending for each company. This is the level of investment
that generates the maximum profits. The calculation involves a standard piece of math called a partial derivative.
In essence, it's an exercise in marginal returns -- determining the point at which an additional dollar spent on R&D
begins to reduce profits.
RQ is estimated from financial data, so it's possible to compute the optimal R&D investment for all public
companies, and compare it to companies' actual investment. The comparison is captured in the figure below. The
horizontal axis captures companies' optimal R&D, while the vertical axis captures their actual investment. Each
company is represented by a dot. If companies are spending optimally, they should line up on the diagonal. What you
can see however, is that very few companies are spending optimally. In fact, fewer than 4% of companies are within
plus or minus 10% of their optimum.
Most Companies Overinvest In R&D
Author
Most people complain that companies are under-investing in R&D, but in fact, that's true for only 33% of
companies. On average, those companies are leaving $36 million on the table each year in foregone profits. This is
the amount their profits would increase if they increased their R&D investment 10%. They might be able to invest even
more over time, but typically a 10% increase is what a company can comfortably absorb in one year.
The more common problem is actually over-investment. Fully 63% of companies are spending beyond optimal levels.
Not only are there more of these companies -- almost twice as many, but their mistake is far more costly. On average
these
companies are leaving $258 million of foregone profits on the table. This is the amount they could
increase profits by cutting R&D to the optimal level.
This is why the TCJA hasn't increased growth. Providing companies with more cash will only lead to investment and
growth if companies have profitable investment opportunities, and lack cash to exploit them. The fact buybacks were
growing before the TJCA was implemented, is evidence they lacked these opportunities.
Given that companies are already investing R&D at optimal levels, if we want to stimulate growth, companies first
need to become more productive with their R&D. Increasing their RQ packs two growth punches: it increases growth
from each dollar of R&D at current investment levels, and it increases the level of optimal R&D investment. Once
companies generate greater growth from their R&D, capital investment can follow.
Anne Marie Knott is the Robert and Barbara Frick Professor in Business at Washington University in St. Louis, founder
and Chief Scientist at
amkANALYTICS
, and author of
How Innovation Really Works
.
"... Trump also seems to think he stands a better chance in a straight fight against Bernie (lobbyist vs grass roots) than a mixed bout against Biden (lobbyist vs lobbyist), so he's looking to take down the Clinton's, Obamas, and the whole motley crew to give Bernie an easier ride to the general. ..."
Trump apparently thinks a Bernie primary victory along with another year of
counter-Russiagate investigations will break the corporate Dems, and give DC lobbyists no
place to lay their campaign cash but at his feet. Instead of draining the swamp, Trump wants
to monopolize it.
Trump also seems to think he stands a better chance in a straight fight against Bernie
(lobbyist vs grass roots) than a mixed bout against Biden (lobbyist vs lobbyist), so he's
looking to take down the Clinton's, Obamas, and the whole motley crew to give Bernie an
easier ride to the general.
Never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake, and especially when he's making
that mistake against your other opponent. If Trump is so deluded as to think Biden is a more
dangerous opponent than Bernie, then I say let him keep riling up Dem party insurgents and
reminding Dem Exiters and indies why they want to vote for Bernie.
Because that hornet's nest he's poking today will be coming for him tomorrow.
Still, since some political observers and journalists haven't wrapped their head around the
reality that he could be more than a spoiler who kneecaps the party en route to a complicated
convention and maybe another loss to Donald Trump, Sanders has been able to do this without the
attention or scrutiny that anyone else with his poll numbers, fundraising, and crowds would
face.
"There's a three-out-of-four chance we are not the nominee," Faiz Shakir, Sanders's current
campaign manager, says he tells the senator, "but that one-in-four chance is better than anyone
else in the field."
... ... ...
So he's eagerly gotten into fights, like one over the weekend with the Center for American
Progress about a video produced by an affiliated website that speciously accused him of
profiting off his 2016 run. And then he's fundraised by citing the fights as evidence of
resistance to the revolution he's promising.
span y gjohnsit on Mon, 04/29/2019 - 11:53am Donald Trump The Liar is no fan of
Bernie Sanders, so any advice he gives is totally self-serving. Nevertheless, he can
occasionally tell the truth, if only by accident.
....for the more traditional, but not very bright, Sleepy Joe Biden. Here we go again
Bernie, but this time please show a little more anger and indignation when you get
screwed!
Trump only cares about this primary rigging because it
makes the Dems look bad, but that doesn't mean that he's wrong.
In related news, the dark
money is rolling into the Democratic Party.
A group of Democratic operatives are launching a $60 million political group with plans to
reclaim values-laden terms like "freedom" and "opportunity" for their party ahead of the 2020
election.
..."It's no great secret that the presidential race will be won or lost in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio -- if we can win back the narrative that the word 'Democrat' equals
people who are fighting for folks who work hard every day, we can continue to win elections,"
Riddle said. "If [Democrats] get defined as being about socialism and these other words
people can hear about out of Washington, then I worry."
Future Majority has enlisted advisers including Dan Sena, who was executive director of
the DCCC for the last election, and Julianna Smoot, a deputy campaign manager on Barack
Obama's 2012 reelection effort. Two major Democratic donors are co-chairing the group: Philip
Munger, son of Berkshire Hathaway billionaire Charles Munger, and Dan Tierney, founder of
high-speed trading company GETGO. Keith Mestrich, president and CEO of Amalgamated Bank, is
also helping fund the group.
Ah, yes. CEOs and billionaires "fighting for folks who work hard every day". I guess the
question here is who are "folks"?
During the 2018 midterm election, Future Majority briefed the DCCC on matters including
strategies for talking to voters about the economy and how swing voters viewed the Democratic
and Republican parties. Future Majority helped the DCCC "round out a narrative" that spoke to
a broader swath of voters, Sena said, particularly when it came to discussing the economy.
Gee, lemme guess what that narrative about the economy sounded like. Speaking of narratives, this
has got to be my favorite spin so far because it is so damn elitist.
Rather than a politics financed by special interests, Sanders is drawing funds from an army
of local activists, whose commitment to the cause induces them to chip in $20 here or $40
there.
... Call me a contrarian, but I have my doubts about this mode of financing, too. Again,
stipulating that donors have access or influence that average voters do not possess, is it
really better for activists to be the main source of finance? Corporate lobbyists are going
to invest in politics for their stockholders' interests, but activists have a wide array of
ideological views that are often out of step with the rest of society. The Sanders voters in
particular are far to the left of the average American -- and probably the average Democrat,
too.
We complain so much about political polarization these days, and I think with good reason.
But to what extent does the polarization in the last generation lead back to this revolution
in campaign finance? Are grassroots extremists pulling candidates to the ideological fringes
by increments of $20 apiece? It's very possible.
All of this speaks to some inconvenient truths that Americans have failed to fully grok:
Politics is very expensive, somebody has to pay for it, and whoever does is going to get
special access. Who do we want those persons to be? Special interests, activists, somebody
else? We collectively don't know, as we tend not to think much at all about campaign finance.
Maybe if a socialist captures the Democratic nomination this cycle, we'll think a little more
clearly about whether we want our local hippies bankrolling politics.
He even manages to punch some hippies. He should get extra points for that.
Despite Joe Biden's popularity among Democrat voters, strategists in the party think Biden running for the
presidential nomination is a "bad, bad idea."
"This last election cycle, we've seen a whole new level of energy that has emerged through a lot of fresh faces,
and the party has moved in that direction and wants to hear new ideas and different messages," Norm Sterzenbach, a
former executive director of the Iowa Democratic Party who now is a consultant,
told
McClatchy.
"I'm not convinced Biden is the right way to go at this point in time," Jim Manley, a Democrat operative said in
the McClatchy report.
The folks I've talked to are a little taken aback" with his interest in running, Manley said. According to
McClatchy:
McClatchy interviewed 31 Democratic strategists -- pollsters, opposition research experts, media consultants,
ex-party officials, and communications specialists -- from across the country about a potential Biden campaign.
Nine agreed to speak on the record; all others quoted anonymously do not plan to be affiliated with any candidate
running in the presidential primary.
Strikingly, these conversations yielded a similar view: The Democratic political community is more broadly and
deeply pessimistic about Biden's potential candidacy than is commonly known. While these strategists said they
respect Biden, they cited significant disadvantages for his campaign -- from the increasingly liberal and non-white
Democratic electorate to policy baggage from his years in the Senate and a field of rivals that includes new,
fresh-faced candidates.
McClatchy quotes an anonymous source when comparing a Biden presidential bid with Hillary Clinton's failed
campaign.
"We heard it with Hillary, and we saw it happened," the source said. "And there's a lot of reason to think he
would wind up a significantly weaker candidate than Hillary."
"Many of these strategists say that if Biden did win the nomination, they don't think he would have a better
chance of defeating Donald Trump than other top-tier contenders such as Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand,"
McClatchy reported, adding that this is despite the fact that many Democrats see Biden as the "safe choice."
A strategist who is named in the McClatchy piece puts identity politics into the analysis of Biden's chances to
finally make it to the White House.
"Let's be honest: He's an older white guy," said Jim Cauley, a Kentucky-based Democratic strategist. "Does he
connect with the base?"
But experience counts, another Democrat pollster said in the McClatchy report.
"He was Barack Obama's vice president," Celinda Lake said. "And so there's no question in people's minds he can
handle the job, knows the job, can do a good job."
But sometimes the longer one's record, the more problematic the campaign trail can be.
"He brings a lot to the table in terms of strengths," Mike Mikus, a Pittsburgh-based Democratic strategist said.
"But because of his long record in the Senate, unlike a lot of the other candidates, he has a lot more pitfalls that
he faces."
But according to a CNN
poll
, rank and file Democrats like the idea of a Biden candidacy:
More than six in 10 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters say former Vice President Joe Biden should make a
run for president, according to a recent CNN poll conducted by
SSRS
, and half of all
Americans say they would be at least somewhat likely to back him should he run for the White House.
Among Democrats, Biden has greater support than anyone else tested: 44 percent say they are very likely to
support him, 32 percent say so of Harris, 30 percent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, 21 percent Massachusetts Sen.
Elizabeth Warren, 19 percent New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, and 15 percent former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke.
President Trump on Monday attacked former vice president Joe Biden as "another low I.Q. individual," pointing to comments
the Democrat inadvertently made Saturday night suggesting he had already launched a 2020 White House bid. "Joe Biden got tongue
tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for President," Trump
said in a tweet. "Get used to it, another low I.Q. individual!"
My god.. You seriously can't make this stuff up... Trump takes clueless to a whole other level... There really is not a word that
describes the lack of self awareness Trump has... How can anyone take this man seriously???
BobinMinnesota, 1 month ago
So according to Trump this weekend, McCain teamed up with the Democrats, Hillary, Obama, Steele, Buzzfeed (and other news
media, except Fox) along with the FBI (Comey, Strzok, McCabe) and CIA (Clapper and Brennan) to try and get Hillary elected by
posting a fake dossier report in the news media? But they didn't succeed, so now they are trying to continue to ruin Trump using
Mueller and Saturday Night Live too.
"... "Joe Biden got tongue tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for President," Trump said in a tweet. "Get used to it, another low I.Q. individual!" ..."
President Trump on Monday attacked former vice president Joe Biden as "another low I.Q. individual," pointing to comments
the Democrat inadvertently made Saturday night suggesting he had already launched a 2020 White House bid. "Joe Biden got tongue
tied over the weekend when he was unable to properly deliver a very simple line about his decision to run for President," Trump
said in a tweet. "Get used to it, another low I.Q. individual!"
My god.. You seriously can't make this stuff up... Trump takes clueless to a whole other level... There really is not a word that
describes the lack of self awareness Trump has... How can anyone take this man seriously???
Worth reading, as are most things Jonathan Cook writes.
But I'm not sure I accept his notion of The Lobby's hold in the United States weakening
in any way. Yes, there finally are a few people in Congress who speak truth for the first
time ever. But look at the choke-hold Israel has on the county, despite those minor
influences. Many of Trump's most senior appointments are people serving Israeli interests to
a record degree -- Bolton, Pompeo, Abrahams, Kushner, and others.
And look at the things, not his to legally dispose of at all, that Trump has "given"
Israel. It's shocking, but there are almost no voices in the United States saying so.
And by all accounts, Trump's big "peace plan" could have been written by members of
Netanyahu's staff. There is no pretense of working with two sides to solve a problem
involving two sides.
We have matters like Trump's "Syria withdrawal" reduced to dust under Israeli influence,
for there is no other serious known interest keeping American military, illegally, in
northwestern Syria.
Israel just wants instability for Syria and to deprive that state of the use of its own
resources. It's just gangsterism, but America fully goes along.
And the steady drumbeat against law-abiding Iran is becoming deafening.
There is only one interest pushing this pointlessly destructive policy, Israel with its
intense desire to dominate its region and benefit from all the favor of the United States in
doing so.
America's own long-term interests all dictate that it should work to establish good
relations with Iran, a major and peaceful state with many things to offer in trade and
friendship, but America cannot do so under Israel's withering influence. America just keeps
flagellating itself to exhibit its reverence towards one small and extremely belligerent
state.
Israel is under absolutely no threat from Iran. It's just empty rhetoric, an excuse for
itself promoting threats and belligerence.
Imagine a non-nuclear state attacking a nuclear state such as Israel, one with a sizable
arsenal? One, moreover, doubly protected by America's nuclear arsenal. It's a darkly
laughable idea, but it is never laughed at by anyone in Washington, it is only
ritualistically honored and repeated.
Israel's destructive viewpoint prevails in almost all important matters. Even much of
America's intense Russophobia reflects stoking by Israeli interests. Israel simply views
Russia, without saying so publicly, as a big stumbling block to the kind of American
international dominance Israel would be very happy seeing.
There is not much to be hopeful about that I see. Perhaps, if Israel keeps so grotesquely
over-playing its hand, there will be a backlash in the United States. But that's only a
"perhaps." Americans, on the whole, just go right along with things, much resembling a herd
of cattle quietly grazing in a pasture while just over the distant hills, vicious armies
clash and threaten their future.
The received wisdom about Joe is that he is the ultimate nice man. From personal experience
with him I do not think so.
At his request I took an Arab client to see Biden in his offices in the senate and found
that he bristled with hostility against the man before he had said a word about anything. Biden
was so clearly programmed by his staff handlers to be completely a Zionist asset and hostile to
Arabs that what there was of his mind was completely unreachable.
On that occasion the Arab in my company was so bold as to express a hope that peace could be
achieved through a two state solution. Biden flew into a rage and yelled at him that if he did
not admit that Arab intransigence was wholly responsible for Israel's problems, he would
physically throw his visitor out of the offices. Biden's staff handlers glowed with
satisfaction. It was clear that the staffies wanted to expose him to Middle Easterners from
time to time for the purpose of keeping him focused on the issue.
I told Biden that the man was trying to be polite and compromising and he told me to shut
up. One of the staff whispered to him and he then thanked me for my service. It was clear that
they had him under excellent control.
A big problem with Uncle Joe is that he ain't too bright and that unfortunate fact is sadly
apparent to all who deal with him. His ridiculous public statements are legendary and caused
not by clumsiness with language. No. They are caused by a basic lack of intelligence .
His habit of pawing at women, and children unlucky enough to be with him in public is also
legendary. The Democrat politico in Hawaii who complained about him experienced what can only
be described as his normal mode of operation. The occasion in which Jeff Sessions pushed
Biden's hands away from a 12 year old girl is one of many similar spectacles available on the
internet if you want to take the time to find it. The picture at the head of this piece is
animated. Double click on it.
And then there was the Anita Hill hearing during Clarence Thomas's confirmation tot the
Supreme Court. I happened to be in the States at the time and watched the whole show on TeeVee.
It was evident that he was incapable of running the hearing in such a way as to be fair to
either Thomas or Hill. It was just sad.
If the Democrats nominate this nasty chump for president they will deserve what they get,
and he will probably lose. pl
Pat, the disregard for a persons, especially a female's, personal space is what I always
deeply disliked. Both verbal and physical. Maybe someone close to me showed exactly those
features?
Perfect observation, well written: On that occasion the Arab in my company was so bold as to express a hope that peace could
be achieved through a two state solution. Biden flew into a rage and yelled at him that if he
did not admit that Arab intransigence was wholly responsible for Israel's problems, he would
physically throw his visitor out of the offices. Biden's staff handlers glowed with
satisfaction. It was clear that the staffies wanted to expose him to Middle Easterners from
time to time for the purpose of keeping him focused on the issue.
When was that? Strictly, I wonder to what extend handlers are still necessary
nowadays.
Any one who publicly boasts that he has stopped Ukraine from investigating the company who
paid his son's firm $2,000,000 per year can't be too bright.
This is going to be an interesting primary. I'm by no means a Trump supporter, but the
Democrats have just become unhinged.
The Democratic field is not just large and "diverse," it is out of touch with the public
and with reality in a great variety of different ways. Each candidate is appealing to a
different "interest group" (minority). Harris advocates reparations for the "victims of
slavery," Warren a "wealth tax" to pay off student loans, Biden courts the establishment,
Sanders counts on the college dropout crowd...
The media is spinning like a top as they woo and worship first one and then the other. As
for Biden, the media was plucking his corpse before he announced, and they are damning him
with faint praise now. They will become buzzards again soon enough.
I am playing with the idea that the Democrats know they can't win the White House in 2020 as
they are lacking anyone with the talent and are fighting against an excellent economy with
policies that the majority of Americans don't want (or at least the majority from an
electoral college perspective).
Thus, they are reverting to plan B - stay on a message that will keep their congressional
districts secure.
Biden is just an artifact from the faction that still holds out some hope of being able to
appeal to normal Americans and to not face a total slaughter in 2020 presidential
contest.
Gabbard would have been the better choice, but she's out by default because
she's ardently against the FP Borg.
Biden is not only too old for the job, but his deficiencies - that you point out - are
pretty obvious to anyone watching the man in action. But he does appear more stable and
normal than the other candidates. And there is all of the monkey business with his son and
the Ukraine that would surely present a problem.
Biden run is an attempt to prevent Sanders from taking Democratic nomination. he does not expect to win. It would enough to be
able to block Sanders,
With the rise of political
correctness and the #MeToo movement minor things can be amplified by the cable guys into something far more politically significant
than they really are. In this sense #MeToo is a clear danger for Biden...
Notable quotes:
"... The Biden dilemma is that the rationale for his candidacy, a return to pre-Trump normalcy, reinforces his biggest liabilities. His back-slapping, which with women often degenerates into caressing and hair-sniffing, is suspect in the MeToo era. His respectful attitude toward the cultural conservatism of blue-collar voters -- a major reason he has a good chance to win back the industrial states Trump turned red in 2016 -- is out of vogue. His career dates back to when liberals had to do business with segregationists inside the Democratic Party. ..."
"... If Biden makes it to the general election, he is vulnerable on all the same issues that Trump used against Hillary Clinton: his vote for the Iraq war, support for various free trade agreements, his playing of a far greater role in the 1994 crime bill than Hillary, closeness to special interests. Trump will certainly try to use Biden's handiness to negate his own problems with women. ..."
"... a tall order for an aging and undisciplined candidate... ..."
"... Meh, the same power centers have been picking winners and implicitly drowning losers since William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers. Ron Paul, Bernie Saunders and Donald Trump were completely delegitimized. ..."
"... I saw an interesting take on Biden’s touchy-feely (i.e. creepy) style. No, it’s not about sex, it’s about power. Biden who is a narcissistic hack mediocrity sees himself as having god-like qualities. Lightening bolts of wisdom and insight emanate from his fingertips. A healing touch from Biden is like a touch from Jesus who healed the sick and gave sight to the blind. Biden believes that his clumsy stroking and kissing is really a gift of supernatural transference to his uncomfortable targets. ..."
"... Joe Biden is a genuinely creepy and corrupt piece of arrogant and stupid Beltway trash. Good riddance. ..."
"... In the age of #Metoo, intent hardly matters. That the female person “felt” uncomfortable is the only evidence necessary for conviction. ..."
"... For whatever reason Biden is kicked to the curb, it is fine with me. However, in my mind, the real reason that he should be held to account is his absolute corruption in Ukraine and in the China deals, either thru his son hunter, who evidently has no morals or ethics whatsoever, or thru him directly. The press of course will not touch this. ..."
"... Biden is slime and the time is long past whereby he should assigned to the trash heap. ..."
"... Onion Joe seems to have weathered these scandals that could be seen years ago as he leads most polls with 30% of the D Primary voters. ..."
"... Biden stands for a Bush/Obama restoration and a lot of windbaggery and b.s. while monopolies, bank fraud, and predatory finance remain protected from any meaningful reform or prosecution; medical care remains ruinously expensive; and debt peonage, Gilded Age income inequality, and endless war continue unabated among other major Democratic Party policy failures. ..."
"... Biden is leading the pack at 32% followed by Bernie Sanders at 23%, Kamala Harris and Beto O’Rourke both at 8%. I wouldn’t call white males incompatible when they are 3 out of the top 4 candidates. Just sayin… ..."
He's betting he'll be another Ronald Reagan, but he might end up the Bob Dole of 2020.
Here's why.
Biden is still very much the same man Democrats rejected in 1988 and 2008,
except older and more of a relic of a bygone political era. Even Bill Clinton's retail
politics skills deteriorated with age. With 20 major candidates, he, like Jeb Bush on the
Republican side in 2016, has failed to clear the field. There are other precedents for how
this could go badly. Rudy Giuliani spent most of 2007 leading national polls of Republican
voters but then didn't come close to winning a single primary.
Yet if Harvey Mudd repeated his 1980 question to Ted Kennedy -- "Why do you want to be
president?" -- Biden could muster an answer. Politics doesn't have to be as nasty or as ugly
as it has gotten in the Trump era. We can go back to the fabled time when Democrats and
Republicans dined together. Biden can explicitly promise to bring back a bipartisan spirit
while implicitly offering to slow down the Democratic Party's leftward lurch.
That could be a compelling message for a country weary of Trump's Twitter outbursts, even
if Biden has not always been Mr. Civility himself. What's less certain is whether it is what
Democrats will want in 2020. The appeal of South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg suggests that at
least some of them do. Are there enough such voters to win the nomination?
The Biden dilemma is that the rationale for his candidacy, a return to pre-Trump
normalcy, reinforces his biggest liabilities. His back-slapping, which with women often
degenerates into caressing and hair-sniffing, is suspect in the MeToo era. His respectful
attitude toward the cultural conservatism of blue-collar voters -- a major reason he has a
good chance to win back the industrial states Trump turned red in 2016 -- is out of vogue.
His career dates back to when liberals had to do business with segregationists inside the
Democratic Party.
... ... ...
If Biden makes it to the general election, he is vulnerable on all the same issues
that Trump used against Hillary Clinton: his vote for the Iraq war, support for various free
trade agreements, his playing of a far greater role in the 1994 crime bill than Hillary,
closeness to special interests. Trump will certainly try to use Biden's handiness to negate
his own problems with women.
... he must hope Trump's failure to deliver on his more populist campaign promises will
make some of the lines of criticism that derailed Hillary implausible...
... a tall order for an aging and undisciplined candidate...
Yea, creepy Joe may not be a sexual predator, but he is an imperialist warmonger. He voted
for the Iraq war, and he believed he had the right to boss around the Ukrainian government
and preserve the sinecure he awarded his son to head a Ukrainian oil company.
He pushed all the worst legislation of the 1980’s and 1990’s. Draconian
crack cocaine sentences, gun control, prison overcrowding, the War in Iraq, and many other
inhumane polices can be laid at his feet.
If the pundits push him out, I will feel no sadness. Tulsi Gabbard is the only Democrat
worth a second look.
Biden has to go, not for his bizarre touching fetishes, but for his rank hypocrisy. He
championed the sex panic on college campuses and the removal of all due process for men.
Now he is hoisted by his own petard and good riddance to bad rubbish.
But there’s another dynamic: even the new party bosses lack credibility among the
broader public, many of whom revel in sticking it to them (so to speak). It’s more
true on the right — but true on the left, as well.
Otherwise, Bernie would have been utterly wiped out in Iowa or New Hampshire. It
wasn’t for lack of the new bosses trying to keep him marginalized.
I’ll go out on a limb and say Biden could weather the touchy-feely thing if there
were any real excitement for his candidacy outside the beltway. Outside the “new
bosses.” But there’s really not. The left was pissed off by the end of the
Obama administration. There is no constituency waiting for someone like Biden to come
along. Except the pundits, consultants and pollsters.
Here’s the other thing about the new bosses: they fail to see their own bubble;
they believe their own sketchy polls; they get lathered up by hype that’s engineered
for us.
The prognosticators have been deliciously wrong more than a few times recently.
The new bosses matter, and certainly exert some control. But it’s fragile and
uncertain control. Sadly it’s most effective when they just cheat. Because they
aren’t so good at achieving their preferred outcomes the old-fashioned way.
Meh, the same power centers have been picking winners and implicitly drowning losers since
William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers. Ron Paul, Bernie Saunders and Donald Trump were
completely delegitimized.
Trump won is spite of the attacks. From the DNC emails we know
the about the conspiracy for Hillary Clinton and against Saunders. Ron Paul was always
summarily dismissed without engagement in legitimate debates about his policies.
Moreover, re: “But he came to understand that this was just a part of life
practiced by certain kinds of people who were not trying to signal anything sexual or
unbecoming.”
I saw an interesting take on Biden’s touchy-feely (i.e. creepy) style. No,
it’s not about sex, it’s about power. Biden who is a narcissistic hack
mediocrity sees himself as having god-like qualities. Lightening bolts of wisdom and
insight emanate from his fingertips. A healing touch from Biden is like a touch from Jesus
who healed the sick and gave sight to the blind. Biden believes that his clumsy stroking
and kissing is really a gift of supernatural transference to his uncomfortable targets.
To close on this Creey Uncle Joe thing, at a recent event Biden hugged a boy and then
told the audience he first “asked for permission”. That was obviously an act
contrived by Creepy Joe. How intrusive was that request? Biden approaches a young person
and invites, no dares him to say no. That scripted request to use someone as a
political prop was a conscious display of twisted, ham-fisted narcissism.
Joe Biden is a genuinely creepy and corrupt piece of arrogant and stupid Beltway trash.
Good riddance.
My main takeaway from this post is that to the GOP – or at least the faction
represented by Robert Merry – Joe Biden is the Democrat they would most like to run
against. I wonder why. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) You’re just mad that the Dems are
already revealing all the arguments against him that you were hoping to use in the General
Election.
I’m sure the Democratic Party will give your opinion all the consideration it
deserves.
In the age of #Metoo, intent hardly matters. That the female person “felt”
uncomfortable is the only evidence necessary for conviction. Besides, Biden has those two
other major incompatibilities with the new Democratic party: he’s white and male.
“…the result isn’t more democracy, just an uglier version of the old
kind.”
“C’est plus change” etc. Herewith, the underbelly of mass democracy,
on continuous display since the early 20th century. And precisely what de Tocqueville etal
feared would happen.
“Besides, Biden has those two other major incompatibilities with the new Democratic
party: he’s white and male.”
I dislike Joe Biden and don’t think he’s a good candidate. However, the
“woksters” don’t have nearly as much power as the Repubs would like them
to have in order to scare independent voters away from Democratic candidates.
For whatever reason Biden is kicked to the curb, it is fine with me. However, in my mind, the real reason that he should be held to account is his absolute
corruption in Ukraine and in the China deals, either thru his son hunter, who evidently has
no morals or ethics whatsoever, or thru him directly. The press of course will not touch
this.
Biden is slime and the time is long past whereby he should assigned to the trash
heap.
There are loads to hold against Uncle Onion Joe and a lot of this is how Primaries work.
Leading candidates make their campaign pleas and if they gain in the polls, they will get
negative stories. This is one to test their ability handle the general election. It is also
a good way to get the stories out before dealing with them in the general as well.
Obama
2008 handle Pastor Wright well with his Failure of Imagination speech while HRC had to deal
with E-mails in the general instead of Oct 2015 where there is less damage. Or compare
Trump to Carson or Cain primary battles. Trump proved he could handle the negative stories
while Carson and CAin lost their momentum.
TBH, Onion Joe seems to have weathered these scandals that could be seen years ago as he
leads most polls with 30% of the D Primary voters.
Smoke filled rooms may have been more disciplined than the process in place now but they
sure weren’t more democratic. And nobody, then or now, has proved particularly good
at predicting electability.
Biden stands for a Bush/Obama restoration and a lot of windbaggery and b.s. while
monopolies, bank fraud, and predatory finance remain protected from any meaningful reform
or prosecution; medical care remains ruinously expensive; and debt peonage, Gilded Age
income inequality, and endless war continue unabated among other major Democratic Party
policy failures.
Ken T: My main takeaway from this post is that to the GOP Biden is the Democrat they
would most like to run against.
Find me a Democrat Trump doesn’t want to run against. Biden is a loser,
yes, but find me another Dem who isn’t even a bigger loser. Seriously; Dems have a
big, big white voter problem in the Great Lake area and Biden is the only guy I can
see making a stab at this area.
Sidenote: I dislike Biden but I’ve never found his social stupidity creepy at all.
His innocence about touching is actually rather quaint making him seem more honest and
innocent. Hell, he so old he’s practically senile. Does anyone seriously think Biden
is another lust-driven Clinton? Next you will tell me Bernie is another Trump.
“Besides, Biden has those two other major incompatibilities with the new Democratic
party: he’s white and male.”
Biden is leading the pack at 32% followed by Bernie Sanders at 23%, Kamala Harris and
Beto O’Rourke both at 8%. I wouldn’t call white males incompatible when they
are 3 out of the top 4 candidates. Just sayin…
"... The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth, along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks. ..."
"... Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper policy motivation: why it was done. ..."
"... President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office, Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth, and the truth would set them free. ..."
"... The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street, or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence, ..."
"... According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. ..."
"... This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. ..."
"... Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage control. ..."
"... In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine. Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department. ..."
"... The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA. ..."
"... As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the National Endowment for Democracy. ..."
"... Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda, against Russia. ..."
"... The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department. Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly, in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected. ..."
"... This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest. ..."
"... Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did you know: ..."
"... War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff. ..."
"... The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages. ..."
"... That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony Blair are lyers and mass murderers. ..."
The British Role in 'Russiagate' Is About to Be Fully Exposed April 8, 2019
20190408-russiagate-exposed-brits.pdf
The "fake news" media has now dropped its pretense of having ever had any intention of allowing the truth -- as documented in
U.S. Attorney General Barr's summary of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report, exonerating President Donald Trump of having
"conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" -- to thoroughly refute the Russiagate "Big Lie." Soon, however, it is certain
that the deliberate, British Intelligence-originated, military-grade disinformation campaign carried out against the United States,
including to this day, will be exposed.
The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix
the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth,
along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all
that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental
stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks.
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat," says the Chinese proverb. Yet, although the Mueller
report was called a "nothing burger," it was not: it still presented the potentially lethal lie that twelve Russian gremlins, code-named
Guccifer 2.0, hacked the DNC. Sundry media meatheads thus continue to blog and broadcast about "what else is really there."
The false Russian hack story, still being repeated, marches on, undeterred, like the emperor without any clothes. One lame-brained
variation, promoted in order to cover up the British role, states that Hillary Clinton, rather than Trump, colluded with the Russians.
It is being repeated by Republicans and Democrats alike, some of them malicious, some of them confused, and all of them completely
wrong. The media, such as the failed New York Times and various electronic media, must be forced to either admit the truth,
or be even more thoroughly discredited than they already have been. They must stop their constant repetition of this Joseph Goebbels-like
Big Lie. There must be a vigorous dissemination of the truth by all those journalists, politicians, activists and citizens that love
truth more than their own assumptions, including about President Trump, or other dearly-held systems of false belief.
Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard
Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several
years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper
policy motivation: why it was done.
A New Cultural Paradigm
The world is actually on the verge of ending the military conflicts among the major world powers, such as Russia, China, the United
States, and India. These four powers, and not the City of London, are the key fulcrum around which a new era in humanity's future
will be decided. A new monetary and credit system brought into being through these four powers would foster the greatest physical
economic growth in the history of humanity. In addition, discussions involving Italy working with China on the industrialization
of the African continent (discussions which could soon also involve the United States) show that sections of Europe want to join
China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and leave the dying trans-Atlantic financial empire behind.
The recent announcement of a United States commitment to return to the Moon by 2024 can, in particular, become the basis for a
proposal to other nations -- for example, China, Russia, and India, all of whom are space powers of demonstrated capability -- to
resolve their differences on Earth in a higher, joint mission. As Russia's Roscosmos Director Dmitry Rogozin said in a recent interview:
"I am a fierce proponent of international cooperation, including with Americans, because their country is big and technologically
advanced, and they can make good partners Especially since personal and professional relations between Roscosmos and NASA at the
working level are great."
There is also the possibility of ending the danger of thermonuclear war. President Trump, speaking on April 4 of the prospects
for world peace, stated:
"Between Russia, China, and us, we're all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is
ridiculous. I think it's much better if we all got together and didn't make these weapons those three countries I think can come
together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace."
This is a statement of real importance. Such an outlook is a rejection of the "perpetual crisis/perpetual war" outlook of the
Bush-Obama Administration, a four-term "war presidency" which was abruptly, unexpectedly ended in 2016. The British were not amused.
It is to stop this new cultural paradigm, pivoted on the Pacific and the potential Four Powers alliance, that British imperial
forces have deployed. The 2016 election of President Trump, and his personal friendship with President Xi Jinping and desire to work
with President Putin, are an intolerable strategic threat to the eighteenth-century geopolitics of the British empire. They have
repeatedly used Russiagate to disrupt the process of deliberation among Presidents Xi, Trump, and Putin, thus increasing the danger
of war. Russiagate, in the interest of international security, must be ended by exposing it for the utter fraud that it is.
The Truth Set Free
President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office,
Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of
America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American
people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again
to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and
Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth,
and the truth would set them free.
The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican
forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street,
or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection
against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase
the American Declaration of Independence,
"The history of the present Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
undermining of the United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
DOCUMENTATION
While Robert Mueller found that there was "no collusion" between Donald Trump or the Trump Campaign and Russia, he also filed
two indictments regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The first alleges that 12 members of Russian Military
Intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta and delivered the purloined files to WikiLeaks for strategic publication before the
July 2016 Democratic National Convention and in October 2016, one month before the election. The second indictment charges the Internet
Research Agency, a Russian internet merchandising and marketing firm, with running social media campaigns in the U.S. in 2016 designed
to impact the election. When the fuller version of the Mueller report becomes public, it is certain to recharge the claims of Russian
interference based on the so-called background "evidence" supporting these indictments.
The good news, however, is that investigations in the United States and Britain, have unearthed significant contrary evidence
exposing British Intelligence, NATO, and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, as the actual foreign actors in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. We provide a short summary of the main aspects of that evidence to spark further investigations of the British intelligence
networks, entities, and methods at issue, internationally. More detailed accounts concerning specific aspects of what we recite here
can be found on our website.
The Russian Hack That Wasn't
The Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an association of former U.S. intelligence officials, have demonstrated that
the Russian hack of the DNC alleged by Robert Mueller, was more likely an internal leak,
rather than a hack conducted
over the internet. William Binney, who conducted the main investigations for the VIPS, spent 30 years at the National Security Agency,
becoming Technical Director. He designed the sorts of NSA programs that would detect a Russian hack if one occurred. Binney conducted
an actual forensic examination of the DNC files released by WikiLeaks, and the related files circulated by the persona Guccifer 2.0,
who Robert Mueller claims is a GRU creation. Binney has demonstrated that the calculated transfer speeds and metadata characteristics
of these files are consistent with downloading to a thumb drive or storage device rather than an internet-based hack. This supports
the account by WikiLeaks of how it obtained the files. According to WikiLeaks and former Ambassador Craig Murray, they were obtained
from a person who was not a Russian state actor of any kind, in Washington, D.C. WikiLeaks offered to tell the Justice Department
all about this, and actual negotiations to this effect were proceeding in early 2017, when Senator Mark Warner and FBI Director James
Comey acted to sabotage and end the negotiations.
Further, as opposed to the hyperbole in the media and in Robert Mueller's indictment, analysis of the Internet Research Agency's
alleged "weaponization" of Facebook in 2016 involved
a paltry total of $46,000 in Facebook
ads and $4,700 spent on Google platforms . In an election in which the major campaigns spend tens of thousands of dollars every
day on these platforms, whatever the IRA thought it was doing in its amateurish and juvenile memes and tropes was like throwing a
stone in the ocean. Most of these activities occurred after the election and never mentioned either candidate. The interpretation
that these ads were designed to draw clicks and website traffic, rather than influence the election, must be considered.
The "evidence" for Mueller's GRU hacking indictment was provided, in part, by CrowdStrike, the DNC vendor that originated the
claims that the Russians had hacked that entity. CrowdStrike is closely associated with the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Lab
(DRL), an operation jointly funded by NATO's Strategic Communications Center and the U.S. State Department, to counter Russian "hybrid
warfare." CrowdStrike has been caught more than once falsely attributing hacks to the Russians and the Atlantic Council's DRL is
a font of anti-Russian intelligence operations.
The British Target Trump
According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump
and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence
leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. The former head
of the Russia Desk for MI6 and protégé of Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, fresh from working for British Intelligence,
the FBI, and U.S. State Department in the 2014 Ukraine coup, assembled in 2016 a phony dossier called Operation Charlemagne, claiming
widespread Russian interference in European elections, including in the Brexit vote. By the spring of 2016, Steele was contributing
to a British/U.S. intelligence task force on the Trump Campaign which had been convened at CIA headquarters under John Brennan's
direction.
This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British
soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. The personnel employed in these operations all had multiple
connections to the British firm Hakluyt, to Steele's firm Orbis, and to the British military's Integrity Initiative. Sometime in
the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then head of GCHQ, flew to Washington to brief John Brennan personally. Hannigan abruptly
resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage
control.
Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort were already on the radar and under investigation by the same British, Dearlove-centered intelligence
network and by Christopher Steele specifically. Flynn had been defamed by Dearlove and Stefan Halper, as a possible Russian agent
way back in 2014 because he spoke to Russian researcher Svetlana Lokhova at a dinner sponsored by Dearlove's Cambridge Security Forum.
Or, at least that was the pretext for the targeting of Flynn, who otherwise defied British intelligence by exposing Western support
for terrorist operations in Syria and sought a collaborative relationship with Russia to counter ISIS. Manafort was under FBI investigation
throughout 2014 and 2015, largely in retaliation for his role in steering the Party of the Regions to political power in Ukraine.
In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian
state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine.
Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department.
In or around June 2016, Christopher Steele began writing his dirty and bogus dossier about Trump and Russia. This is the dossier
which claimed that Trump was compromised by Putin and that Putin was coordinating with Trump in the 2016 election. The main "legend"
of this full-spectrum information warfare operation run from Britain, was that Donald Trump was receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
from Russia. The operations targeting Page and Papadopoulos consisted of multiple attempts to plant fabricated evidence on them which
would reflect what Steele himself was fabricating in the dirty dossier. At the very same time, the infamous June 2016 meeting at
Trump Tower was being set up. That meeting involved the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, it was alleged in a series of
bizarre emails written by British publicist Ron Goldstone to set up the meeting, could deliver "dirt" on Hillary Clinton direct from
the Russian government. Veselnitskaya didn't deliver any such dirt. But the entire operation was being monitored by State Department
intelligence agent Kyle Parker, an expert on Russia. Parker's emails reveal deep ties to the highest levels of British intelligence
and much chatter between them about Trump and Russia.
A now-changed version of the website for Christopher Steele's firm, Orbis, trumpeted an expertise in information warfare operations,
and the networks in which Steele runs are deeply integrated into the British military's Integrity Initiative. The Integrity Initiative
is a rapid response propaganda operation using major journalists in the United States and Europe to carry out targeted defamation
campaigns. Its central charge, according to documents posted by the hacking group Anonymous, is selling the United States and Western
Europe on the immediate need for regime change in Russia, even if that involves war.
Much has been made by Republicans and other lunkheads in the U.S. Congress of Steele's contacts with Russians for his dossier.
They claim that such contacts resulted in a Russian disinformation operation being run through the duped Christopher Steele. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
MI6's Dirty Dossier on Donald Trump: Full-Spectrum Information Warfare
On its face, Steele's dossier would immediately be recognized as a complete fabrication by any competent intelligence analyst.
He cites some 32 sources inside the Russian government for his fabricated claims about Trump. What they allegedly told him is specific
enough in time and content to identify them. To believe that the dossier is true or that actual Russians contributed to it, you must
also believe that that the British government was willing to roll up this entire network, exposing them, since the intention was
for the dossier's wild claims to be published as widely as possible. By all accounts, Britain and the United States together do not
have 32 highly placed sources inside the Russian government, nor would they ever make them public in this way or with this very sloppy
tradecraft. Steele's fabrication also uses aspects of readily available public information, such as the sale of 19% of the energy
company Rosneft, (the alleged bribe offered to Carter Page for lifting sanctions) to concoct a fictional narrative of high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Other claims in the dossier were published, publicly, in various Ukrainian publications. The famous claim that Trump directed
prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama seems to be plagiarized from similarly fake 2009 British propaganda
stories about Silvio Berlusconi spending the night with a prostitute in a hotel room in Rome, "defiling" Putin's bed. According to
various sources in the United States, this outrageous claim was made by Sergei Millian. George Papadopoulos has stated that he believes
Millian is an FBI informant, recounting in his book how a friend of Millian's blurted this out when Millian, Papadopoulos and the
friend were having coffee.
The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former
senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is
no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA.
Despite its obvious fake pedigree, Steele's dossier was laundered into the Justice Department repeatedly, by the CIA and State
Department and the Obama White House. It was used to obtain FISA surveillance warrants turning key members of the Trump Campaign
into walking microphones. It was circulated endlessly by the Clinton Campaign to a network of reporters in the U.S. known to serve
as scribes for the intelligence community. John Brennan used it to conduct a special emergency briefing of the leading members of
the U.S. Congress charged with intelligence responsibilities in August of 2016 and to brief Harry Reid, who was Senate Majority Leader
at the time. All of this activity meant that the salacious accusation that Trump was a Putin pawn and the FBI was investigating the
matter, leaked out and was used by the Clinton Campaign to defame Trump for its electoral advantage. When Trump won, Steele's nonsense
received the stamp of the U.S. intelligence community and official currency in the campaign to take out the President.
As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against
Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the
National Endowment for Democracy. The individuals involved might be named Veterans of the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, since all of
them also worked on this operation. It is no accident that Victoria Nuland, the case agent for the Ukraine coup, played a major role
in bolstering Steele's credentials for the purpose of selling his dirty dossier to the media and to the Justice Department. This
went so far as Steele giving a full scale briefing on his fabricated dossier at the State Department in October 2016.
Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there
to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda,
against Russia.
The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications
Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department.
Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly,
in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected.
This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the
attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That
is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with
ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest.
"in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe"
Perhaps add mainstream media to the list of such sincere believers, they will fire their own real journalists.
David Walters , April 24, 2019 at 13:14
"This doesn't mean that Russia would never use hackers to interfere in world political affairs or that Vladimir Putin is some
sort of virtuous girl scout, it just means that in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe the unsubstantiated
assertions of opaque and unaccountable government agencies about governments who are oppositional to those same agencies."
Absolutely correct.
Anyone who still believes what the IC says if a moron. As Pompeo recently said to the student body of Texas A&M University,
my alma matta, the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steel. He went on the explain that the CIA has courses to teach their agent
that dark "art".
Right, David Walters, and see Pompous Pompeo now. The only truths he's told was to a student body of Texas A&M University –
his own alma mater – the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steal.
Even though he's left his post as CIA Director and assumed his current post of Secretary of State. Pompous Pompeo continues his
CIA traits of lying, cheating, and stealing. It's in a way similar to a phrase, "A leopard never changes its spots". This is why
the DPRK govt issued a Persona Non Grata on Pompous Pompeo – that he isn't a bona fide diplomat, but a CIA official.
CWG , April 22, 2019 at 17:15
Here's my take on the 'Russian Collusion Deep State LIE.
There was NO Russian Collusion at all to get Trump in the White House. Most probably, Putin would have favored Clinton, since
she could be bought. Trump can't.
What did happen was illegal spying on the Trump campaign. That started late 2015, WITHOUT a FISA warrant. They only obtained
that in 2016, through lying to the FISA Court. The basis for that first warrant was the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
Ever since Trump won the election, they real conspirators knew they had a problem. That was apparent ever after Devin Nunes
did the right thing by informing Trump they were spying on him.
Since they obtained those FISA warrant through lying to the FISA Court (which is treason) they needed to cover that up as quickly
as possible.
So what did they do? Instead of admitting they lied to the FISA Court they kept on lying till this very day. The same lie through
which they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign was being pushed openly.
The lie is and was 'Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the Presidential Election'.
They knew from day one Trump didn't do anything wrong. They did know they spied on Trump through lying to the FISA Court, which
again, is treason. According to the Constitution, lying to the FISA court= Treason.
In order to avoid being indicted and prosecuted, they somehow needed to 'take down' the Attorney General. At all costs, they
needed to try and hide what really happened.
So there they went. 'Trump colluded with the Russians. Not just Trump, but the entire Trump campaign!'.
'Sessions should recuse himself', the propaganda MSM said in unison. 'Recuse, recuse'.
Sessions, naively recused himself. Back then, even he probably didn't know the entire story. It was only later on that Sarah
Carter and Jon Solomon found out it had been Hillary who ordered and paid the Steele Dossier.
The real conspirators hoped that through the Special Counsel rat Mueller they might be able to achieve three main objectives.
1: Convince the American people Russia indeed was meddling in the Presidential Election.
2: Find any sort of dirt on Trump and/or people who helped him win the Election in order to 'take them down'.
Many people were indicted, some were prosecuted. Yet NONE of them were convicted for a crime that had ANYTHING to with with
the elections. NONE.
They stretched it out as long as possible. 'The longer you repeat a lie, the more people are willing to believe the lie'.
So that is what they did. They still do it. Mueller took TWO years to brainwash as many people as possible. 'Russian Collusion,
Russian Collusion. Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Rusiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh ..
Why did they want to make sure they could keep telling that lie as long as possible?
Because they FEAR people will learn the truth. There was NEVER any Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign.
There was spying on the Trump campaign by Obama in order to try and make Hillary win the Presidential Election.
That is the actual COLLUSION between the Clinton Campaign and a weaponized Obama regime!!
So what did 'Herr Mueller' do?
He took YEARS to come up with the conclusion that the Trump campaign did NOT collude with Russia.
The MSM tried to make us all believe it was about that. Yet it was NOT.
His conclusive report is all about the question 'did or didn't the Trump campaign collude with the Russians'.
Trump exonerated, and the MSM only talks about that. Trump, Trump, Trump.
They still want us all to believe that was what the Mueller 'investigation' was all about. Yet it was not.
The most important objective of the Mueller 'investigation' was not to 'investigate'.
It was to 'instigate' that HUGE lie.
The same lie which they used to obtain the FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
"Russia'.
So what has 'Herr Mueller' done?
A: He finds ZERO evidence at all which proves the Trump campaign colluded with ANY Russians.
And now the huge lie, which after all was the main objective right from the get go. (A was only a distraction)
B: Russians hacked the DNC.
That is what they wants us all to believe. That Russia somehow did bad stuff.
Now it was not Russia who did bad stuff.
It was Obama working together with the Clinton campaign. Obama weaponized his entire regime in order to let Clinton win the
Presidency.
That is the REAL collusion. The real CRIME. Treason!
In order to create a 'cover up' Mueller NEEDED to instigate that Russia somehow did bad things.
That's what the Mueller Dossier is ALL about. They now have 'black on white' 'evidence' that Russia somehow did bad things.
Because if Russia didn't do anything like that, it would make us all ask the fair question 'why did Obama spy on the Trump
Campaign'.
Let's go a bit deeper still.
Here's a trap Mueller created. What if Trump would openly doubt the LIE they still push? The HUGE lie that Russia did bad things?
After all, they NEED that LIE in order to COVER UP their own crime.
If Trump would say 'I do not believe Russia did anything to influence the elections, I think Mueller wrote that to COVER UP
the real crime', what would happen?
They would say 'GOTCHA now, see Trump is colluding with Russia? He even refuses to accept Russia hacked the DNC, this ultimately
proofs Trump indeed is a Russian asset'.
They believe that trap will work. They needed that trap, since if Russia wasn't doing anything wrong, it would show us all
THEY were the criminals.
They NEED that lie, in order to COVER UP.
That is the 'Insurance Policy' Stzrok and Page texted about. Even Sarah Carter and Jon Solomon still don't seem to see all
that.
They should have attacked the HUGE lie that Russia was somehow hacking the DNC. That is simply not true. It's a Mueller created
LIE.
That LIE = the Insurance Policy.
What did they need an Insurance Policy for? They want us all to believe that was about preventing Trump from being elected.
Although true, that is only A.
They NEEDED an Insurance Policy in the unlikely case Trump would become President and would find out they were illegally spying
on him!
The REAL crime is Obama weaponized the American Government to spy on even a duly elected President.
What's the punishment for Treason?
About Assange and Seth Rich.
Days after Mueller finishes his 'mission' (Establish the LIE Russia did bad things) which seems to be succesfull, the Deep
State arrest the ONLY source who could undermine that lie.
Assange Since he knows who is (Seth Rich?) and who isn't (Russia) the source.
If Assange could testify under oath the emails did not come from Russia, the LIE would be exposed.
No coincidences here. I fear Assange will never testify under oath. I actually fear for his life.
Deniz , April 23, 2019 at 13:48
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that Obama and Clinton are criminals, the far less convincing part of your argument is
that Trump is not now beholden to the same MIC interests. Bolton, Abrahams, Pompeo, Pence his relationship with Netanyahu, the
overthrow of Madura are all glaring examples that contradict the Rights narrative that he is some type of hero. Trump may not
have colluded with Russia, but he does seem to be colluding with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Big Oil and the MIC.
Whether one is on the Right or Left, the house is still made of glass.
boxerwars , April 22, 2019 at 17:13
RE: "A Russian Agent Smear"
:::
Was Pat Tillman Murdered?
JUL 30, 2007
I don't know, but it seems increasingly conceivable. Just absorb these facts:
O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman
was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat [expletive] Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed,
O'Neal said
In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the
Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
The motive? I don't know. It's still likeliest it was an accident. But there's some mysterious testimony in the SI report about
nameless snipers. A reader suggests the following interpretation:
News this weekend said that there were "snipers" present and the witnesses didn't remember their names. I believe that's code
in the Army–these guys were Delta. In the Tillman incident, these snipers weren't part of the unit and they were never mentioned
publicly before. That's a key indicator that they weren't supposed to be acknowledged.
If you've ever read Blackhawk Down, Mark Bowden explains how he grew frustrated because interviewed Rangers kept referring
to "soldiers from another unit" while claiming they didn't know the unit ID or the soldiers' names. It took him months to crack
the unit ID and find people from Delta who were present at the fight.
Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, the Delta operators who earned Medals of Honor in Mogadishu, have always been identified as
snipers, too.
If my theory is correct, the Delta guys could have fired the shots – a three-round burst to the forehead from 50 yards is impossible
for normal soldiers and Rangers, but is probably an easy shot for those guys. But because Delta doesn't officially exist and Tillman
was a hero, nobody in the Army would want to have to explain exactly how the event went down. Easier just to claim hostile fire
until the family forced them to do otherwise.
This makes some sense to me, although we shouldn't dismiss the chance he was murdered. Tillman was a star and might have aroused
jealousy or resentment. He also opposed the Iraq war and was a proud atheist. In Bush's increasingly sectarian military, that
might have stirred hostility. I don't know. But I know enough to want a deeper investigation. My atheist readers will no doubt
admire the way Tillman left this world, according to the man who was with him:
As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself,
but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like,
'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now."'
(Maybe the Congress can )
////// The USA is aghast with "smears" and "internal investigations" and promised but never produced "White Papers" 'as the
world turns' and circles continents Dominated by American Military Power / Predominantly Barbarous / Uncivilized Use of Force
/ and Arrogantly Effective in it's use of Dominating Military Power.
\\\\ The Poorer Peoples of the World accept their lots-in-life with some acceptance of reality vis-a-vis the "lot-in-life"
they've been alleged/assigned.
/// But How Do We Accept The Fact that our Self-Sacrificiing Hero,Pat Tillman, was slaughtered in Afghanistan,
(WITH POSITIVE PROOF) – by his own Fellow American soldiers – ???
!!!! What i'm say'n is, if Tillman represents the Life Surrendering "American Hero"
WHY DID HIS FELLOW "AMERICAN SOLDIERS" ASSASSINATE & MURDER HIM ???????
AND WHY IS THIS STORY BURIED ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SMEAR Stories
that provide prophylactic protection for all the Trump pianist prophylaxis cover
Up for the Right Wing theft of American Democracy under FDR
In favor of Ayn Rand's prevalent OBJECTIVISM under Trump.
"Capitalism and Altruism
are incompatible
capitalism and altruism
cannot coexist in man,
or in the same society".
President Trump represents
Stark & Total Capitalism
Just as "Conservative Party"
Core is in The Confederacy
AKA; The RIGHT WING
The Right Wing of US Gov't
Is All About PRESERVING
Confederate States' Laws
Written by Thomas Jefferson
Prior to The Constitution, which
became the Received/Judicial
Constitutional Law of the Land in
The Republic of the "United States"
It's not enough that Trump is clearly a classic narcissist whose behavior will continue to deteriorate the more his actions
and statements are attacked and countered? You know what happens when narcissists are driven into a corner by people tearing them
down? They get weapons and start killing people.
There is already more than ample evidence to remove Donald Trump from office, not the least being he's clearly mentally unfit.
Yet the Democrats, some of whom ran for office on a promise to impeach, are suddenly reticent to act without "more investigation".
Nancy Pelosi stated on the record prior to release of the Mueller report impeachment wasn't on the agenda "for now". She's now
making noises in the opposite direction, but that's all they are: noise.
The bottom line is the Clintonite New Democrats currently running the party have only one issue to run on next year: getting
rid of Donald Trump. They still operate under the delusion they will be able to use him to draw off moderate Republican voters,
the same ones they were positive would come out for Hillary Clinton in '16. Their multitude of candidates pay lip service to progressive
policy then carefully walk back to the standard centrist positions once the donations start coming, but the common underlying
theme was and continues to be "Donald Trump is evil, and we need to elect a Democrat."
In short, without Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the Democrat Party has no platform. They need him there as a target, because
Mike Pence would be impossible for them to beat. They are under orders, according to various writers who've addressed the Clinton
campaign, to block Bernie Sanders and his platform at all costs; and they will allow the country to crash and burn before they
disobey those orders. That means keeping Donald Trump right where he is through next November.
Eddie S , April 24, 2019 at 21:14
Exactly right, EKB -- - you can't ballroom dance without a partner! Also reminds me of the couples you occasionally run into
where one partner repeatedly runs-down the other, and you get the feeling that the critical partner doesn't have much going on
in his/her life so they deflect that by focusing on the other partner
Johnny Ryan S , April 22, 2019 at 13:38
Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did
you know:
1)Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC
2) CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire
3) DNC stayed that the FBI never asked to investigate the servers – that is a lie.
4) CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) in 2015. CapitalG is
owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet's chairman, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just
supporting Clinton, leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active role in the
campaign.
-daily caller and dan bongino have been bringing these points up since 2016.
Deniz , April 22, 2019 at 12:36
The Right is currently salivating over the tough law enforcement rhetoric coming out of Barr and Trump.
It reminds me of when Obama was running for office in 2008 when everyone, including myself, was in awe of him. What kept slipping
into his soaring anti-intervention speeches, was a commitment to the good war in Afghanistan, which seemed totally out of place
with the rest of his rhetoric. The fine print was far more reflective of his administration actions as the rest of it his communications
turned out to be just telling people what they wanted to hear.
War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff.
The argument about not inserting Rich and the download is a good one as a defense strategy but doesn't help with finding the
truth about the emails. We can only hope that pursuing the truth and producing it will have a cumulative effect and the illusory
truth effect will include this truth.
Red Douglas , April 22, 2019 at 16:00
>>> ". . . doesn't help with finding the truth about the emails."
The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that
they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages.
Why should we much care how they were acquired and provided to the publisher?
Lily , April 22, 2019 at 17:55
That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about
the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony
Blair are lyers and mass murderers.
All three of them are free, earning millions with their publicity whereas two brave persons who were telling the truth have
been tortured and are still in jail. Reality has become like the most horrible nightmare. Everything simply seems to have turned
upside down. No writer would invent such a primitive plot. And yet it is the unbelievable reality.
Dump Pelousy , April 23, 2019 at 13:21
I totally agree with you, and in fact believe that this whole 22month expensive and mind numbing circus has been played out
JUST to keep the public from knowing what the emails actually said. Can you imagine Madcow focusing with such ferocity on John
Pedesta as she has on Putin, by discussing what he wrote during a presidential campaign to "influence the election" ? We'd be
a different country now, not fighting our way thru the McCarthite Swamp she helped create.
It's a dog & pony show. Trump folded very quickly, in april 2017 or three moth after inauguration. He proved
to be no fighter, a weakling, a marionette. Appointment of Bolton and Pompeo just added insult to injury. this is classic bait and
switch similar to what was executed by Obama after then election. In a way Trump is a Republican version of Obama.
I wonder if he did not want to fight to the death and sacrifice himself for the course, why he entered the Presidential race at
all ? He is not stupid enough not to understand the he will be covered with dirt and all skeletons in his closet will be dug
out for display by the US intelligence agencies, which protect that interest of Wall Street and MIC (Israel is a part of the
US MIC -- its biggest lobbyist and beneficiary) , not the USA as a sovereign state.
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller's particular objectives. But to understand what those objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. ..."
"... To help sabotage Trump's political agenda ..."
"... To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump's election ..."
"... And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia. ..."
"... These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage or, even worse, a traitor. ..."
"... The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump's moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington. ..."
"... "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will." ..."
"... Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime change wars? Are you kidding me? That's what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., ..."
"... Interesting, isn't it? Here's Hillary, the "liberal" Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, stated clearly that "Right now for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia." In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her? ..."
"... War, war and more war, that's the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary's relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp, not that they ever believed that Trump was anything more than what he appeared to be, an unprincipled narcissist with an insatiable lust for power. But they did hope that his dovish comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after it changed, Mueller released his report saying: "Trump is not guilty after all!" ..."
"... Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn't lifted a finger to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face? ..."
"... Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy establishment doesn't want a deal. They want regime change, they've made that perfectly clear. But wasn't Trump supposed to change all that? Wasn't Trump going to pursue "a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past"? ..."
"... There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi's genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and "stop toppling regimes and overthrowing governments." ' At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized. ..."
"... Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon, he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump "the peacemaker" is no where to be found, while Trump the 'madman with a knife' is on the loose. ..."
Why did Robert Mueller end the Russia investigation when he did? He could have let it drag it out for another year or so and severely
hurt Trump's chances for reelection. But he didn't do that. Why?
Of course, we're assuming that the investigation was never intended to uncover the truth. If it was, then Mueller would have interviewed
Julian Assange, Craig Murray and retired members of the Intelligence Community (Ray McGovern, Bill Binney) who have shown that the
Podesta emails were leaked by an insider (on a thumbdrive) not hacked by foreign agents. Mueller would have also seized the servers
at DNC headquarters and done the necessary forensic investigation, which he never did.
He also would have indicted senior-level agents
at the FBI and DOJ who improperly obtained FISA warrants by withholding critical information from the FISA court. He didn't do that
either.
Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very
beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller's particular objectives. But to understand what those
objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. So, here they are:
To help sabotage Trump's political agenda
To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump's election
And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia.
These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power
to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage
or, even worse, a traitor.
The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller
played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump's moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment
over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington.
My question is simply this: Why did Mueller give up all that power when he did?
I think I can answer that, but first, we need a little more background. Check out this quote from candidate Trump in 2016:
"We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes
and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will
partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings
with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."
Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime
change wars? Are you kidding me? That's what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., and now this upstart, New York real estate tycoon is promising
to do a complete 180 and move in another direction altogether. No more destabilizing coups, no more bloody military interventions,
instead, we're going to work collaboratively with countries like Russia and China to see if we can settle regional disputes and fight
terrorism together? Really?
At the same time Trump was promising this new era of "peace, understanding, and good will," Hillary Clinton was issuing her war
whoop at every opportunity. Here's candidate Hillary trying to drum up support for taking on the Russians in Syria:
"The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the Assad regime in partnership
with the Iranians on the ground, and the Russians in the air When I was Secretary of State, I advocated and I advocate today a
no-fly zone and safe zones."
Interesting, isn't it? Here's Hillary, the "liberal" Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria even though the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, stated clearly that "Right now for us to control all of the airspace in Syria
would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia." In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the
switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her?
"We have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground," boomed Hillary, meaning that she fully supported
the continued use of jihadist proxies in the fight against Assad. "I do think the use of special forces, the use of enablers and
trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening."
War, war and more war, that's the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary's relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp, not that they ever believed that Trump was anything
more than what he appeared to be, an unprincipled narcissist with an insatiable lust for power. But they did hope that his dovish
comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after
it changed, Mueller released his report saying: "Trump is not guilty after all!"
So, what changed? Trump changed.
Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of
withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels
on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn't lifted a finger
to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing
up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face?
The same thing happened in Korea. For a while it looked like Trump was serious about cutting a deal with Kim Jong un. But then,
sometime after the first summit, he began to backpeddle. He never honored any of his commitments under the Panmunjom Declaration
and he never reciprocated for Kim's cessation of all nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing. Trump has made no effort to "build
a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula" or to strengthen trust between the two leaders. Then, at the Hanoi Summit,
Trump blindsided Kim by making demands that had never even been previously discussed. Kim was told that the North must destroy all
of its chemical and biological weapons as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs before the US will take reciprocal
steps. In other words, Trump demanded that Kim completely and irreversibly disarm with the feint hope that the US would eventually
lift sanctions.
Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy
establishment doesn't want a deal. They want regime change, they've made that perfectly clear. But wasn't Trump supposed to change
all that? Wasn't Trump going to pursue "a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past"?
Yes, that was Trump's campaign promise. So, what happened?
There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range
nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi's genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring
up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and "stop toppling
regimes and overthrowing governments." ' At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized.
Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon,
he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump "the peacemaker" is no where to be found, while Trump the 'madman with a knife'
is on the loose.
Is that why Mueller let Trump off the hook? Was there a quid pro quo: "You follow our foreign policy directives and we'll make
Mueller disappear?
It sure looks like it. play_arrow 2 Reply reply Report flag
the report was finished last august. hed got all the juice in that squeeze. but i also guess he got a call from somebodys in
the GOG mafia[continuity of .gov] deepstate after all is their little bitch
He had to stop before he implicated himself. For instance, still waiting on "the why" he never put Steele or McCabe or Hillary
or Perkins Coie or Rosenstein or Comey etc under oath when it was...THEY... who supplied false evidence to a FISA court
, "evidence gathered" (according to Steele) from...ta daaah!...Russians ;-)
You can drive yourself crazy wondering whether it was all theater from the start, or whether they put a gun to the head of
the guy who was going to expose it was theater until he started playing along. End result, theater.
exactly. Just like you can wonder why Justice John Roberts turned on Obamacare and **** on conservatives. Was he sincere or
did he get a 3:00 am phone call that if he didn't uphold it, his wife and kids would die in an unfortunate accident?
Oh, I dunno...maybe because even with a crack team of demoncraft operatives, Deep State Hillary deadenders and a limitless
supply of federal funding even they couldn't come up with "Russian collusion" because...none ever existed? ;-)
So oil prices with rise which threaten Trump bid in 2020. Interesting times.
Notable quotes:
"... As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its new patron's will. ..."
The announcement by India's Oil Minister that his country will replace US-sanctioned
Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" despite the dramatic Bollywood show that New Delhi has made up until this point out of "defying" US sanctions makes
one seriously wonder whether India's preparing to ditch Russia next if the US imposes CAATSA
sanctions against it over the S-400s.
Shattering The "Indian Illusion"
The "
Indian Illusion " has been shattered after India's Oil Minister tweeted that his country will
replace US-sanctioned Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" such
as the Islamic Republic's hated GCC foes of Saudi
Arabia and the UAE that America said will
step up their exports in order to stabilize global prices after Washington announced that
it won't renew its anti-Iranian oil sanction waivers. New Delhi made a dramatic Bollywood-like
show over the past year out of "defying" US sanctions, with External Affairs Minister Sushma
Swaraj announcing last May that India will
only obey UNSC sanctions and not those unilaterally imposed by the US in contravention of
international law.
The Oil Minister himself said back in October before the waivers were issued that India will
continue buying Iranian oil in spite of the US sanctions, later
crediting Prime Minister Modi a month later when the US eventually granted it the waiver.
Adding "credibility" to the illusion that India's perception managers were masterfully
creating, it was then reported that the country will
use rupees instead of dollars when trading with Iran, a bold move that even fooled an RT
columnist who headlined his op-ed on this development as a " response to US global
bullying ".
As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality
the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its
new patron's will.
Rising gasoline prices is what Bolton and Pompeo essentially prepared for Trump in 2020.
Notable quotes:
"... So while Trump cheerleads more oil production through fracking and deregulation, he also implores Saudi to keep production up for the same reason. ..."
"... No one, including Trump, is very worried about the financial health of the US oil oligarchy. ..."
...falling oil prices benefit US consumers more than consumers anywhere else. In fact, one
of Trump's biggest domestic political vulnerabilities going into 2020 is rising retail
gasoline prices.
The other oil producing countries are more dependent on petroleum exports than the US
where the energy sector, while huge, has a smaller impact on the health of the overall
economy.
So while Trump cheerleads more oil production through fracking and deregulation, he also
implores Saudi to keep production up for the same reason. He's more concerned with lowering
oil prices than he is with supporting the profits of US petroleum companies.
No one, including Trump, is very worried about the financial health of the US oil
oligarchy.
Considering that this 'study' is an overblown version of the Real Men Go to Tehran
delusion (which is STILL in the pondering phase) it's hard to ignore the trepidation revealed
in an assessment divided into pseudo business-like categories of...
1. Likelihood of Success
2. Benefits
3. Costs & Risks
...when there are sufficient unresolved uncertainties to be fine-tuned to keep this plan
bogged down in the pondering phase for even longer than the unconsummated Real Men Go To Iran
nothing-burger.
Wake up, the Trump (Drumpf) family are crypto Jews, Drumpf women have been marrying Jews
for generations. Well worth your time to read Miles Mathis on the family history, I found the
photo of Fred Trump gifting New York real estate for a Torah study center particularly
interesting as good Lutherans do that with such regularity.
It may well be that Earnest read the New York Times.
Probably not. This character probably reads the Neocon York Times about as much as I do,
which is not at all. The connection between the awful surge of "antisemitism" and violence by
the rightwingnutters is already being made.
Dani Dayan, Consul General of Israel in New York, reached out to the Times to express his
outrage regarding the cartoon. An Israeli official told The Jerusalem Post that Dayan in
his conversations made it clear that the cartoon was unacceptable, and that the fact it
appeared on the paper is an escalation of the latest trend of displaying antisemitic
tropes in the American public sphere.
The horror of it all! It's time for Congress to get off its fat duff and pass those laws
outlawing BDS in all shapes and forms! Time to crack down on forums like this one where
criticism of Holy Israel is allowed to pollute the Internet Tubes. From our lard-ass
End-Times Secretary of State:
"Friends, let me go on record: Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. The Trump
administration opposes it unequivocally and we will fight for it relentlessly," he made
clear.
Writing anything except glowing hugs-and-kisses about God's Favorite Thieves and Murderers
ought to be illegal. This site owner would quickly get his act together if he was given the
"Galileo Treatment" of being shown videos from the Cuban Concentration Camp with scenes of
the evildoers there being waterboarded.
One more thing to consider:
The New York Times retraction, however, was not an apology. It also left many questions
unanswered as to how such an obviously anti-Semitic cartoon, not even associated with the
story on the page it appeared on, could have passed the gauntlet of editors.
All those editors have cushy nice-paying jobs. When it's time to keep their mouths shut,
they keep them shut. My tight-fitting tinfoil hat causes me to suspect the publication of
this obviously factual cartoon was a cold-blooded business decision. Its mere existence will
give the Neocon York Times a long spell of 'deniability' that it is always in bed with the
the pissant Apartheid state in every way imaginable. I'd imagine this flea-bite of momentary
discomfort will be very useful in the next two or so years as it shills for Trump's Deal of
the Century as well as any other horrors advanced by the Wag-The-Dog state.
"... That Trump's only chance in 2020 is if the Democratic candidate is Hillary (again) - or possibly Biden - has made me wonder about all the bafflegab of him working to get a huge war chest for his 2020 campaign. A link I saw today gives me a clue as to what may be happening. ..."
The key word in that link is "Fox". Sanders wasn't at some leftie flower-sniffing
place, but went right into the lion's den. And the the other thing is that Trump was watching.
(Fox!) Reports are that he was just a little bit impressed.
It was like somebody had thrown a
small thimble full of cool water at him. The man truly does believe he is some kind of
superhero and doesn't have a clue Hillary was probably the only person on the planet he could
have defeated in 2016.
That Trump's only chance in 2020 is if the Democratic candidate is Hillary (again) - or
possibly Biden - has made me wonder about all the bafflegab of him working to get a huge war
chest for his 2020 campaign. A link I saw today gives me a clue as to what may be
happening.
President Trump on Saturday said over Twitter that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is
"again working its magic
in its quest to destroy Crazy Bernie Sanders,"
in favor
of "Sleepy" Joe Biden. Trump then wrote "Here we go again Bernie, but
this time please show
a little more anger and indignation when you get screwed!
"
Thanks to WikiLeaks and admissions by former DNC chair-turned-
Fox News contributor
Donna Brazile, we know that the DNC coordinated with the Clinton Campaign during the 2016
primaries to give Obama's former Secretary of State an unfair advantage over Sanders.
Not only did Brazile give Clinton's team
CNN debate questions
ahead of time - as
revealed by WikiLeaks
, the DNC cut
off Sanders' access to a critical voter database in what
Bernie suggested was a setup.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had hired an outside software partner, "NGP VAN," to
manage its voter database. Founded by
Nathaniel Pearlman
- chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign
- NGP's 'VoteBuilder' software was designed for Democratic candidates (Bernie, Hillary, etc.) to
track and analyze highly detailed information on voters for the purposes of 'microtargeting'
specific demographics.
On December 16th, 2015, NGP VAN updated the Votebuilder with a patch that contained a bug
- allowing the Sanders and the Clinton campaigns to temporarily access each other's proprietary
voter information for around 40 minutes. Lo and behold, the Sanders campaign National Data
Director,
Josh Uretsky
, was found to have accessed Clinton's information and was
promptly fired.
Uretsky's excuse
was that he was simply grabbing Clinton's data during the window of
vulnerability to prove that the breach was real.
Bernie cried false flag!
Sanders claimed that Uretsky was a DNC plant - "
recommended by the DNC's National Data
Director
along with NGP's Pearlman. Sanders sued the DNC in December 2015, only to drop
the case four months later after a DNC investigation concluded that the wrongdoing did not go
beyond Uretsky and three staffers under his command.
More DNC plotting - exposed by WikiLeaks and Donna Brazile:
In her
2017 book
, Brazile said that she had discovered a 2015 deal between the Clinton campaign,
Clinton's joint fundraising committee, and the DNC - which would allow Clinton's campaign to
"control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised." Brazile said that while the
deal "looked unethical," she found "no evidence" that the 2016 primary was rigged.
Meanwhile, in an
email from early May
,
DNC CFO Brad Marshall wrote about a plot to question Sanders's religio
n. While not
naming the Vermont senator directly, it talks about a man of "Jewish heritage" Marshall believes to
be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were
holding upcoming primary elections.
"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he
believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an
atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps.
My Southern Baptist
peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,"
the email says.
"AMEN," DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy K. Dacey replied.
Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell
The
Intercept
, which first noticed the email, "I do not recall this. I can say it would not have
been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate."
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
, meanwhile had written Bernie off
completely - noting in a May 21 email (while there were still nine primary debates to go): "This is
a silly story," adding "
He isn't going to
be president.
" Of course, Sanders told
CNN
's Jake Tapper that if he was elected
president,
Wasserman Schultz would be out at the DNC
.
And what did Bernie do after he lost the primaries, knowing Clinton and the DNC conspired
against him?
He ran to Hillary's side like a lapdog and gave her his full-throated
support.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/v_6BevfMygM
And no wonder DNC chair Tom Perez has urged Republicans
not to use
"stolen
private data"
during the 2020 campaign - since Wikileaks emails contiain massive
evidence of the DNC's collusion against Sanders.
The real clown is not in Ukraine. He's in the Whitehouse. I voted for Trump and realized my
mistake once Nikki Haley was appointed. I guess, if a clown is to be in office, it might as
well be a real clown.
Hopefully this will be a step forward for Ukraine towards reclaiming the country from my
US Dept. of State, the Bidens, and etc.
Democratic party candidate Biden has huge, exploitable weakness in relation Ukraine (1).
Given that Biden is the most beatable name to come forward so far Trump and his
administration will do nothing major to involve the U.S. with the internal affairs of
Ukraine.
Macron and Merkel may wish to do something, but given personal unpopularity in their
countries it is unclear what they can deliver.
For the next 12+ months nothing of any significance will happen. If the Dems are foolish
enough to nominate Biden, it could become an issue next year. Trump and Putin would have
aligned interests in stopping the Biden family's exploitation of Ukrainian resources.
Soon after deep insider and favored water carrier for the financial elite, Joe Biden ,
announced his candidacy the corporate propaganda media ramped up its support and floated a meme
that Trump is petrified of a Biden challenge next year.
"Former Vice President Joe Biden leads President Trump by 8 percentage points in a
hypothetical 2020 general election matchup, according to a new Morning Consult/Politico
poll,"
The Hill Reported in the days prior to Biden's announcement.
The state and its propaganda media love corporate news polls and they hope this one will
convince Americans to vote establishment once again.
Biden likes to portray himself as an Average Joe -- remember "Lunch Bucket Joe"? -- a
commoner sharing the trials and tribulations of the masses, never mind his vote to make it more
difficult for average Americans, victims of a predatory elite, to file bankruptcy. His
presidential campaign team is rife with corporate lobbyists. Joe is a favorite of credit card
and insurance companies.
Back in the day, Biden admitted he is a whore for corporate interests.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/oysFCNPg0DA
Democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome will vote for anybody the DNC throws out
into the rigged political arena, even an admitted ring kisser like Joe who is now crawling to
corporations and big donors to finance his campaign.
Due to DNC shenanigans -- similar to those used against Bernie Sanders -- insider Joe
masquerading as Mr. Normal may end up being the Democrat nominee. First, however, competition
in a crowded field needs to be swept clean. Bernie, Elizabeth, Kamala, Beto, and Mayor Pete, to
name a few, need to be marginalized.
It's not likely, however, that any of these people will make it to the White House in
2020.
Trump will be re-elected, not because he promised anything he is able to actually deliver,
but as a protest vote against the establishment, never mind Trump is following through on the
neoliberal agenda, in particular in regard to forever war. He has put his own personal spin on
the imperial presidency.
It doesn't matter who wins in November, 2020. The "swamp" will once again be triumphant, the
financial class will continue its rape and pillage of the economy, and the wars will go on
indefinitely, or at least until the economic house of cards collapses and the state shows its
real face.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
MARC STEINER Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Mark Steiner. Great to have you all with
us. Senator Elizabeth Warren is attempting to make waves with her bold pronouncements during
her bid for this presidency. She's introduced two bills into the Senate. The first is called
the Corporate Executive Accountability Act, which will hold corporate executives of
million-dollar corporations criminally liable for negligence with potential prison time. The
other is called The Too Big to Jail Act, creating a corporate crime strike force. In the wake
of the 2008 meltdown, where there were no criminal prosecutions of note despite ruining
millions of lives in our country, it's led to a roiling discontent in America. Why has it been
so difficult to prosecute bankers and corporate leaders and executives in our country? Why has
the government been so reluctant to do so? And in the unlikely circumstance that Warren's bills
will get passed in the Senate, what would be the result and complications if they did? Joining
us once again to sort through all of this is a man who knows a thing or two about white-collar
crime. Bill Black -- Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City, white- collar criminologist, former financial regulator, the author of
the book The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One, and a regular contributor here at The Real
News. Bill, welcome back. Good to have you with us. Thank you. So this has obviously been
building since 2008. People have been wanting some answer, but I think most folks don't know
really what that means. I've been reading a lot of pieces that are pro and con about what
Elizabeth Warren is suggesting. Let's go through what she's suggesting and get your initial
read and analysis of that.
BILL BLACK Okay. So as you said, there are two different acts. She just rolled one of them
out a couple of days ago and they fit together. One is addressed more directly to the financial
crisis and the other one is prompted by the financial crisis, but broader than it. That second
one would propose to change the requirement to get a guilty verdict to a demonstration of
negligence on the part of officers when they commit the really serious crimes. The other act
would basically provide more resources to go after elite, white-collar criminals.
MARC STEINER In the New York Times, there was a quote from Lanny Breuer who is a Justice
Department, Criminal Division official former head. He said on Frontline, "when we can't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a criminal intent, then we have a constitutional duty
not to bring those cases." And Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate committee that some
banks would become "too big," that prosecuting them would have negatively affected the economy.
In other words, they've become too big to jail. And then, in Britain there it was said that if
you start prosecuting these people, then it threatens the very foundations of the free
enterprise system. So Bill, what's the problem here?
BILL BLACK So the problem is the people at the top in both the United States and the United
Kingdom. For example, Prime Minister Blair complained at a time when the Financial Supervisory
Authority -- which is referred to over there as the Fundamentally Supine Authority [laughter]
-- was absolutely not regulating anything, that it was outrageous overregulation, and how dare
they treat bankers as potential criminals. We have the combination of Breuer and Holder where
the only issue is, which of them was more moronic on this subject, and it was a dead tie.
MARC STEINER So tell me why do you use the word "moronic?"
BILL BLACK Because it's a family show.
MARC STEINER [laughter]
BILL BLACK So seriously, to go through these things, let's recall that in much more
difficult cases in the savings and loan debacle, we oriented the prosecutions entirely towards
the most elite defendants. And here's the first thing: There is never a problem to the
financial system from prosecuting individual criminals. It is not good for a financial system
to be run by criminals. You strengthen the financial system when you convict and remove
criminals from running the largest bank. [laugher]
MARC STEINER Let me just ask you a question about that. But is the nature of the competition
among banks and the competition to make as much money as humanly possible -- like the scandal
that happened in 2008 that tanked our economy for a while and put millions of people into huge
financial jeopardy -- that seems to me to be the daily workings of those institutions. And the
issue
BILL BLACK No, no.
MARC STEINER Go ahead. Tell me why you say no.
BILL BLACK Banks don't do anything.
MARC STEINER The people in them do, though.
BILL BLACK The bankers do things and bankers shape the institutions, so institutions matter
enormously. And that's the first big thing in a critique of Senator Warren. If anybody is close
to Senator Warren, please send her this link. [laughter] We can really help. She's got exactly
the right ideas, but she isn't an expert in criminology. She wasn't part of the efforts to
prosecute folks successfully that I'm about to describe. We can really, really help her be
effective and we're willing to help any candidate be effective on these issues. Two enormous
institutional changes have made the world vastly more criminogenic. Those changes are: we got
rid of true partnerships where you had joint and several liability. Therefore, it really paid
to make sure that you didn't make a partner, someone who was super sleazy, because then they
could sue you -- not them, not the sleazy partner, but you and it was absolutely no defense
that you had nothing to do with it. Your entire net worth could be taken. That's what a true
partnership was. We got rid of true partnerships throughout the financial world. The second
thing is modern executive compensation. Modern executive compensation not only creates the
incentives to defraud, because you can be made wealthy. It provides the means to defraud. This
allows you to convert corporate assets to your own personal wealth in a way that has very
little risk of prosecution and it allowed you to suborn the controls but also [allowed] the
lower officers and employees to actually commit the fraudulent acts, which are usually
accounting for you in a way that you'd have plausible deniability. We can change both and we
must change both of those incredibly perverse incentives if we want to deal with fraud
successfully. So that's the missing part of her plan and I think she would agree with
everything I've said. Now we have a detailed plan -- we being the bank whistleblowers united --
that we put out two years ago in the election, two and a half years ago. We'll put this on the
website, or at least the links to it for folks who want to know the kind of institutional steps
you need to start changing this. But even with what I've said about this much more criminogenic
environment, it remains true that we could have prosecuted successfully elite officers and
every one of the major participants that committed these frauds. Indeed in many ways it would
have been easier than during the savings and loan debacle, because unlike the savings and loan
debacle, we have superb whistleblowers -- literally hundreds of whistleblowers who can say
explicitly that these frauds occurred. And then we do it the old-fashioned way. That would give
us the ability to prosecute midlevel officials and we can take it up the food chain by flipping
them so that they give us information on the more senior folks. In some cases, our
whistleblowers were right there in the C-suite and that would have included for example, a dead
to rights prosecution against Robert Rubin. That's as senior as you can get at city, a dead to
right prosecution of Mozilo at Countrywide. And we have other institutions like Wells Fargo
where the following happened, so it's easy to look at liar's loans. Liar's loans again had a
fraud incidence of 90 percent -- nine-zero. So the only entities doing liar's loans as a
significant product are fraudulent. Similarly, if they're doing appraisal fraud, extorting
appraisers to inflate appraisals, that only occurs at fraudulent shops. So Wells actually
checked and it's easy to check and that's an important point. The fact that the Department of
Justice never did this, and the banking agencies never did this, is a demonstration that they
didn't want to actually conduct investigations. Here's how you check: so in a liar's loan, you
don't verify the borrower's income, but the borrower signs at the same time a permission that
says you can check this against my I.R.S. forms. And here's a hint: none of us deliberately
inflate our income on our income tax returns because we'd have to pay more taxes. [laughter] So
in the case of both Countrywide and Wells Fargo, we know that senior management who was given
the results said, these kinds of loans, liar's loans, are majority frauds. And we know that
senior management in both cases said, you know what we should do? Many, many more of those.
That is a great criminal case. At J.P. Morgan, we have a great criminal case.
MARC STEINER Let me just interrupt you for a second, Bill. I want people to understand this
because everything you're reading in the press right now, almost every article, whether they
seem to like what Elizabeth Warren is suggesting, or oppose it, have questions about it. Almost
everybody to a person I've read has said, it's almost impossible to prosecute these cases. We
don't have a law to do it, that prosecuting somebody for, as she's suggesting, for negligence
would not get the job done even if her bill ever passed. And so, talk a bit about that though.
I'm very curious since clearly, you're going against the common wisdom that most people would
have and anything they read -- whether it's The New York Times or anywhere else -- that we
don't have the laws to make prosecutions work, which is one of the reasons why we're not
prosecuting people.
BILL BLACK Okay so everybody you've read, has never been involved in these successful
prosecutions.
MARC STEINER No, but if they're journalists and they've studied it, they should know what
they're talking about.
BILL BLACK Seriously? [laughter]
MARC STEINER You would think, right? Well I would hope so. Anyway, but go ahead.
[laughter].
BILL BLACK No, I would not think so. I don't think that at all because otherwise, they would
have talked to people like us who actually did it. So let's go back. Under the same laws in the
savings and loan debacle, we were able to hyper-prioritized prosecutions against the most elite
folks. So we're going after folks in the C-Suite -- the C.E.O.s, the chief operating officers,
the boards of directors, and such. We got over a thousand convictions in these cases, just the
ones designated as major. We did over 600 prosecutions of the most elite of the elite, against
the best criminal defense lawyers in the world with the same laws, and we got over a ninety
percent conviction rate. So can it be done? Of course it can be done. We've shown that it can
be done. Maybe our cases were just simple because it was just savings and loans and these are
big banks. Actually, the prosecutions in many of these cases were easier. The loans in the
savings and loan debacle, were actually much more complicated than home loans. They were
commercial construction loans, $80-90 million dollars at-a-pop often. That's far more complex
to explain to a jury, than a home loan and something as easy as a liar's loan and extorting an
appraiser. In addition, there are massively more whistleblowers. I cannot remember the name of
a significant whistleblower in the savings and loan debacle that was critical to prosecutions.
I'm sure there were a couple, but again we have literally hundreds of whistleblowers who came
forward in this crisis. This crisis occurred because first the Bush administration and then the
Obama administration, were unwilling to investigate, unwilling to prosecute. And here's again
the key. There are about two F.B.I. white-collar specialists per industry in the United States
-- not per firm, per industry. So that means they don't have expertise in individual industries
and they don't walk a beat, or they'd never find it. They only come when there's a criminal
referral. Our agency, our much tinier agency back in the savings and loan debacle, made over
thirty thousand criminal referrals. All of the federal banking regulatory agencies, much bigger
in the great financial crisis, made fewer than a dozen criminal referrals, 30,000 to under a
dozen. That means that the banking regulatory agencies basically ceased functioning in terms of
criminal referrals. And why? That's the third big change and the third big change is
ideological. What you saw is, both under the Republicans and under Bill Clinton -- the
Democratic Party, the due Democrats, the Wall Street wing of the party -- they were simply
unwilling to even think of bankers as criminals. I got out of the regulatory ranks when under
Bill Clinton we were ordered, and I witnessed personally, to refer to the industry as our
customers. Not the American people as our customers, the industry as our customers. Well do you
make criminal referrals on your customers?
MARC STEINER So we're here talking to Bill Black and we've been covering some of the history
of this. What we are going to do is we're going to take a break here and come back with another
segment shortly and really probe into what Elizabeth Warren has said she wants to make into
law. Would that make a difference? Does it fall short and it could lead to more prosecutions?
We're going to come back to that. So you want to hit the next segment with Bill Black and Marc
Steiner. Bill, thank you once again for being with The Real News. It's always a pleasure to
have you with us.
BILL BLACK Thank you.
MARC STEINER And I'm Mark Steiner here for The Real News Network. Take care.
The Trump administration once again has graphically demonstrated that "international law" and "national sovereignty" already belong to the Realm
of the Walking Dead.
Notable quotes:
"... The full – frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus. ..."
"... A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U . S . and Iran are at war. ..."
As if a deluge of sanctions against a great deal of the planet was not enough, the latest
"offer you can't refuse" conveyed by a gangster posing as diplomat, Consul Minimus Mike Pompeo
, now essentially orders the whole planet to submit to the one and only arbiter of world trade:
Washington.
First the Trump administration unilaterally smashed a multinational, UN-endorsed agreement,
the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal. Now the waivers that magnanimously allowed eight nations to
import oil from Iran without incurring imperial wrath in the form of sanctions will expire on
May 2 and won't be renewed. The eight nations are a mix of Eurasian powers: China, India,
Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, Italy and Greece.
Apart from the trademark toxic cocktail of hubris, illegality, arrogance/ignorance and
geopolitical/geo – economic infantilism inbuilt in this foreign policy decision, the
notion that Washington can decide who's allowed to be an energy provider to emerging superpower
China does not even qualify as laughable. Much more alarming is the fact that imposing a total
embargo of Iranian oil exports is no less than an act of war.
Ultimate Neocon Wet Dream
Those subscribing to the ultimate U.S, neocon and Zionist wet dream – regime change in
Iran – may rejoice at this declaration of war. But as Professor
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran has elegantly argued,
"If the Trump regime miscalculates, the house can easily come crashing down on its
head."
Reflecting the fact Tehran seems to have no illusions regarding the utter folly ahead, the
Iranian leadership -- if provoked to a point of no return, Marandi additionally told me -- can
get as far as "destroying everything on the other side of the Persian Gulf and chasing the U.S.
out of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the U.S. escalates, Iran escalates. Now it depends on the
U.S. how far things go."
This red alert from a sensible academic perfectly dovetails with what's happening with the
structure of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) -- recently branded a "terrorist
organization" by the United States. In perfect symmetry, Iran's Supreme National Security
Council also branded the U.S. Central Command -- CENTCOM -- and "all the forces connected to
it" as a terrorist group .
The new IRGC commander-in-chief is Brigadier General Hossein Salami, 58. Since 2009 he was
the deputy of previous commander Mohamamd al-Jafari , a soft spoken but tough as nails
gentleman I met in Tehran two years ago. Salami, as well as Jafari, is a veteran of the
Iran-Iraq war; that is, he has actual combat experience. And Tehran sources assure me that he
can be even tougher than Jafari.
In tandem, IRGC Navy Commander Rear Admiral Alireza
Tangsiri has evoked the unthinkable in terms of what might develop out of the U.S. total
embargo on Iran oil exports; Tehran could block the Strait of Hormuz.
Western Oblivion
Vast swathes of the ruling classes across the West seem to be oblivious to the reality that
if Hormuz is shut down, the result will be an absolutely cataclysmic global economic
depression.
Warren Buffett, among other investors, has routinely qualified the 2.5 quadrillion
derivatives market as a weapon of financial mass destruction. As it stands, these derivatives
are used -- illegally -- to drain no less than a trillion U.S. dollars a year out of the market
in manipulated profits.
Considering historical precedents, Washington may eventually be able to set up a Persian
Gulf of Tonkin false flag. But what next?
If Tehran were totally cornered by Washington, with no way out, the de facto nuclear option
of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz would instantly cut off 25 percent of the global oil
supply. Oil prices could rise to over $500 a barrel, to even $1000 a barrel. The 2.5
quadrillion of derivatives would start a chain reaction of destruction.
Unlike the shortage of credit during the 2008 financial crisis, the shortage of oil could
not be made up by fiat instruments. Simply because the oil is not there . Not even Russia would
be able to re-stabilize the market.
It's an open secret in private conversations at the Harvard Club – or at Pentagon
war-games for that matter – that in case of a war on Iran, the U.S. Navy would not be
able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
Russian SS-NX-26
Yakhont missiles -- with a top speed of Mach 2.9 -- are lining up the Iranian northern
shore of the Strait of Hormuz. There's no way U . S . aircraft carriers can defend a barrage of
Yakhont missiles.
Then there are the
SS-N-22 Sunburn supersonic anti-ship missiles -- already exported to China and India --
flying ultra-low at 1,500 miles an hour with dodging capacity, and extremely mobile; they can
be fired from a flatbed truck, and were designed to defeat the U . S . Aegis radar defense
system.
What Will China Do?
The full – frontal attack on Iran reveals how the Trump administration bets on
breaking Eurasia integration via what would be its weakeast node; the three key nodes are
China, Russia and Iran. These three actors interconnect the whole spectrum; Belt and Road
Initiative; the Eurasia Economic Union; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization; the
International North-South Transportation Corridor; the expansion of BRICS Plus.
So there's no question the Russia-China strategic partnership will be watching Iran's back.
It's no accident that the trio is among the top existential "threats" to the U.S., according to
the Pentagon. Beijing knows how the U . S . Navy is able to cut it off from its energy sources.
And that's why Beijing is strategically increasing imports of oil and natural gas from Russia;
engineering the "escape from Malacca" also must take into account a hypothetical U . S .
takeover of the Strait of Hormuz.
A plausible scenario involves Moscow acting to defuse the extremely volatile U.S.-Iran
confrontation, with the Kremlin and the Ministry of Defense trying to persuade President Donald
Trump and the Pentagon from any direct attack against the IRGC. The inevitable counterpart is
the rise of covert ops, the possible staging of false flags and all manner of shady Hybrid War
techniques deployed not only against the IRGC, directly and indirectly, but against Iranian
interests everywhere. For all practical purposes, the U . S . and Iran are at war.
Within the framework of the larger Eurasia break-up scenario, the Trump administration does
profit from Wahhabi and Zionist psychopathic hatred of Shi'ites. The "maximum pressure" on Iran
counts on Jared of Arabia Kushner's close WhatsApp pal Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) in Riyadh and
MbS's mentor in Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Zayed , to replace the shortfall of Iranian oil in the
market. Bu that's nonsense -- as quite a few wily Persian Gulf traders are adamant Riyadh won't
"absorb Iran's market share" because the extra oil is not there.
Much of what lies ahead in the oil embargo saga depends on the reaction of assorted vassals
and semi-vassals. Japan won't have the guts to go against Washington. Turkey will put up a
fight. Italy, via Salvini, will lobby for a waiver. India is very complicated; New Delhi is
investing in Iran's Chabahar port as the key hub of its own Silk Road, and closely cooperates
with Tehran within the INSTC framework. Would a shameful betrayal be in the cards?
China, it goes without saying, will simply ignore Washington.
Iran will find ways to get the oil flowing because the demand won't simply vanish with a
magic wave of an American hand. It's time for creative solutions. Why not, for instance, refuel
ships in international waters, accepting gold, all sorts of cash, debit cards, bank transfers
in rubles, yuan, rupees and rials -- and everything bookable on a website?
Now that's a way Iran can use its tanker fleet to make a killing. Some of the tankers could
be parked in -- you got it -- the Strait of Hormuz, with an eye on the price at Jebel Ali in
the UAE to make sure this is the real deal. Add to it a duty free for the ships crews. What's
not to like? Ship owners will save fortunes on fuel bills, and crews will get all sorts of
stuff at 90 percent discount in the duty free.
And let's see whether the EU has grown a spine -- and really turbo-charge their
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) alternative payment network conceived after the Trump
administration ditched the JCPOA. Because more than breaking up Eurasia integration and
implementing neocon regime change, this is about the ultimate anathema; Iran is being
mercilessly punished because it has bypassed the U.S. dollar on energy trade.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Pepe Escobar , a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
Indeed, this looks like a potentially much more dangerous situation. If these major nations
obey Trump (I suspect some will not), Iran might be tempted to take more aggressive action,
with blocking the Straits of Hormuz among the more serious. This would really spike the price
of oil, and quite possibly trigger a war. This may be what the Trump people want, with their
real policy apparently being "regime change." However, so far the only regime change seems to
be rising influence of hardliners, with a new hardline commander for the now sanctioned
Revolutionary Guards being appointed. He has been talking about missiles getting fired on
Israel from Lebanon by Hezbollah. Is this what Netanyahu really wants?
I think those who think the Iranian regime will easily be overthrown are more deluded than
those who advocated invading Iraq (and some of them are the same people, see John Bolton
especially). This has the potential of really seriously distracting people from the Mueller
Report, but not at all in a good way.
... ... ...
Another Addendum: In WaPo
this morning they report that the other three nations are Greece, Italy, and Taiwan, and that
they have already stopped buying Iranian oil under US pressure. Also, apparently Japan has been
stockpiling oil from there and has stopped further purchases already in anticipation of just
this move by the US. OTOH, both China and Turkey are talking about not obeying the US order. No
word out of either India or South Korea so far.
Bolton says that this is all designed to make Iran be a "normal country," as if Saudi Arabia
were such. As it is, indeed the hawkish new leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has
spoken publicly of possibly blocking the Straits of Hormuz, as I suggested they may well be
contemplating.
"... The marketing of American political aspirants has become more sophisticated from the time when strategizing his son John's campaign for the White House, Joe Kennedy Snr. said "we're going to sell Jack like soap flakes" ..."
"... it also entails brokering deals with the establishment who have ensured that whoever is elected as the latest saviour of the nation is nonetheless a captive of their overarching policies. No objective observer, for instance, can fail to note the fundamental continuum by Donald Trump of a foreign policy followed by Barack Obama who carried on from where George W. Bush left off. ..."
"... To get straight to the point: 'Mayor Pete' is a creature of the oligarchs; a so-called 'progressive' who is really a hardline conservative on many issues. A man who is being moulded and sold to America by a number of the people who were behind the meteoric rise of a certain senator named Barack Obama. ..."
I think that I have something of a head-start over others, including many Americans, so
far as the Democratic presidential aspirant Pete Buttigieg is concerned. As one who takes note
of a wide range of figures on what is termed the 'alternative media', I am quite familiar with
the philosophy and the views of E. Michael Jones , a Catholic conservative, who is a long-term
resident of South Bend Indiana, which is Buttigeig's hometown.
Jones has been absolutely scathing about Buttigieg's persona, as well as his record as
mayor. And even if one removes the fact that Buttigieg's homosexuality is a central reason for
Jones' hostility, there is a coalescence of analysis between the right-wing Jones and the
left-wing humourist Jimmy Dore, who is an astute commentator on America's domestic politics as
well as on geopolitical issues.
To Dore, Buttigieg's image of a down-to-earth, sleeves-rolled-up operator is one sign of a
guy who is "trying too hard". In fact, noted Dore in a recent episode of his youtube show,
"he's trying too hard to make it look like he's not trying." But while Dore's analysis is based
on what he can garner from Buttigieg's performance in the media now that he is in the national
spotlight, Jones has over the last few years incessantly spoken in detail about Buttegieg's
record as mayor, during which time he has succeeded in alienating large sections of the
population of South Bend.
Buttigieg's formula of "practical leadership guided by progressive values" has been
subjected to devastating criticism by those familiar with his 9-year mayoral record in South
Bend.
One example relates to Buttigieg's decision to phase out the city's trash collecting regime
for cost-cutting purposes. Previously, a two-man team would drive down residential alleys to
retrieve refuse bins, but the new design trucks cannot fit through most alleys which means that
residents have to put out their garbage in the front of their homes, a situation which has led
to bouts of odour infestation and a 'rough' looking appearance on collection days. Buttigieg's
decision was not a practical one, given the lack of diligence in researching the replacement
trucks. And although more modern in appearance and facility, the laying off of many refuse
collectors -many of whom were from minority backgrounds- added to the city's unemployment
figures.
Buttigieg's decision to sack South Bend's popular black police chief Darryl
Boykins , is also viewed as a disastrous move. It was a move which he has admitted was his
"first serious mistake as mayor". His claims to have been "troubled" by Barack Obama's clemency
for Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning, who exposed US war crimes, as well as his praise of Israeli
security measures as being "moving" and "clear-eyed", despite the fact that he was on a visit
to the country last May when Israeli Defence Force snipers were shooting unarmed Palestinian
protesters, do little to convince observers that he can genuinely be called a progressive.
Indeed, there is little of the vocabulary or deeds associated with progressive politics in
Buttigieg such as relates to social justice and employee rights.
Buttigeig has also been called out for his tendency to narcissism. A measure of his
self-obsessed persona can be garnered from the fact that his book Shortest Way Home
devoted more words to his recollection of his playing piano on "Rhapsody in Blue" with the
South Bend Symphony Orchestra than on the issue of social poverty.
The marketing of American political aspirants has become more sophisticated from the time
when strategizing his son John's campaign for the White House, Joe Kennedy Snr. said "we're
going to sell Jack like soap flakes". Becoming president not only involves utilising the modern
innovations of Madison Avenue, it also entails brokering deals with the establishment who have
ensured that whoever is elected as the latest saviour of the nation is nonetheless a captive of
their overarching policies. No objective observer, for instance, can fail to note the
fundamental continuum by Donald Trump of a foreign policy followed by Barack Obama who carried
on from where George W. Bush left off.
To get straight to the point: 'Mayor Pete' is a creature of the oligarchs; a so-called
'progressive' who is really a hardline conservative on many issues. A man who is being moulded
and sold to America by a number of the people who were behind the meteoric rise of a certain
senator named Barack Obama.
It will be useful to bear this in mind were Pete Buttigieg to defy the odds by becoming
president of the United States.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author's blog site: Adeyinka
Makinde .
Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.
"... Joe is a hypocrite, like all pols Joe has a double standards problem. Joe loves Nazis when they suit his agenda, so much so that he'll send them free weapons, train and fund them, just like the Israeli govt. ..."
"... Biden was 2nd in command in the administration that cost the party over 1000 elected seats, 13 governorships and 14 state legislatures. He was 2nd in command of the administration that led the country to Donald Trump's doorstep. ..."
"... All the Fox news loving right wingers here should love Joe, he not much different than Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Ted Cruz. All members of the uniparty. All love "open borders" because they're all capitalists/globalists, and capitalists love cheap labor. ..."
Joe is a hypocrite, like all pols Joe has a double standards problem. Joe loves Nazis when
they suit his agenda, so much so that he'll send them free weapons, train and fund them, just
like the Israeli govt.
Joe Biden Rails against Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville after Supporting Them in Ukraine
Biden was 2nd in command in the administration that cost the party over 1000 elected
seats, 13 governorships and 14 state legislatures. He was 2nd in command of the
administration that led the country to Donald Trump's doorstep.
All the online polls I've seen have Bernie or Tulsi winning. Joe is a loser. Which is
probably why the Dems will rig the election and pick Joe. Trump wins. The establishment would
rather Joe lose to Trump than have Bernie or Tulsi beat him.
US govt. already spends more $$$ on college education than countries that provide "free" college,
same thing with health care, only with shittier results.
All the Fox news loving right wingers here should love Joe, he not much different than
Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump or Ted Cruz. All members of the uniparty. All love "open borders"
because they're all capitalists/globalists, and capitalists love cheap labor.
Biden voted for NAFTA and pushed the TPP
Opposes single-payer healthcare
Opposes cannabis legalization
Supports the death penalty
Wrote the 1994 crime bill
Voted for DOMA
Voted for NAFTA
Voted for Iraq War
Voted for PATRIOT Act
Voted to repeal Glass-Steagall
Voted to make it harder to eliminate student debt
@redmudhooch
Grifters Joe Biden and Virginia Governor Terry McCauliffe work on behalf of the special
interests that own America ..
So Who What are these SPECIAL INTERESTS?
Answer:ADL AIPAC .ISRAEL CORPORATE OLIGARCHS The aforementioned Special Interests want to
violently exterminate .THE HISTORIC NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN WORKING CLASS MAJORITY ..
IT'S A RACE WAR ..ADL AIPAC ISRAEL And CLASS WARFARE(Corporate Oligarchs) .
"... Joe Biden is a grinning neoliberal sell-out who stands well to the right of majority ..."
"... In 1978, Biden worked for Wall Street by voting to rollback bankruptcy protections for college graduates with federal student loans. Six years later he did the same to vocational school graduates. ..."
"... Biden strongly supported the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era Glass–Steagall Act. This helped create the 2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession. ..."
"... All of this and more in Biden's record is richly consistent with the beginning of his political career. He's been an unapologetic corporatist from the start. A ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Biden built his career advertising himself as someone who refuses to toe the progressive line ..."
"... specifically complaining about their opposition to his calls for a spending freeze on entitlements and an increase in the retirement age ..."
"... Biden is so corporatist and pro-Wall Street that he can't join the other corporate (neo) liberals in the 2020 presidential horse race in playing what a still-Left Christopher Hitchens once called (in a sharp volume on the neoliberal Clintons) "the essence of American politics": "the manipulation of populism by elitism." ..."
"... Joe Biden is such a right-winger that he has even gone so far as to say that he has "no empathy" for Millennials struggle to get by in the savagely unequal and insecure precariat economy he helped create over his many, many years of service to the Lords of Capital. "The younger generation now tells me how tough things are -- give me a break," said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times last year. "No, no, I have no empathy for it, give me a break." ..."
"... was bipartisan accord, after all, that brought us ..."
"... With Biden as with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and a long line of dismal dollar Democrats in the neoliberal era, there's an accurate translation for "reaching across the aisle to get things done:" joining hands across the two major party wings of the same corporate-imperial bird of prey to make policy in accord with the wishes of the rich and powerful. ..."
"... The Progressive ..."
"... "As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002, Biden stated that Saddam Hussein had a sizable arsenal of chemical weapons as well as biological weapons, including anthrax, and that 'he may have a strain' of smallpox, despite UN inspectors reporting that Iraq no longer appeared to have any weaponized chemical or biological agents. And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1997 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted that Saddam was 'seeking nuclear weapons.'" ..."
"... These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power. If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late ..."
"... "In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, Biden claimed in Senate session in October 2002, ' I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. ' This gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to the United States" (emphasis added). ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Biden is the most reliable alternative for corporate America. He has what Sanders completely lacks -- vast experience as an elected official serving the interests of credit-card companies, big banks, insurance firms and other parts of the financial services industry. His alignment with corporate interests has been comprehensive ..."
"... Flooding the primary campaign with such an absurdly large number of candidates that Sanders will likely be unable to garner the majority of primary delegates required for a first-ballot nomination at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee. ..."
"... Biden is part of the corporate "Stop Sanders" campaign inside the Democratic Party. It helps that he is a white male in an election cycle shaped by the Democrats' fear that running a woman and/or person of color might fuel the patriarchal and racist sentiments of the Trump base, increasing its turnout in battleground states. ..."
"... Establishment Democrats would rather lose to a white-nationalist right than even the mildly social-democratic left within their own party. It's why the late political scientist Sheldon Wolin labeled them "the Inauthentic Opposition." ..."
Besides being a grabby old coot who needs to stop joking about complaints over his
serially inappropriate touching of females, Joe Biden is a grinning neoliberal sell-out
who stands well to the right of majority progressive public opinion. No elegantly crafted
three-and-a-half minute campaign launch video on the horrors of Charlottesville and Donald
Trump can change that essential fact.
The media trope that portrays "Lunch-Bucket Joe" Biden as a regular, down-to-earth guy who
cares deeply about regular folks is pure, unadulterated bullshit. His real constituents wear
pinstripe suits and works on Wall Street and in corporate headquarters. They fly around in
fancy private jets. And the supposed "everyman liberal" Joe Biden is their loyal
apparatchik.
"The Folks at the Top Aren't Bad Guys"
It's not for nothing that Biden relies on big money backers, not small and working-class
donors – and that he is an especially close ally and beneficiary of Washington
lobbyists. He has spent decades ripping on progressive "special interests" while joining with
Republicans to advance policies harmful to the working-class.
In 1978, Biden worked for Wall Street by voting to rollback bankruptcy protections for
college graduates with federal student loans. Six years later he did the same to vocational
school graduates. In 2005, he worked with Republican allies to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which put traditional "clean slate" Chapter 7
bankruptcy out of reach for millions of ordinary Americans and thousands of small businesses.
The bill put bankruptcy filers under far stricter Chapter 13 rules, turning countless
citizens into de facto indentured servants of finance capital (including the many
credit card companies headquartered in Delaware.) Biden backed an earlier version of the bill
that was too corporatist even for Bill and Hillary Clinton.
He voted against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers
of the costs of only making minimum payments.
In 1979, Biden recognized campaign donations from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that
permitted soft-drink producers to skirt antitrust laws. That same year he was one of just two
Congressional Democrats to vote against a Judiciary Committee measure to increase consumers'
rights to sue corporations for price-fixing.
Biden strongly supported the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which permitted
the re-merging of investment and commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era
Glass–Steagall Act. This helped create the 2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent
recession.
Biden naturally supported the corporate-neoliberal North American Free Trade agreement and
the globalist investor rights Trans-Pacific Partnership deal.
All of this and more in Biden's record is richly consistent with the beginning of his
political career. He's been an unapologetic corporatist from the start. A s Branko
Marcetic noted on Jacobin last summer:
"In 1984, the Washington Post specifically named him, along with Gary Hart and
Bill Bradley, as one of the best-known figures among that era's Democratic Party's
'neo-liberals,' who 'singled out slimming the role of government and pushing new
technology' . Biden built his career advertising himself as someone who refuses to toe
the progressive line .
He proudly boasted of defying liberal orthodoxy on school busing, for instance. But
throughout his career, that boast has most often taken the form of bashing liberal 'special
interests.' Biden toured the country in 1985 chiding unions and farmers for being too
narrowly focused, and complained that Democrats too often 'think in terms of special
interests first and the greater interest second.'
In the latter case, Biden was specifically complaining about their opposition to his
calls for a spending freeze on entitlements and an increase in the retirement age "
(emphasis added).
"The Anti-Populist"
Biden is so corporatist and pro-Wall Street that he can't join the other corporate
(neo) liberals in the 2020 presidential horse race in playing what a still-Left Christopher
Hitchens once called (in a sharp volume on the neoliberal Clintons) "the essence of American
politics": "the manipulation of populism by elitism." Biden won't deign to pay
lip-service to populism. Indeed, he has billed himself the "anti-populist" – the
antidote to both the right-wing reactionary populism of Trump and the leftish progressive
populism of Bernie Sanders.
Biden absurdly criticizes those who advocate a universal basic income of "selling American
workers short" and undermining the "dignity" of work. He opposes calls for free college
tuition and Single Payer health insurance. He defends Big Business from popular criticism,
writing in 2017 that "Some want to single out big corporations for all the blame. But
consumers, workers, and leaders have the power to hold every corporation to a higher
standard, not simply cast business as the enemy."
That's called blaming the working-class victim. It's also called propagating a fantasy
– the existence of a political system in which the working-class majority has the power
to hold concentrated wealth and power accountable.
"I don't think five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble. The folks at the
top aren't bad guys," he told the Brookings Institution last year – this as he claimed
to worry about how the "gap is yawning" between the super-rich and the rest.
"I Have No Empathy Give Me a Break"
Joe Biden is such a right-winger that he has even gone so far as to say that he has "no
empathy" for Millennials struggle to get by in the savagely unequal and insecure precariat
economy he helped create over his many, many years of service to the Lords of Capital. "The
younger generation now tells me how tough things are -- give me a break," said Biden, while
speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times last year. "No, no, I have no empathy for
it, give me a break."
So what if Millennials face a significant diminution of opportunity, wealth, income and
security compared to the Baby Boomers with whom Biden identifies? Who cares if he helped
shrink the American Dream for young people with the neoliberal policies and politics he
helped advance?
"Reaching Across the Aisle to Get [Capitalist] Things Done"
How Biden has managed to simultaneously distance himself from majority
progressive-populist sentiments and pose as a friend of the everyday working man is an
interesting question that probably can't be answered without factoring in the Orwellian role
of corporate media in promoting love as hate, war as peace, black as white, and corporate
apparatchiks as regular working-class guys.
A critical part of Joe "Anti-Populist" Biden's media-crafted appeal is his "get things
done" claim to be able to "reach out across the aisle" in the famous, hallowed, and CNN- and
"P"BS-honored "spirit of bipartisanship." That's a shame. Why should we want a president who
promises to team up with the widely loathed and creeping fascist white-nationalist Republican
Party? And what has the holy bipartisanship that Biden is celebrated for embracing wrought
for We the People over the years? Not much. As Andrew Cockburn wrote last month at Harpers :
"By tapping into popular tropes -- 'The system is broken,' 'Why can't Congress just get
along?' -- the practitioners of bipartisanship conveniently gloss over the more evident
reality: that the system is under sustained assault by a [bipartisan] ideology bent on
destroying the remnants of the New Deal to the benefit of a greed-driven oligarchy. It was
bipartisan accord, after all, that brought us the permanent war economy, the war on
drugs, the mass incarceration of black people [Biden backed Bill Clinton's 'Three Strikes'
crime and prison bill – P.S.], 1990s welfare 'reform' [Biden backed the
Clinton-Gingrich abolition of Aid for Families with Dependent Children], Wall Street
deregulation and the consequent $16 trillion in bank bailouts, the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force, and other atrocities too numerous to mention. If the system is indeed
broken, it is because interested parties are doing their best to break it" (emphasis
added).
Biden even took his embrace of the supposedly sacred virtue of bipartisanship to the
grotesque level of forming close friendships with vicious southern white racists like
Republican Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, not to mention the frothing warmonger
John McCain.
With Biden as with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and a long line of dismal dollar
Democrats in the neoliberal era, there's an accurate translation for "reaching across the
aisle to get things done:" joining hands across the two major party wings of the same
corporate-imperial bird of prey to make policy in accord with the wishes of the rich and
powerful.
"A March to Peace and Security"
Speaking of young people and empire, no assessment of "Lunch Bucket Joe" (LBJ) Biden is
complete without reference to what Institute for Policy Studies foreign policy analyst
Stephen Zunes calls Biden's "key role in making possible an inappropriate and utterly
disastrous war" – the monumentally criminal and mass-murderous U.S. invasion of Iraq.
As Zunes explains at The Progressive :
"As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2002, Biden stated that Saddam
Hussein had a sizable arsenal of chemical weapons as well as biological weapons, including
anthrax, and that 'he may have a strain' of smallpox, despite UN inspectors reporting that
Iraq no longer appeared to have any weaponized chemical or biological agents. And even
though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1997 that there
was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted that
Saddam was 'seeking nuclear weapons.'"
"At the start of hearings before his committee on July 31, 2002, Biden stated, 'One thing
is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from
power. If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late
"In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, Biden claimed
in Senate session in October 2002, ' I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it
is a march to peace and security. ' This gave President Bush the unprecedented authority
to invade a country on the far side of the world that was no threat to the United States"
(emphasis added).
It was an invasion that led to the premature death of 4500 mostly younger U.S. Americans
– and of course to much larger Iraqi casualties.
The "Stop Sanders Democrats"
Why is this dirty old imperialist and corporatist dog being rolled out to corporate media
acclaim as the supposed people's alternative to Trump in the White House? It's all about
blocking Bernie Sanders, who is the Democrats' best chance to win back the presidency since
he nearly won the Democratic presidential nomination three years ago (Sanders would have
prevailed over the vapid centrist Hillary Clinton but for the corrupt shenanigans of the
Democratic National Committee) and is still running (as before) in sincere accord with
majority-progressive-populist sentiments on key domestic issues. Norman Solomon has explained
it well here at Counterpunch :
"Biden has arrived as a presidential candidate to rescue the Democratic Party from Bernie
Sanders .Urgency is in the media air. Last week, the New York Times told readers that
'Stop Sanders' Democrats were 'agonizing over his momentum.' The story was front-page news.
At the Washington Post , a two-sentence headline appeared just above a nice photo of
Biden: 'Far-Left Policies Will Drive a 2020 Defeat, Centrist Democrats Fear. So They're
Floating Alternatives.' Biden is the most reliable alternative for corporate America. He
has what Sanders completely lacks -- vast experience as an elected official serving the
interests of credit-card companies, big banks, insurance firms and other parts of the
financial services industry. His alignment with corporate interests has been
comprehensive . It was a fulcrum of his entire political career when, in 1993, Sen. Biden
voted yes while most Democrats in Congress voted against NAFTA .In recent months, from his
pro-corporate vantage point, Biden has been taking potshots at the progressive populism of
Bernie Sanders. At a gathering in Alabama last fall, Biden said: 'Guys, the wealthy are as
patriotic as the poor. I know Bernie doesn't like me saying that, but they are'" (emphasis
added).
Only the popular front-runner Sanders is likely to prevail against Trump even without a
recession (certainly a possibility) between now and the election. But, as in the last
presidential cycle, corporate-Democratic politicos are working to sabotage the nomination of
their most viable candidate in the general election. They are:
Flooding the primary campaign with such an absurdly large number of candidates that
Sanders will likely be unable to garner the majority of primary delegates required for a
first-ballot nomination at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.
Coordinating among the Democratic Convention super-delegates -- the more than 350 county
and state party bosses and elected officials who are granted delegate status without election
-- to vote as a bloc to stop Sanders on the convention's second ballot. (These
super-delegates exist precisely for the purpose of blocking challengers to the party's
corporate establishment.)
Working to change state party elections from caucuses to primaries, as caucuses are
friendlier to progressive challengers. (Sanders won 11 of the nation's 18 caucus states three
years ago.)
Smearing Sanders' popular social-democratic policy agenda as "fantastic,"
"unaffordable," "unrealistic" and too dangerously "socialist" -- this while Democratic elites
refuse to acknowledge the fascist tendencies of the president they helped elect in 2016.
Branding the electable Sanders "unelectable" on the grounds that he is an "extremist"
who is "too far left" for the U.S. electorate generally and independent voters
specifically.
The "unelectable" charge is false. Sanders appeals to independents (who are nowhere near
as conservative as is commonly reported), people of color, infrequent voters and the white
working-class that has largely abandoned the Democratic Party. His anti-establishment
message, coupled with his long record of representing rural voters, makes him highly
competitive with Trump, not only in the Rust Belts states where Hillary Clinton faltered but
even in some dark red states like West Virginia. Even the likes of Karl Rove believe Sanders
could defeat Trump in 2020.
Biden is part of the corporate "Stop Sanders" campaign inside the Democratic Party. It
helps that he is a white male in an election cycle shaped by the Democrats' fear that running
a woman and/or person of color might fuel the patriarchal and racist sentiments of the Trump
base, increasing its turnout in battleground states.
Look for the Democratic establishment to do everything it can to prevent its party from
defeating Trump by running its most popular candidate, Bernie Sanders. Surprised? You
shouldn't be. The Democratic Party exists to serve its corporate clients. Its leaders fear
the specter of socialism while the world's most powerful nation threatens to slide into
fascism. (Never mind that democratic eco-socialism -- a political project significantly more
radical than what Sanders is proposing -- is precisely what America and the world need right
now.)
Establishment Democrats would rather lose to a white-nationalist right than even the
mildly social-democratic left within their own party. It's why the late political scientist
Sheldon Wolin labeled them "the Inauthentic Opposition."
The Best Thing Joe Can Do
Joe Biden can wave the bloody flag of Charlottesville all he wants. He is the distilled
essence of neoliberal Fake Resistance and Inauthentic Opposition. Barring an economic
meltdown between now and the first Tuesday in November of 2020, look for him to get knocked
out by the orange beast in the general election if the "Stop Sanders" Democrats are
successful.
Keep your passports up to date. Trumpism is Amerikaner fascism, eager to up its ugly game
by stepping beyond mere flirtation with mass violence. As Paul Krugman recently told a
nonplussed Anderson Cooper on CNN, "if you're not terrified" yet, then "you]re not paying
attention":
Cooper: "You write that it's very much up in the air whether America as we know it will
survive."
Krugman: "Institutions depend upon the willingness of people to obey norms, and
occasionally to say, okay, 'this is not how we do things in our country.' This didn't start
with Trump. There's been a steady erosion of those norms. This has been building for a long
time, and we're very close to the edge right now."
Cooper: "When you say close to the edge, what does that mean to you?"
Krugman: "You know, on paper, we'll stay a democracy
, but I worry very much about a sort of Hungary-type situation where you have on paper the
institutions of democracy. You even hold votes, but the system is rigged, and in fact, it's
become effectively you have a one-party rule We're very close. If Trump is re-elected if the
Republicans retake control of the House, what are the odds that we will really have a
functioning democracy after that?"
Cooper: "I mean, that's a pretty terrifying idea"
Krugman: "If you're not terrified, you're not paying attention"
What Biden said in his launch video yesterday morning is correct: "If we give Donald Trump
eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character of this
nation We can't forget what happened in Charlottesville." A second Trump term is not a
pleasant thing to contemplate. Biden says he "can't stand by and let that happen."
The irony is the best thing he could do to stop a second Trump term is to stand aside and
tell the rest of the candidate field and voters to congeal behind Sanders. The
corporate-neoliberal Democratic Clinton-Obama model is what put the supremely dangerous
orange monster in the White House in the first place in 2016. The establishment Democrats,
who prefer barbarism to even the mildest hint of socialism, are working to give the monster a
second term. If Joe really hates fascism as much as his launch video suggests, then he needs
to de-launch. Maybe some activists in Iowa or New Hampshire can set up for his final,
politically fatal gropes. Extreme times call for extreme measures. His candidacy is
terrifying.
"Max Blumenthal
Verified account @MaxBlumenthal,
1d1 day ago
Biden centered his launch video on resisting Nazis in Charlottesville, so it's worth
examining his record in supporting the resurgence of Nazism in Ukraine. In fact, his top
advisor on the issue recently brought the founder of two Nazi parties to DC."
Colonel, I would appreciate your comments about John Huntsman and his remarks " each of the
carriers operating in the Mediterranean as this time represent 100,000 tons of
international diplomacy", "Diplomatic communication and dialogue, coupled with the strong
defenses these ships provide, demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations
with the United states, it must cease its destabilizing activities around the world."
Strange words coming from a "diplomat". It might be informative to see the kind of a
reception he will get when he returns to Russia as "ambassador". Ishmael Zechariah
Yesterday, President Trump vetoed his second bill as president. S. J. Res. 7 directed the
president to cease US military activities in support of the Saudi war on Yemen and his veto
signifies that he intends to continue in a war that he may not have started but that he is
escalating. The White House statement on the veto is full of fallacies and contradictions. We
take that apart - and share some idea on what we can do next - in today's Liberty Report:
An attempt at a Venn diagram of the Republican party should be attempted.
It should show factions such as White Christians, the pro-Netanyahu* whispering gallery,
Might-Makes-Right, Asset inflation complements Wage repression, selective free speech*
movement, . . . and on it goes
-- with completion (Union) in the Republican Party.
*see Greenwald today in The Intercept
(now have a comfort chocolate)
I noticed Biden waited tell after the Mueller report was released to make a decision to
run. He was Obama white hand man while all this Schitt took place. Right there in the White
House as Hillary parlayed hundreds of millions into the Clinton Foundation using pay to play
tactics. He was there at Uranium One, overseeing his son's Ukraine Deal. And stood side by
side with Barry and the Pantsuit Hag while Arab springs exploded into chaos. This hair
plugged buffoon would be White Obama 2.0.
My reading is that the core psychological principle of neoliberalism, that life is an accumulation of moments of utility
and disutility, is alive and well within certain sectors of the "left". A speech (or email or comment at a meeting) should be
evaluated by how it makes us feel, and no one should have the right to make us feel bad.
Not sure about this "utility/disutility" dichotomy (probably you mean market fundamentalism -- belief that market ( and market
mechanisms) is a self regulating, supernaturally predictive force that will guide human beings to the neoliberal Heavens), but, yes,
neoliberalism infected the "left" and, especially, Democratic Party which was converted by Clinton into greedy and corrupt "DemoRats'
subservient to Wall Street and antagonistic to the trade unions. And into the second War Party, which in certain areas is even more
jingoistic and aggressive then Republicans (Obama color revolution in Ukraine is one example; Hillary Libya destruction is another;
both were instrumental in unleashing the civil war on Syria and importing and arming Muslim fundamentalists to fight it).
It might make sense to view neoliberalism as a new secular religion which displaced Marxism on the world arena (and collapse of
the USSR was in part the result of the collapse of Marxism as an ideology under onslaught of neoliberalism; although bribes of USSR
functionaries and mismanagement of the economy due to over centralization -- country as a single gigantic corporation -- also greatly
helped) .
Neoliberalism demonstrates the same level of intolerance (and actually series of wars somewhat similar to Crusades) as any monotheistic
religion in early stages of its development. Because at this stage any adept knows the truth and to believe in this truth is to be
saved; everything else is eternal damnation (aka living under "authoritarian regime" ;-) .
And so far there is nothing that will force the neoliberal/neocon Torquemadas to abandon their loaded with bombs jets as the tool
of enlightenment of pagan states ;-)
Simplifying, neoliberalism can be viewed an a masterfully crafted, internally consistent amalgam of myths and pseudo theories
(partially borrowed from Trotskyism) that justifies the rule of financial oligarchy and high level inequality in the society (redistribution
of the wealth up). Kind of Trotskyism for the rich with the same idea of Permanent Revolution until global victory of neoliberalism.
That's why neoliberals charlatans like Hayek and Friedman were dusted off, given Nobel Prizes and promoted to the top in economics:
they were very helpful and pretty skillful in forging neoliberal myths. Especially Hayek. A second rate economist who proved to be
the first class theologian .
Promoting "neoliberal salvation" was critical for the achieving the political victory of neoliberalism in late 1979th and discrediting
and destroying the remnants of the New Deal capitalism (already undermined at this time by the oil crisis)
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions. And neoliberalism survived in Russia under Putin and Medvedev as well, despite economic rape that Western
neoliberals performed on Russia under Yeltsin with the help of Harvard mafia.
That's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
Neoliberalism has led to the rise of corporate (especially financial oligarchy) power and an open war on labor. New Deal policies
aimed at full employment and job security have been replaced with ones that aim at flexibility in the form of unstable employment,
job loss and rising inequality.
This hypotheses helps to explain why neoliberalism as a social system survived after its ideology collapsed in 2008 -- it just
entered zombie stage like Bolshevism after WWII when it became clear that it can't achieve higher standard of living for the population
then capitalism.
Latest mutation of classic neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" under Trump shows that it has great ability to adapt to
the changing conditions.
that's why despite widespread criticism, neoliberalism remains the dominant politico-economic theory amongst policy-makers both
in the USA and internationally. All key global neoliberal global institutions, such as the G20, European Union, IMF, World bank,
and WTO still survived intact and subscribe to neoliberalism. .
A shock call from President Trump to head of the "Libyan National
Army," Khalifa Hafter, praising him for keeping the oil safe in eastern Libya, has upended US
policy.
Now the US supports both the UN-appointed government in Tripoli and Hafter's forces
fighting against it. What's it all about? Iran, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, oil, and Israel. Who
wins in this international proxy war...?
Re Bernie, this is a zerohedge post that beautifully sums him up:
Tomsk on July 26, 2018 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT
It is amazing how many people actually believe that Bernie Saunders is some kind of
decent guy posing an "alternative" to the other 2 contenders when his sole purpose was to
round up "dissenters" and funnel them into the Hillary camp.
As Alexander Azadgan points out –
1. He voted in favor of use of force (euphemism for bombing) 12 sovereign nations that
never represented a threat to the U.S.:
1) Afghanistan.
2) Lebanon.
3) Libya.
4) Palestine.
5) Somalia
6) Syria.
7) Yemen.
8) Yugoslavia
9) Haiti
10) Liberia
11) Zaire (Congo)
12) Sudan
2. He has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense
contractor, he continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said
that predator drones "have done some very good things". Sanders has always voted in favor
of awarding more corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if
he says he's against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.
3. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare,
wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He loves to bluster about corporate
welfare and big banks but he voted for funding the Commodity Futures "Modernization" Act
which deregulated commercial banks and created an "unregulated market in derivatives and
swaps" which was the major contributor to the 2007 economic crisis.
4. Regardless of calling himself an "independent", Sanders is a member of the Democratic
caucus and votes 98% of the time with the Democrats and votes in the exact same way as war
criminal Hillary Clinton 93% of the time. Sanders campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992
presidential race and again in 1996 -- after Clinton had rammed through the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and
destroyed welfare.
5. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic Party plays when there's no White House
Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running
ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award
the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, . charged with herding activists and voters back
into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic
Party, either staying home. In 2004 he called on Ralph Nader to abandon his presidential
campaign.
The Democratic Party has played this "sheep dog" card at least 7-8 times in the past
utilizing collaborators such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988,
Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and
in 2016 was Bernie Sanders' turn.
6. Regardless of calling himself a "socialist" he labeled the late Hugo Chávez,
architect of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela responsible for lifting millions of
lives out of poverty "a dead communist dictator." Then he saddled up for a photo op with
Evo Morales at the Vatican and also voted to extradite former Black Panther member, Assata
Shakur.
7. He refers to ISIS' godfather and warmonger extraordinaire John McCain as "my friend
and a very, very decent person."
8. He routinely parrots the DNC lines: "the Russians hacked our elections" despite there
is no evidence of such hacking, but lowered his head and tucked tail when the DNC actually
rigged the primary elections against him, proving he is more loyal to the Democratic (war)
Party than to the millions of people who supported him and donated to his fraudulent
campaign.
9. He expressed staunch support for the aid of violently right-wing separatist forces
such as the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army, whose members were trained as Mujahideen,
during Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. He has an extensive
record of supporting jihadist proxies for the overthrow of sovereign governments in
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
10. He supported Bill Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that prohibited
medicines for infants and children more than 500,000 innocents killed for no other reason
than that they were Iraqi.
11. He said yes in a voice vote to the Clinton-era crime Bill, the Violent Crime Control
& Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expanded the death penalty to cover 60 offenses.
So he is obviously pro-death penalty.
Befitting of his status as a former VP and the leader in most national polls, Biden managed
to beat out Bernie Sander's day-one haul of $5.9 million, despite the still-simmering
controversy over 'gropegate' and the backlash over his treatment of Anita Hill, a young black
female lawyer who accused Supreme Court nominee (now Justice) Clarence Thomas of sexual
harassment. Hill rejected a personal apology from Biden earlier this week, even as Biden
clarified during an interview on ABC's "the View" that he wasn't apologizing for his personal
behavior, but rather for the treatment she was subjected to during a hearing of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which he led at the time.
Biden's day-one haul also beat out the $6.1 million raised by Texas Congressman Beto
O'Rourke during his first day, though recent polls show that enthusiasm for O'Rourke among
Democrats has waned as South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has benefited from a media blitz of
fawning coverage.
After all the manipulated outrage, the electoral choices will most likely still be between
about whom it can essentially be said "meet the old boss, same as the old boss." Underneath
the thin layers of standard rhetorical ******** the same strings connect the puppets to the
puppet masters.
In case anyone is wondering what kind of thug Kolomoisky (Hunter biden's sponsor at
burisma), here is a run down of the murder of Russians in Odessa on 2 May 2014 and
kolomosky's close involvement.
What I read was "Biden is a typical American politician." All the career politicians
depend on big checks from the rich and corporate elites who greatly appreciate their services
rendered. America is pay to play. It has been for a long time.
"
Kim Dotcom
Verified account @KimDotcom
22h22 hours ago
Former Biden lawyer Neil MacBride became DOJ US Attorney in Virginia by waiver fraud.
Biden placed him there to run his cases. A week before Biden met with MPAA and Studio
bosses at the White House MacBride personally delivered a Megaupload case update to Biden's
chief of staff.
19 replies 321 retweets 466 likes
Kim Dotcom
Verified account @KimDotcom
23h23 hours ago
Thank you for running for President @JoeBiden. This is exactly what I needed.
59 replies 94 retweets 513 likes
Kim Dotcom
Verified account @KimDotcom
23h23 hours ago
Little hint for investigative journalists. Look at the appointment of Neil MacBride as US
Attorney by the White House (Biden). Look at the waiver requirements for lobbyists who have
made substantial political donations. Very interesting stuff.
10 replies 221 retweets 360 likes
Kim Dotcom
Verified account @KimDotcom
23h23 hours ago
Barack Obama didn't endorse Joe Biden and advised him not to run because now everyone will
be looking for dirt on Biden. There's a lot of dirt and Obama is right there with him in the
mud of corruption and unlawfulness. Exciting times.
273 replies 3,388 retweets 8,232 likes
Kim Dotcom
Verified account @KimDotcom
23h23 hours ago
Joe Biden won't be President.
The Megaupload case is his showstopper. Biden corrupted and weaponized the DOJ for his
pay-for-play politics. My case is an unlawful mess of Biden corruption and Biden's decision
to run is a blessing for my legal team 😎
69 replies 468 retweets 1,403 likes
Kim Dotcom
Verified account @KimDotcom
23h23 hours ago
Biden was instrumental in the destruction of Megaupload. He admitted so himself at a
fundraiser where we placed a lawyer at his table to ask the question. Biden got his former
lawyer, copyright lobbyist Neil McBride, a senior DOJ job unlawfully to run Biden's
pay-for-play cases."
Looks like she is incompetent beyond her narrow specialty and financial issues. This way she
deprive herself of votes that otherwise belong to her. And what she is trying to achieve ?
President Pence? Come on !
The most aggressive response to the full Mueller report has, naturally, come from the most
liberal wings of the Democratic Party. Last month, I sketched out six chief
Democratic blocs (from most liberal to most moderate): the Super Progressives, the Very
Progressives, the Progressive New Guard, the Progressive Old Guard, the Moderates and
Conservative Democrats. Many of the party's Super Progressives , including U.S. Reps.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York,
Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and
Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, are already talking about impeachment, as is a key voice in the
party's Very Progressive bloc, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
"... FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts. Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and assessing." ..."
"... Selective enforcement of FARA was, ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned. ..."
"... Kushner reportedly aggressively pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government. ..."
"... Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to do nothing about it. ..."
The Mueller Special Counsel inquiry is far from over even though a
final report on its findings has been issued. Although the investigation had a mandate to
explore all aspects of the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US election, from the start
the focus was on the possibility that some members of the Trump campaign had colluded with the
Kremlin to influence the outcome of the election to favor the GOP candidate. Even though that
could not be demonstrated, many prominent Trump critics, to include Laurence Tribe of the
Harvard Law School,
are demanding that the investigation continue until Congress has discovered "the full facts
of Russia's interference [to include] the ways in which that interference is continuing in
anticipation of 2020, and the full story of how the president and his team welcomed, benefited
from, repaid, and obstructed lawful investigation into that interference and the president's
cooperation with it."
Tribe should perhaps read the report more carefully. While it does indeed confirm some
Russian meddling, it does not demonstrate that anyone in the Trump circle benefited from it or
cooperated with it. The objective currently being promoted by dedicated Trump critics like
Tribe is to make a case to impeach the president based on the alleged enormity of the Russian
activity, which is not borne out by the facts: the Russian role was intermittent, small scale
and basically ineffective.
One interesting aspect of the Mueller inquiry and the ongoing Russophobia that it has
generated is the essential hypocrisy of the Washington Establishment. It is generally agreed
that whatever Russia actually did, it did not affect the outcome of the election. That the
Kremlin was using intelligence resources to act against Hillary Clinton should surprise no one
as she described Russian President Vladimir Putin as Hitler and also made clear that she would
be taking a very hard line against Moscow.
The anti-Russia frenzy in Washington generated by the vengeful Democrats and an
Establishment fearful of a loss of privilege and entitlement claimed a number of victims. Among
them was Russian citizen Maria Butina, who has a court date and will very likely be
sentenced tomorrow .
Regarding Butina, the United States Department of Justice would apparently have you believe
that the Kremlin sought to subvert the five-million-member strong National Rifle Association
(NRA) by having a Russian citizen take out a life membership in the organization with the
intention of corrupting it and turning it into an instrument for subverting American democracy.
Maria Butina has, by the way, a long and well documented history as an advocate for gun
ownership and was a co-founder in Russia of Right to Bear Arms, which is not an intelligence
front organization of some kind. It is rather a genuine lobbying group with an active
membership and agenda. Contrary to what has been reported in the mainstream media, Russians can
own guns but the licensing and registration procedures are long and complicated, which Right to
Bear Arms, modeling itself on the NRA, is seeking to change.
Butina, a graduate student at American University, is now in a federal prison, having been
charged with collusion and failure to register as an agent of the Russian Federation. She was
arrested on July 15, 2018. It is decidedly unusual to arrest and confine someone who has failed
to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) , but she has not been granted bail because, as a
Russian citizen, she is considered to be a "flight risk," likely to try to flee the US and
return home.
FARA requires all individuals and organizations acting on behalf of foreign governments to
registered with the Department of Justice and to report their sources of income and contacts.
Federal prosecutors have claimed that Butina was reporting back to a Russian official while
deliberating cultivating influential figures in the United States as potential resources to
advance Russian interests, a process that is described in intelligence circles as "spotting and
assessing."
Maria eventually pleaded guilty of not registering under FARA to mitigate any punishment,
hoping that she would be allowed to return to Russia after a few months in prison on top of the
nine months she has already served. She has reportedly fully cooperated the US authorities,
turning over documents, answering questions and undergoing hours of interrogation by federal
investigators before and after her guilty plea.
Maria Butina basically did nothing that damaged US security and it is difficult to see where
her behavior was even criminal, but the prosecution is asking for 18 months in prison for her
in addition to the time served. She would be, in fact, one of only a handful of individuals
ever to be imprisoned over FARA, and they all come from countries that Washington considers to
be unfriendly, to include Cuba, Saddam's Iraq and Russia. Normally the failure to comply with
FARA is handled with a fine and compulsory registration.
Butina was essentially convicted of the crime of being Russian at the wrong time and in the
wrong place and she is paying for it with prison. Selective enforcement of FARA was,
ironically, revealed through evidence collected and included in the Mueller Report relating to
the only foreign country that actually sought to obtain favors from the incoming Trump
Administration. That country was Israel and the individual who drove the process and should
have been fined and required to register with FARA was President Donald Trump's son-in-law
Jared Kushner. As Kushner also had considerable "flight risk" to Israel, which has no
extradition treaty with the United States, he should also have been imprisoned.
Kushner reportedly aggressively
pressured members of the Trump transition team to contact foreign ambassadors at the United
Nations to convince them to vote against or abstain from voting on the December 2016 United
Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 condemning Israeli settlements. The resolution passed
when the US, acting under direction of President Barack Obama, abstained, but incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn did indeed contact the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak twice
and asked for Moscow's cooperation, which was refused. Kushner, who is so close to Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the latter has slept at the Kushner apartment in New York
City, was clearly acting in response to direction coming from the Israeli government.
Another interesting tidbit revealed by Mueller relates to Trump foreign policy adviser
George Papadopoulos's ties to Israel over an oil development scheme. Mueller "ultimately
determined that the evidence was not sufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction" that
Papadopoulos "committed a crime or crimes by acting as an unregistered agent of the Israeli
government." Mueller went looking for a Russian connection but found only Israel and decided to
do nothing about it.
As so often is the case, inquiries that begin by looking for foreign interference in
American politics start by focusing on Washington's adversaries but then comes up with Israel.
Noam Chomsky
described it best "First of all, if you're interested in foreign interference in our
elections, whatever the Russians may have done barely counts or weighs in the balance as
compared with what another state does, openly, brazenly and with enormous support. Netanyahu
goes directly to Congress, without even informing the president, and speaks to Congress, with
overwhelming applause, to try to undermine the president's policies -- what happened with Obama
and Netanyahu in 2015. Did Putin come to give an address to the joint sessions of Congress
trying to -- calling on them to reverse US policy, without even informing the president? And
that's just a tiny bit of this overwhelming influence."
Maria Butina is in jail for doing nothing while Jared Kushner, who needed a godfathered
security clearance due to his close Israeli ties, struts through the White House as senior
advisor to the president in spite of the fact that he used his nepotistically obtained access
to openly promote the interests of a foreign government. Mueller knows all about it but
recommended nothing, as if it didn't happen. The media is silent. Congress will do nothing. As
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it "We in Congress stand by
Israel. In Congress, we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel." Indeed.
"... A peace treaty with North Korea would help him. Trump is going to run the same campaign he ran before and I do not think that will help him. I notice the crowds are still big but the crowd noise is very different. Not jubilant like the first run. It sounds like an angry murmur this time. ..."
"... 95% negative press has taken its toll. I see the economy turning down. High oil prices will cripple a weakening economy. War with Iran will not be popular, he would have to save that for a second term unless our friends can pull it off behind his back. That is possible as they have gotten a boatload out of him and the "peace deal of the century" will be a big gift to them ..."
"... If the Democrats go with the establishment candidate, and that is most likely then Trump has a outside long shot chance. ..."
Trump really has little chance of winning. His electoral victory was huge but the swing
states were pretty tight. Florida, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and some other
states were close. Do the numbers
yourself. I would expect a higher turnout on the other side. Trumps base was maxed
out.
If he faces off against Biden a bumbling Biden campaign could win it for him and that is
very possible. A peace treaty with North Korea would help him. Trump is going to run the same
campaign he ran before and I do not think that will help him. I notice the crowds are still
big but the crowd noise is very different. Not jubilant like the first run. It sounds like an
angry murmur this time.
95% negative press has taken its toll. I see the economy turning down. High oil prices
will cripple a weakening economy. War with Iran will not be popular, he would have to save
that for a second term unless our friends can pull it off behind his back. That is possible
as they have gotten a boatload out of him and the "peace deal of the century" will be a big
gift to them. It might be time to "off" Trump politically and move on as Biden would be good
to them.
He has to deliver the next two years and nothing will get done beyond executive action. If
the Democrats go with the establishment candidate, and that is most likely then Trump has a
outside long shot chance.
"... foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or not warranted so long as they play their cards right. ..."
"... US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before 11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump. ..."
"... Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. ..."
"... Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows? ..."
Russiagate will scarcely matter to most voters by election time 2020. Trump has already
received whatever positives he will receive courtesy of Barr's whitewashing. It is clear
among
a majourity of Americans that Trump obstructed justice and the drip drip of continued
information, hearings, etc will not improve his standing. May not hurt him but definitely
will not help him gain voters at the margins.
Likewise, foreign policy scarcely moves the needle in the US electorate at large so that
won't necessarily help Trump nor hinder Bernie except on the outer fringes. Americans are
tired of endless wars so the Demotards should generally be favoured on this issue whether or
not warranted so long as they play their cards right.
Trump may gain an advantage among more conservative-tinged independent voters if he
continues to work in concert with Russia and Israel on Middle East issues in the sense that
many may see these alliances as promoting strength and peace (whether warranted or not). The
coming deal with China on trade will benefit Trump too...as long as the economy keeps humming
along.
US Presidential elections definitely turn on the economy. A slowdown or recession before
11/2020 and Trump is toast. Also, the conversation has clearly moved left on economic
inequality and healthcare. Bernie owns these issues and to the extent he can make his way
through the primaries he will stand a great chance of unseating Trump.
Warren does too but as you stated she is not telegenic nor peronable. Her .01% Native
American schtick really hurt her credibility. That was a dumb move. Are some of her problems
related to gender bias? Without a doubt. However, as I have long said, the first American
female president will not come from the baby boom. The first American female president will
more likely be a millenial.
Gabbard is certainly telegenic and hasn't been blackballed as
much as she is simply not well-known. She's in the field at the moment. Her chances appear
more real farther down the road so running now could be seen as a first step in the eventual
process. I doubt Bernie will choose her as VP but who knows?
"... I see Biden as just another one of the people assigned to gather delegates so as to attain such a number Sanders can be denied the nomination. Of course Uncle Joe sees it differently. With an ego at least the equal of Trump's, the man imagines he can take the White House. Should it come to that, I'd imagine voters won't risk trading down. Since we're already at Trump Level, who could blame them? ..."
"... 2. If, in the first round, a single candidate receives at least 51% of the vote, then the superdelegates do not come into play in subsequent rounds. ..."
"... 3. If no single candidate receives 51% of the vote, Party controlled superdelegates participate in subsequent rounds. ..."
"... 4. D-Party Solution: Flood the field of candidates so that it becomes much less likely that a single candidate will achieve 51% in the first round. Thus allowing the Party controlled superdelegates to be used to nominate the Party's chosen corporate loyalist. ..."
"... ... our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose. ..."
"... Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it. ..."
"... The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. " ..."
"... Sorry Jackrabbit, managed democracy, duopoly, money-based electoral system and lapdog media is the way it is set up. There is no movement that is outside duopoly politics that can win within the constitutional sytem. ..."
Sanders/Gabbard would be the one and only ticket that would come close to beating Trump. But the Dems have hobbled themselves
with Russiagate. The only hope they have is to go strong on the progressive agenda,The corporatist 'center' won't have a bar of
it. It's going to be an interesting election...or maybe not, depending on who runs. Pure theater, anyway.
Never Mind the Bollocks , Apr 25, 2019 2:19:50 PM |
link
b, don't you go along with Dmitry Orlov's assertion that it doesn't matter who gets to be POTUS, because all of them are necessarily
- and probably by now unavoidably - creatures of the true power-wielders of the deep state? They either toe the line of the real
power-wielders' diktats, as Trump has been whipped into doing, or they get overthrown - sometimes by assassination. (My paraphrase
of Dmitry...)
thanks b... i don't hold out much chance for any change, regardless of who gets in.. the war party is in full control of the usa
and i can't see that changing any time soon.. my response is a bit like @3 rhisiart.
There are many of these essays listing in detail Biden's awfulness, so linking the latest seems the easiest thing to do. So
far as I know, the man has no virtues worthy of mention, yet a rap sheet as long as the string of coupons you get at a CVS store.
Until convincing evidence to the contrary is stuck in front of my face, I see Biden as just another one of the people assigned
to gather delegates so as to attain such a number Sanders can be denied the nomination. Of course Uncle Joe sees it differently.
With an ego at least the equal of Trump's, the man imagines he can take the White House. Should it come to that, I'd imagine voters
won't risk trading down. Since we're already at Trump Level, who could blame them?
Seriously, the Primaries next year are going to have to be closely watched, for vote fraud in them will be far more serious
than in the general election. Like, does anyone suppose the Billionaires or Big Bankers or Holy Israel gives a hoot whether it's
President Trump or President Biden?
The intent of the "Democratic" National Committee, DNC, is to crowd the field with so many candidates that no one can win on the
first ballot, allowing the Superdelegates the option to vote their "conscience" (their puppet masters choice) on the second, and
thus installing another empty suit.
Either Sanders, or similar progressive, gets it on the first ballot, or it's the same old same old. You will notice that very
few candidates are proposing progressive platforms.
IMO Americans are so insular and uninformed about foreign affairs, you will never see a foreign affairs candidate that can
get any traction. Additionally, a foreign affairs candidate that went against the Deep State will be crushed, as is happening
to Gabbert.
Also, it's important to note the last President that went against the CIA was assassinated in 1963.
Agreed. It's all about bringing the Party controlled superdelegates into play.
Like you said, the D-Party's plan appears to be to flood the primary with a sufficient number of candidates to fragment first
round primary voting enough so that no single candidate reaches the required 51% needed to exclude superdelegates from subsequent
rounds of voting.
For anyone not familiar with this, here's the scam in brief:
1. New DNC rules state that superdelegates can not vote in the first round.
2. If, in the first round, a single candidate receives at least 51% of the vote, then the superdelegates do not come into
play in subsequent rounds.
3. If no single candidate receives 51% of the vote, Party controlled superdelegates participate in subsequent rounds.
4. D-Party Solution: Flood the field of candidates so that it becomes much less likely that a single candidate will achieve
51% in the first round. Thus allowing the Party controlled superdelegates to be used to nominate the Party's chosen corporate
loyalist.
A simple plan.
PS +1 for Gabbard
PPS For more detail on this subject, see:
Nothing is to be revealed in US politics unless the political conversation gets elevated
Yes, let's elevate it.
Sander's failure to be a real candidate in the 2016 election, is just one example of the corrupt "managed democracy" produced
by our money-driven duopoly and Deep State. Obama was another example. He was a faux populist that served the establishment,
not the people.
... our findings indicate, the majority does not rule -- at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy
outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose.
Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the U.S. political system, even when fairly large majorities
of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it.
And this study used data from 1980-2002 - it's only gotten worse after that!
The question we should be asking ourselves isn't what establishment stooge should we choose? but how do we ensure that
the establishment can't continue to play us?
In that light, we should not tolerate the continued participation of ANYONE that's already participated in the establishment's
"illusion of democracy" game.
Furthermore, the reason we are having this conversation a full 18-months before the election is that the establishment doesn't
want us to explore alternatives. They want your mind engaged with their con. They employ shills like donkey to ensure that you
are so engaged.
= = =
no one has the right to circumscribe the meaning or the moral content of the person (even a politician) who is seen evolving
for the better
Bernie Sanders is nearly 80 years old, I think he's "evolved" as much as he's going to evolve. The only thing Sanders had going
for him was his "moral content" yet he used that to help Hillary in 2016. IMO, "truth-tellers" should tell the truth and whose
who claim to have principles should live by them. By that standard, Sanders failed us.
Lastly, the same appeal that you make could be made for other egregious acts. And would you make the same argument for a child
molester or serial killer? Don't be so quick to say it's not the same. The AZ Empire has the blood of tens of thousands of people
on its hands.
IMO accountability is at the core of any democratic system.
Jackrabbit and Circe, and all who talk of "deep state":
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels wrote in 1848 that " The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the
common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. "
This sentence in the Communist Manifesto is as true today as it was then. There is no "deep state", there is only the state.
It is the (only) executive committee of the ruling capitalist class.
The democratic constitutions of these states are rigged to maintain the status quo. Do the masters want Trump, Circe? Is he
untouchable? No, the masters will use whoever they get.
Sorry Jackrabbit, managed democracy, duopoly, money-based electoral system and lapdog media is the way it is set up. There
is no movement that is outside duopoly politics that can win within the constitutional sytem.
Unless you are suggesting Organs of People's Power, Dual Power and destruction of the bourgeois parliamentary system, in the
manner of Lenin's "The State and Revolution"? Are you suggesting that? Then say so.
"... How is it that the Deep State made it possible for Trump to win when it did almost everything it could to derail his chances, including the use of Obama, FBI, CIA, MI6, NSA, etc? ..."
"... Regardless one's feelings about Trump, what was done as Whitney points out is a massive danger to the fundamental aspects of the democratic process, and that's not being shown the light-of-day by BigLie Media. ..."
Mike Whitney
writes about one aspect of Russiagate that several of us have noted--the use of the FBI
and CIA to meddle in the 2016 campaign in an attempt to aid Clinton--an aspect that blows up
some of the hypotheses floated here. He begins thusly:
"Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign?-- Yes
"Did the FBI place spies in the Trump campaign?-- Yes
"Do we know the names of the spies and how they operated?-- Yes
"Were the spies trying to entrap Trump campaign assistants in order to gather information
on Trump?-- Yes
"Did the spies try to elicit information from Trump campaign assistants in order to
justify a wider investigation and more extensive surveillance?-- Yes
"Were the spies placed in the Trump campaign based on improperly obtained FISA warrants?--
Yes
"Did the FBI agents procure these warrants based on false or misleading information?--
Yes
"Could the FBI establish 'probable cause' that Trump had committed a crime or 'colluded'
with Russia?-- No
"So the 'spying' was illegal?-- Yes
"Have many of the people who authorized the spying, already been identified in criminal
referrals presented to the Department of Justice?-- Yes
"Have the media explained the importance of these criminal referrals or the impact that
spying has on free elections?-- No
"Is the DOJ's Inspector General currently investigating whether senior-level agents in the
FBI committed crimes by improperly obtaining warrants to spy on members of the Trump team?--
Yes
"Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign to give Hillary Clinton an unfair advantage in the
presidential race?-- Yes
"Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign to gather incriminating information on Trump that
could be used to blackmail, intimidate or impeach him in the future?-- Yes
"Does spying pose a threat to our elections and to our democracy?-- Yes
"Do many people know that there were spies placed in the Trump campaign?-- Yes
"Have these people effectively used that information to their advantage?-- No
"Have they launched any type of public relations offensive that would draw more attention
to the critical issue of spying on a political campaign?-- No
"Have they saturated the airwaves with the truth about 'spying' the same way their rivals
have spread their disinformation about 'collusion'?-- No" [Emphasis in Original]
That's a little more than half of what Whitney lists that's quite damning as we must
admit. That it's not being discussed anywhere outside of a few social media accounts means
Trump could use the "precedent" set by Obama to do the same in 2020. Shouldn't we be
concerned about that possibility? How is it that the Deep State made it possible for Trump to
win when it did almost everything it could to derail his chances, including the use of Obama,
FBI, CIA, MI6, NSA, etc?
Regardless one's feelings about Trump, what was done as Whitney points out is a massive
danger to the fundamental aspects of the democratic process, and that's not being shown the
light-of-day by BigLie Media. And we can also see why Pelosi and Clinton don't want
Impeachment proceedings to occur as the above information would finally become far more
overt/public than it is currently.
Sanders will rally the FSA but that will go nowhere in general election.
Gabbard is serious person. The fact that DNC does approve is one of her strengths. Of
course Wasserman will attempt a Tanya Harding but Tulsi can take her.
I hope she would not team with Biden.
I thing two good women might be powerful:
Behold: Gabbard/Omar.
Sanders is already hip deep in the Deep State, and there is no denying it. In absolute
terms he is an unacceptable candidate . But then a person recalls a famous Winston
Churchill quote:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."
After stating the obvious fact Sanders just isn't much good, you have to ask, compared
to what?
This election cycle it looks as if the Palestinians will be screwed yet again. But I can
imagine that while Sanders will be extremely protective of the Holy Cesspool, he will stop
the practice of kissing Netanyahu's ass to the point of inflammation.
As you say, if we get President Sanders we'd better not also be presented with Vice
President Neocon. In that event I'd expect something or other to happen so as to suddenly
have President Neocon.
Sadly, I think b is caught in a mental framework, like many socialist-leaning Europeans,
that prevents him from thinking critically about Sanders.
All the more strange because everyone can see how Obama and Trump failed to live up to
their rhetoric, how powerful monied interests and the Deep State conduct "managed democracy"
and give us the illusion of democracy . Yet some cling to the notion that democracy
works! making it possible that a socialist hero can be elected.
Until democracy itself is made an issue (akin to the Yellow Vest protests) , we
will continue to be played.
Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues.
He has gotten better on this recently but he doesn't have the strength left in him to
properly challenge the lobby, particularly being Jewish his extended family/social circle is
a weakness they'll attack like with Goldstone.
Presumably he calculated that the infamously spiteful man won't be in office come January
2021 and that he can join in the scape-goating of Netanyahu as the unique 'bad-man' whose
policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other neighbours wasn't highly popular and endorsed
by Israeli society and we can all forget about it when somebody more presentable takes over
despite engaging in the same policies.
Bernie Sanders has been around in Washington. He knows that his domestic plans are
unaffordable in the Red Scare climate which he's been pushing himself , since all
money will go to the Deep State and the Armies of Mordor. The evidence is he's OK with that.
Anyway, why spend time on this old geezer; he's already lost and in the time since
then, he's exposed himself as a phony and liar.
Z Smith isnt it crystal clear by now...Jack Rabbit is working...very hard it seems...for the
re-election of Donald Trump.
The germane question: why? Is he falling back on the "same ol same ol" purity of the 3rd
party gambit (the same one that has never worked throughout US history and surely has even
less chance of success than ever in 2020)?
Is he ignoring or even against the plain fact that Democrats are trending leftier, less
white and more female thanks in large part to so-called "sheepdog" Bernie's 2016 campaign and
"movement"? Bernie far from being a sheepdog in fact played his hand rather intelligently and
with self-discipline in 2016 rather than lashing out angrily at being fucked over by the
party apparatus and reacting in a manner of which JR would surely approve...such as self
marginalising himself into yet another in an endless string of 3rd party losers who are now
footnotes in history at best.
There
is evidence that Bernie voters stayed home or voted Trump in 2016 in those MW states with
the slimmest margins for Trump. So the evidence indicates more that he fucked Hillary instead
of being her sheepdog... and of course had she won Bernie would not be in the 2020 game,
Obamacare would be solidified with the insurance companies, hospitals, physicians and drug
companies, DLC centrist politics would rule the land and we would not be talking so loudly
today about taxing the rich or advcating Medicare for all.
In several key states -- Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan -- the number of Sanders to
Trump defectors were greater than Trump's margin of victory, according to new numbers
released Wednesday by UMass professor Brian Schaffner.
Does JR simply believe electoral politics is a totally failed bit? I can grok that and
agree...to a point. Problem is he offers exactly nothing as a defined alternative
except...more of the same...vote 3rd party (like in, yawn, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016) or join a
"movement".
think the doom and gloomers in here decrying Sanders/Gabbard chances as securing the nom are
not being very sensible.
There is no doubt in my mind that Sanders will be the nom. Whether he picks Gabbard or not
will be telling.
Gabbard, so far, has been the straight-up most respectable, classy, and well-spoken
candidate hitting the media circuit. Whispers abound about her legitimacy and should not be
discounted.
And they already denied Sanders once. That was their free pass and you only get one of
those. Ask the Syria-interventionists and they will say the same: "We already burned through
the pass in Iraq and Afghanistan. Otherwise, Assad would have been publicly strung up and
hung on MSNBC by now."
There will be hell to pay if they deny Sanders again.
But this is all contingent on the fact that you don't already think that TPTB are setting
the table specifically for Sanders because he is already an owned man.
Here we go again with the same ol' question for the office of POTUS: "WHO ARE YOU?"
As long as Hunter Biden is still a director
of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on
the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the
Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back
turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself,
and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're
looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential
contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in
order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be
civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with
The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
I donated to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign so there would be one anti-war candidate in the
Presidential debates. Having served in the first one, the restart of the Cold War is gut
wrenching. Today it is far more dangerous than 40 years ago. "Détente" is archaic,
Inequality in the West has reached the Gilded Age levels. The USA occupies East Syria even
though its regime change campaign failed. With the estrangement of Western Allies, trade wars
and economic sanctions against Russia and Iran, plus Joe Biden's trench war in Ukraine, the
slightest misstep and the global economy will crash. If a conflict breaks out with Russia or
China, the Trump Administration is too incompetent and arrogant to back down to avoid a
nuclear war. The 2020 election may well be the last chance to save the earth.
The accountability that is on offer in the upcoming election is to alter the structure of
the Democratic Party. The deck was stacked against the progressive challenge in the last
presidential election. Only a candidate who has genuine "fire-in-the-belly" has a chance to
beat Trump. Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Elizabeth Warren are the only ones I see who
are holding these credentials. I think you are wrong when you say that Sanders is finished
evolving, --and despite his age-- he is the most dynamic, among the older people Americans
seem to prefer to be president. It would do him some good and improve his chance of success,
if he chose for his running mate someone whose passion was equally sincere.
Political sour grapes and fatalism offer us no hope of coming through the next few years
intact.
Sanders is NOT anti-estblishment. He's just good at hiding his support for the establishment
so that he can be used as foil / sheepdog / spoiler.
"Enough with the emails" - Bernie refused to raise "character issues" about Hillary despite
the fact that she would face those same issues in the general election;
faux populist sell-out Obama campaigned for Bernie;
Bernie admitted that Hillary "a friend of 25 years" ;
Schumer refused to fund any Democratic Party candidate that would run against Sanders in
Vermont;
Sanders votes with the Democrats >95% of the time.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
We can debate the merits of each establishment stooge until we're blue in the face but
establishment plans for gaming the race are likely to have already made. It's be another good
show that millions of American's tune in to watch.
My best guess: gay Mayor Pete gets most of the primary media coverage which focuses on his
oh-so-sensible agenda, Obama-like likeability, and "historic" (did I mention that he's gay?)
run for the Presidency. But Pete and his running mate Biden fail to unseat Trump.
2024: Mayor Pete loses Democratic nomination to a women (Chelsea Clinton? she'll be 44)
and she wins the Presidency.
Unless, that is, Americans wake up and demand a real democracy.
'Bernie Sanders may well have the best chance to beat Trump on domestic policies. But he is
no progressive on foreign policy issues'
He campaigned against the Vietnam war before he got elected, he later opposed the Iraq
invasion, and recently led the Senate to oppose US involvement in Yemen. What is your
standard for calling him a progressive? Does he have to be to the Left of Noam Chomsky (who,
incidentally, says Sanders has the best policies out of any candidate)?
Those who cheer Sanders are ignoring both the hidden-in-plain-sight evidence for
"managed democracy" (e.g. duopoly, money-based electoral system; lapdog media; and Imperial
Deep State) and in-your-face lived history: Obama and Trump have both sweet-talked
their 'base' but ruled as servants of the establishment and a member of the Deep State.
What's needed for real change is a Movement that is outside duopoly politics. That is what
the establishment really fears. And that's why we are being pressed to get emotionally
engaged in this sh*t show 18-months before the election. Because they don't want people to
think of alternatives. You enslave yourselves.
Both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders are clowns. They do not have a chance to win against Pres.
Trump, who will be the bankrupcy president. No one else would be able to handle it and the
oligarchs know it. Democracy ? It stopped being a joke.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
Posted by: Jen | Apr 25, 2019 7:22:22 PM | 55
I checked out Jen's link regarding the Science of Identity Foundation - it is a very
skillfully written Republican hit job, complete with multiple references to Gabbard's
"support for foreign dictators" Putin and Assad, to her criticism of US fake allegations of
Assad chemical attacks, to her alleged Islamaphobia for arguing that genuine muslims be
differentiated from islamic terrorists, and her criticism of Obama for not bombing ISIS and
al-Qaida. In Part 1 the ultirior motives are relatively well hidden, but the start coming
into view in Parts 2 and 3, especially in her answers to comments in Part 3.
Interesting quote from Part 2 about Gabbard's guru Butler: "His father, the late Dr.
Willis Butler, was well-known locally for his far-left political activism and his staunch
opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign regime change wars, which he considered
counterproductive. Dr. Butler was particularly concerned about U.S. funding of groups in
Central America that he viewed as terrorists. " - sounds like at least Butler's father
had his head screwed on the right way round. If that is the origin in part of Gabbard's
opposition to regime change wars and US funding of terrorists then that at least was a
positive influence (although implicitly painted as negative in the article!)
Having said that, the article raises a number of important questions and is in that
respect an eye opener - it's just that the misleading and tainted manner in which the article
is written is dangerous without verifying the information - classic fake news.
I agree with Jen about the dangers of her support for Modi. I can't help suspecting she
sees the US (far-right) Indian-American elite as an important source of political funding for
her seat, and that I see as problematic.
Smiling Joe Biden, the glad handler from Delaware, is nothing more than another neocon
wolf in sheep's clothing. His tenure as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993
resulted in the infamous Anita Hill debacle due to his failure to investigate Ms. Hill's
allegations that then SCOTUS nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her several years
earlier. The result was an embarrassing televised hearing that exposed Biden's
incompetence, along with that of other members of the committee.
In the end, an unqualified right wing legal 'bump on the log' attained a seat as a
Supreme Court justice. Later it was proven that Ms. Hill's claims were true, but the damage
was done. BTW, Biden's penchant for fascists was on display in the Yugoslavian civil
war.
Well known Twitter "bot" Ian56 has published a thread about Biden
. I suggest people give it a looksee. Ian asks in his first entry:
"How the hell does the Oligarchy think they are going to get Creepy Joe Biden past the
public? I mean the average American Joe is extremely dumb & ignorant, but even they are
not that dumb."
I just posted the answer @11. Welcome to 1984. We are now officially at war with
Eastasia!
The good thing about Biden entering the race is that it complicates an already difficult path
to the nomination for the slew of establishment candidates. Biden is not a first choice for
the Democratic intelligentsia. Sample Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight regularly and you'll know
that Kamala Harris and boy-mayor Buttigieg are the favorites. Of course, Trump would eat
either whole.
I'm rooting for Sanders, not because I believe him to be uniquely authentic, but because
he is the one who scares the shit out of the big-ticket donors who guide the Democratic
Party.
Read last week's
front-pager from Jonathan Martin. Guaranteed if Bernie walks away with the primary in a
rout, you'll see prominent Dems back a third party candidate.
The fact that Biden survived the "GropeGate" stuff from a view weeks ago reinforces how the
msm is cooking coverage or withholding it altogether.
Take a look at some video compilations of ol' Gropey-Joe as he is swearing in elected reps
and photo-documenting the occasion.
Irrespective of his Obama-esque policies and status as standard-bearer for TPTB, the guy
is just a straight up creep. And a particularly bad Catholic.
...
I agree that Sanders-Gabbard would absolutely destroy Trump and garner perhaps even more
backing than Obama c. 2008.
I put the scary Socialist angle that is used against Sanders as carrying the same weight
as the whole Crouching Blackman, Hidden Muslim thing that followed Obama during his run.
It is just hard to tell as to how sensible they (Sanders and Gabbard) would be allowed to
be WRT FP.
But Trump had an opportunity to love his country. And he chose orherwise. SAD!
As long as Hunter Biden is still a director
of Burisma Holdings (which includes at least one other unpleasant individual on
the Board of Directors), there is always a chance that elements within or connected to the
Ukrainian government (even under Volodymyr Zelenskiy's Presidency, when he has his back
turned on his fellow politicians), the previous Poroshenko government or Poroshenko himself,
and / or the Maidan Revolution - Crowdstrike, Dmitri Alperovich and Chalupa sisters, we're
looking at all of you - might try to derail any or all of the Democratic Party presidential
candidates in attempts to have Joe Biden declared the official Democrat presidential
contender in 2020. The only question is how openly brazen these people are going to be in
order to save their pet project in Kiev before Ukraine erupts in civil war (and it won't be
civil war in the Donbass area) and the entire country goes down in flames.
As for the rest of the 20 candidates, I would prefer Tulsi Gabbard out of the lot. In this
respect India's general elections, already under way, are going to be important. Gabbard
needs to let go of Narendra Modi and his Hindutva BJP party - her friendship with Modi and
his association with Hindutva are sure to come under scrutiny as will also any connections
she and her office staff have with
The Science of Identity Foundation organisation.
Joe Biden is hard wired to the corruption in the corporate DNC. The tell on this will be when
the media starts to roll him out with the fanfare of a new model car. It is hard to imagine
that he can inspire voters in the primaries. But if the sell goes overboard and it becomes
obvious that the fixers are determined to hand him the nomination; then it will be a real
poke in the eye, and another PSYOPS to grossly demoralize voters in this country. Biden is
about as exciting as a glass of milk that's curdled overnight on the end table by the bed.
The Deep State wanted a MAGA nationalist to counter the challenge from Russia and China and
that's what they got.
Sanders is a sheepdog/stooge that works for the Zionist establishment and Deep State just
like Biden and a few others that are in the race. As much as you wag your 'tale', the stink
remains.
The oligarchy reels out all tired scams over and over, until you want to cry out in anguish.
Don't let them wear you down. Never capitulate. If Biden by some horrible chance has the
winning hand, I'm guessing he will pick Gillibrand for his VP, a centrist of compromising
kind, a shapeshifting clone to remind people of Hillary on some subconscious level. More of
the same will fix us right up, on our journey to virtual political reality, and the end of
humanity. These fucks will use the "little nukes" as they tuck us into bed.
"... Meanwhile, for well over four decades -- while corporate media preened his image as "Lunch Bucket Joe" fighting for the middle class -- Biden continued his assist for strengthening oligarchy as a powerful champion of legalizing corporate plunder on a mind-boggling scale. ..."
"... Now, Joe Biden has arrived as a presidential candidate to rescue the Democratic Party from Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Urgency is in the media air. Last week, the New York Times told readers that "Stop Sanders" Democrats were "agonizing over his momentum." The story was front-page news. At the Washington Post , a two-sentence headline appeared just above a nice photo of Biden: "Far-Left Policies Will Drive a 2020 Defeat, Centrist Democrats Fear. So They're Floating Alternatives." ..."
"... Biden is the most reliable alternative for corporate America. He has what Sanders completely lacks -- vast experience as an elected official serving the interests of credit-card companies, big banks, insurance firms and other parts of the financial services industry. His alignment with corporate interests has been comprehensive. It was a fulcrum of his entire political career when, in 1993, Sen. Biden voted yes while most Democrats in Congress voted against NAFTA. ..."
"... Overall, in sharp contrast to the longstanding and continuing negative coverage of Sanders, mainstream media treatment of Biden often borders on reverential. The affection from so many high-profile political journalists toward Biden emerged yet again a few weeks ago during the uproar about his persistent pattern of intrusively touching women and girls. During one cable news show after another, reporters and pundits were at pains to emphasize his essential decency and fine qualities. ..."
"... Joe Biden is telling striking workers he's their friend while taking money from, and therefore being beholden to, the class of people oppressing them. ..."
"... As a loyal toady of the large corporations (especially finance, insurance, and credit cards) that put their headquarters in Delaware because its suborned government allows them to evade regulations in other states, Biden voted for repeated rounds of deregulation in multiple areas and helped roll back anti-trust policy -- often siding with Republicans in the process. ..."
"... One of Biden's illuminating actions came last year in Michigan when he gave a speech -- for a fee of $200,000 including "travel allowance" -- that praised the local Republican congressman, Fred Upton, just three weeks before the mid-term election. From the podium, the former vice president lauded Upton as "one of the finest guys I've ever worked with." For good measure, Biden refused to endorse Upton's Democratic opponent, who went on to lose by less than 5 percent. ..."
"... Biden likes to present himself as a protector of the elderly. Campaigning for Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida last autumn, Biden denounced Republicans for aiming to "cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Yet five months earlier, speaking to the Brookings Institution on May 8, Biden spoke favorably of means testing that would go a long way toward damaging political support for Social Security and Medicare and smoothing the way for such cuts. ..."
Let's be blunt: As a supposed friend of American workers, Joe Biden is a phony . And now that he's running for president, Biden's
huge task is to hide his phoniness.
From the outset, with dim prospects from small donors, the Biden campaign is depending on big checks from the rich and corporate
elites who greatly appreciate his services rendered. "He must rely heavily, at least at first, upon an old-fashioned network of money
bundlers -- political insiders, former ambassadors and business executives," the New York Times
reported on Tuesday.
Biden has a media image that exudes down-to-earth caring and advocacy for regular folks. But his actual record is a very different
story.
A gavel in Biden's hand repeatedly proved to be dangerous. In 1991, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, Biden
prevented
key witnesses from testifying to corroborate Anita Hill's accusations of sexual harassment during the Clarence Thomas confirmation
hearings for the Supreme Court. In 2002, as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, Biden was the Senate's
most crucial supporter
of the Iraq invasion.
Meanwhile, for well over four decades -- while corporate media preened his image as "Lunch Bucket Joe" fighting for the middle
class -- Biden continued his assist for strengthening oligarchy as a
powerful champion of legalizing corporate plunder
on a mind-boggling scale.
Now, Joe Biden has arrived as a presidential candidate to rescue the Democratic Party from Bernie Sanders.
Urgency is in the media air. Last week, the New York Times
told readers that
"Stop Sanders" Democrats were "agonizing over his momentum." The story was front-page news. At the Washington Post , a two-sentence
headline
appeared just above a nice photo of Biden: "Far-Left Policies Will Drive a 2020 Defeat, Centrist Democrats Fear. So They're Floating
Alternatives."
Biden is the most reliable alternative for corporate America. He has what Sanders completely lacks --
vast experience as an elected official serving
the interests of credit-card companies, big banks, insurance firms and other parts of the financial services industry. His alignment
with corporate interests has been comprehensive. It was a fulcrum of his entire political career when, in 1993, Sen. Biden voted
yes while most Democrats in Congress voted against NAFTA.
In recent months, from his pro-corporate vantage point, Biden has been taking potshots at the progressive populism of Bernie Sanders.
At a gathering in Alabama last fall, Biden
said : "Guys,
the wealthy are as patriotic as the poor. I know Bernie doesn't like me saying that, but they are." Later, Biden elaborated on the
theme when he
told an audience at the Brookings Institution, "I don't think five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble. The
folks at the top aren't bad guys."
Overall, in sharp contrast to the
longstanding
and continuing
negative coverage of
Sanders, mainstream media treatment of Biden often borders on reverential. The affection from so many high-profile political journalists
toward Biden emerged yet again a few weeks ago during the uproar about his persistent pattern of intrusively touching women and girls.
During one cable news show after another, reporters and pundits were at pains to emphasize his essential decency and fine qualities.
But lately, some independent-minded journalists have been exhuming what "Lunch Bucket Joe" is eager to keep buried. For instance:
+ Libby Watson, Splinter
News : "Joe Biden is telling striking workers he's their friend while taking money from, and therefore being beholden to,
the class of people oppressing them. According to Axios, Biden's first fundraiser will be with David Cohen, the executive vice
president of and principal lobbyist for Comcast. Comcast is one of America's
most hated
companies , and for good reason. It represents everything that sucks for the modern consumer-citizen, for whom things like
internet or TV access are extremely basic necessities, but who are usually given the option of purchasing it from just one or
two companies." What's more, Comcast supports such policies as "
ending net neutrality
and repealing
broadband privacy protections . . . . And Joe Biden is going to kick off his presidential campaign by begging for their money."
+ Ryan Cooper, The Week :
"As a loyal toady of the large corporations (especially finance, insurance, and credit cards) that put their headquarters in Delaware
because its suborned government allows them to evade regulations in other states, Biden voted for repeated rounds of deregulation
in multiple areas and helped roll back anti-trust policy --
often siding with Republicans
in the process. He was a
key architect of the infamous
2005 bankruptcy reform bill which made means tests much more strict and near-impossible to discharge student loans in bankruptcy."
+ Paul Waldman, The American Prospect
: "Joe Biden, we are told over and over, is the one who can speak to the disaffected white men angry at the loss of their
primacy. He's the one who doesn't like abortion, but is willing to let the ladies have them. He's the one who tells white people
to be nice to immigrants, even as he mirrors their xenophobia ('You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have
a slight Indian accent,' he
said in 2006). He's the one who validates their racism and sexism while gently trying to assure them that they're still welcome
in the Democratic Party. . . . It's not yet clear what policy agenda Biden will propose, though it's likely to be pretty standard
Democratic fare that rejects some of the more ambitious goals other candidates have embraced. But Biden represents something more
fundamental: a link to the politics and political style of the past."
+ Rebecca Traister,
The Cut : "Much of what Democrats blame Republicans for was enabled, quite literally, by Biden: Justices whose confirmation
to the Supreme Court he rubber-stamped worked to disembowel affirmative action, collective bargaining rights, reproductive rights,
voting rights. . . . In his years in power, Biden and his party (elected thanks to a nonwhite base enfranchised in the 1960s)
built the carceral state that disproportionately imprisons and disenfranchises people of color, as part of what Michelle Alexander
has described as the New Jim Crow. With his failure to treat seriously claims of sexual harassment made against powerful men on
their way to accruing more power (claims rooted in prohibitions that emerged from the feminist and civil-rights movements of the
1970s), Biden created a precedent that surely made it easier for accused harassers, including Donald Trump and Brett Kavanaugh,
to nonetheless ascend. Economic chasms and racial wealth gaps have yawned open, in part thanks to Joe Biden's defenses of credit
card companies, his support of that odious welfare-reform bill, his eagerness to support the repeal of Glass-Steagall."
One of Biden's illuminating actions came last year in Michigan when he
gave a speech -- for a
fee of $200,000 including "travel allowance" -- that praised the local Republican congressman, Fred Upton, just three weeks before
the mid-term election. From the podium, the former vice president lauded Upton as "one of the finest guys I've ever worked with."
For good measure, Biden refused to endorse Upton's Democratic opponent, who went on to lose by less than 5 percent.
Biden likes to present himself as a protector of the elderly. Campaigning for Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida last autumn, Biden denounced
Republicans for aiming to "cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid." Yet five months earlier,
speaking to the Brookings
Institution on May 8, Biden spoke favorably of means testing that would go a long way toward damaging political support for Social
Security and Medicare and smoothing the way for such cuts.
Indications of being a "moderate" and a "centrist" play well with the Washington press corps and corporate media, but amount to
a surefire way to undermine enthusiasm and voter turnout from the base of the Democratic Party. The consequences have been catastrophic,
and the danger of the party's
deference to corporate power looms ahead. Much touted by the same kind of insular punditry that insisted Hillary Clinton was
an ideal candidate to defeat Donald Trump, the ostensible "electability" of Joe Biden has been
refuted by careful
analysis of data .
As a former Sanders delegate to the 2016 Democratic National Convention and a current coordinator of the relaunched independent
Bernie Delegates Network for 2019, I remain convinced that the media meme about choosing between strong progressive commitments and
capacity to defeat Trump is a false choice. On the contrary, Biden exemplifies a disastrous approach of jettisoning progressive principles
and failing to provide a progressive populist alternative to right-wing populism. That's the history of 2016. It should not be repeated.
That's a blunder, but it does not matter as much as her blunder with "reparations"
Warren is not telegenic nor personable. Her .01% Native
American schtick really hurt her credibility.
Notable quotes:
"... On facebook in May 2017, "We know that the Russians hacked into American systems to try to influence our election." ..."
"... Warren is crap. There are only two genuine leading candidates, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders that offer some serious prospect of change and either could get there. ..."
re Warren, she is also a "Russia! Russia! Russia!" type.
On facebook in May 2017, "We know that the Russians hacked into American systems to try to
influence our election."
The other day on CNN she said, re the Mueller report, "Three things just totally jump off
the page. The first is that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election in order
to help Donald Trump. The evidence is just there. Read it, footnote after footnote, page
after page documentation. ..."
Not saying that most other candidates aren't the same.
Thank you spudski #26, Warren is crap. There are only two genuine leading candidates, Tulsi
Gabbard and Bernie Sanders that offer some serious prospect of change and either could get
there. Any change away from the Belligerant faction would be welcome. But it needs a Congress
and a Senate to combine with the change agenda to make a concrete, durable new direction.
That is a daunting task but achievable in these times.
It will be interesting to watch Creepy Joe Biden eat shit but he is just the bait, I look
forward to the switch being revealed. Nothing will surprise me.
Bibi's best bet to solve his intractable Hezbollah problem is when his bitch Trump is in
office. Nothing like getting for free the USAF to do the work his IAF can't do. Of course
Trump can follow Dubya's footsteps and become the war president. Nothing like a
neocon-inspired war to shore his support is what Bolton & Pompeo will advise and Adelson
will be crooning too.
How do you think Hezbollah will react when the die is cast and the casus belli is
manufactured? Would they preempt and launch all they have knowing they would have to go down
when the tens of thousands of sorties of the USAF commence? Syed Nasrallah apparently has
warned his commanders to expect an Israeli war this summer.
Would Putin & Xi sit it out & let Hezbollah go down in flames?
"Would Putin & Xi sit it out & let Hezbollah go down in flames?"
That is almost certain. What the Russians have demonstrated is there absolute weakness in
the face of US economic dominance and military might. These Chinese have demonstrated their
inability to show any sort of political backbone, but suck in as much world capital as they
possibly can in silence.
BP - If a massive heavy bomber strike is made on Hizbullah it may cripple Hizbullah's ability
to lay down a lot of fire in Israel. This Hizbullahis must have figured this out. That
creates a hair trigger possibility for a preemptive strike on Israel. This is a very
dangerous situation. my crystal ball is cloudy. I have no idea what Putin and Xi might do.
"Best in Show" is a great film depicting a wonderful breed.
How likely is it that the US could surprise Hizbullah with a massive strategic bombing
strike?
Would not Russia see this coming and probably warn Hizbullah?
And does anyone her have a sense of the extent of area that would need to be covered and
the density of Hizbullah fortifications within this area? Would it be plausible to cover the
full extent of the threat to Israel in one strike?
Also, I recently read an article by an air force officer assigned to the MACV combat
operations center during the siege of Khe Sanh. He indicated that intelligence was received
that the NVA were going to try to tunnel under the Marine defense lines. This officer vaguely
remembered that a bunker-busting/deep penetration weapon for B-52s was somewhere "in the
inventory". It turned out some were in stock in Okinawa, so were relatively immediately
available to use at Khe Sanh. So if these weapons (or something similar) remain available,
their impact could potentially be greater on Hizbullah fortifications than what Col. Lang
observed on his BDA.
The US is very good at OPSEC and IMO Hizbullah would have no warning at all until the
bombs started to fall from way up in the sky. And unlike a lot of target system the Tabbouleh
line cannot be moved without a lot of trouble. How big a target set? Essentially the width of
Lebanon and three or four miles wide against what by now must be a fully developed picture of
the arrray of targets. This will have been developed in full by now by DIA and the USAF
targeting people. You people are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. And since Hizbullah is
designated as a terrorist organization the AUMF would apply. The only thing protecting
Hizbullah in Tabbouleh Line is fear of the reaction of the American people and that can be
overcome by a supposed attack on Israel.
"... The Sheeple united will never be defeated ... Biden's sweet dreams of being in charge of the endless fleecing of America are finally within reach ..."
"... Grope and Change ..."
"... Trump's trash talk only works against trashy candidates. Where is Trump on ending the wars? His medical insurance plan is worse garbage than we have now. He promised to show his tax returns and still hasn't done it. Lot's of things to watch especially Bernie, Tulsi and Yang. ..."
I dont expect creepy Joe's primary rivals to go quietly into the night. This is Trumps to win or lose, he should just sit back and watch the fireworks. Then if Joe emeges as still standing in a year, then pull out Joe's Ukrainian connection
past.
Biden's already been #MeToo'd out of contention. The other candidates will just keep
plugging away at him with the molesting charges.
The D's don't have anyone that's yet announced that can positively change the electoral
map from 2016 in their favor. All any of them can do is swing states from blue to red. That's
because they're all from the ultra-left wing of the party and even mainstream D's are getting
tired of the antics of the whacked out far left. The D's have lost their identity from the
50's and 60's, which was focused on the working class and making their lives better. Now,
it's identity politics 24/7 and you can't win a national campaign that way.
Biden is responsible for he decline of the middle class. Repealing Glass Steagall,
Bankruptcy Reform etc.
Where is he on things like Nafta and other free trade agreements.
Sending Jobs to Mexico or overseas.
Ending the endless wars.
Medicare for all.
MMT and so forth.
So far, the left has three pretty good candidates, Bernie, Tulsi and Yang.
Trump's trash talk only works against trashy candidates. Where is Trump on ending the wars? His medical insurance plan is worse garbage than we have now. He promised to show his tax returns and still hasn't done it. Lot's of things to watch especially Bernie, Tulsi and Yang.
bruce wilder:
"Reading the post and comments, I can help but feel the entire agenda is about feeling
good about one's own political fecklessness. The abject moral and economic failures of
left-neoliberalism / lesser evilism Democratic Party politics are staring at you.
likbez , April 24, 2019 10:04 pm
@pgl, April 23, 2019 7:35 am
Get prepared because these clowns get paid by the word
I wish ;-). Than I would hang in forums all day long like some of the commenters here.
or maybe they weren't eager for World War 3 with Russia over Syria or the Ukraine?
I voted for Trump after previously voting for Ralph Nader. And Obama proved beyond a doubt
that Nader was right. Meanwhile Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would do; he has shown
that our entire election system is rigged by the CIA (obviously not very thoroughly
rigged).
Like or hate Trump, only a traitor would not be concerned that the CIA is giving marching
order to the media and colluding to derail candidates it does not approve of.
Unless a "democrat" stands up who is willing to talk about unconstitutional wars,
unconstitutional bailouts, unconstitutional surveillance and unconstitutional rigging of the
two major parties, Trump is far better because he is forcing the public to see how corrupt DC
is.
We have been in a constitutional crisis since at least the 1990's. Of course if you are
too weak and stupid to handle any of that discussion, just bury your head and pretend that
"racism" is the only reason Trump won.
And
Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or not. That question is a
red herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or not the Democratic
"leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want.
Bernie Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate system
gives a literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say that as
someone who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart
of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama
administration making a trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through
congress. Not seeing any point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The
Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party
that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North
Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east
ideas.
Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and
it's "Democrat".
But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right wing war
mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has
converted to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the
tool of the Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to
pauperize the working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy
now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the
perfect candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk
smoothly without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or
positions. So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for
profits. Wall Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a
flying f*@k about the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal
who can be differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt
vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress.
There's that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a
Trump win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with
balanced budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia.
They will keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and
Lyft are massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those
licenses cost a lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing
multiple deaths and assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies
on all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good
Democrat" candidates do.
IMHO crookedtimber.org blog is a forum for a bunch of "soft neoliberals" and neocons like
this one, so this is a pretty remarkable development.
The Trump administration is laying siege to Iran. Taking pages from the Iraq War playbook,
senior officials paint a picture of a rogue, outlaw, terrorist regime bent on acquiring
nuclear weapons and whose "malign activities" are the cause of all the chaos in the Middle
East. They know what they are doing. They have done it before. They are building a case for
war.
The neoconservatives in the Trump administration may want to that. But it is not
possible to wage war on Iran without
causing a global depression.
As the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy rightly points
out , the Hormuz Strait, through which most Middle East energy exports flows, is under
Iranian control
You sir are delusional. Trump was dead set against taking down Iran and Venezuela from day
one. Trump is a Zionist. I wish people would get that through their thick skulls.
There is no surprise here. Everything is rolling along on schedule according to plan. The
Empire can now call the shots unilaterally. You have all allowed for this domination by
trying to ridicule and shut down the discussion of Zionism's role in this outcome. We are not
free! Millions of people around the world marched against the proposed invasion of Iraq and
the Empire's vassals came running to help (I'm pointing especially to you, U.K., trying to
take Corbyn down while welcoming the Orange Oaf for an official visit!). The WMD's were a
hoax. Bolton admitted that regime change was always the goal, and same goes for Venezuela and
Iran.
Trump is not a Zionist hostage suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Let me spell out the
writing that has been on the wall from day one: TRUMP IS A ZIONIST. Trump is accelerating the
ZEmpire's domination in every way imaginable. Trump die-hard supporters are Zionists of all
stripes even if the more liberal ones try desperately to conceal that fact, and the rest are
loyal donkeys with blinders on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't expect Russia to come to Iran's rescue. a) Iran is a gas competitor. And b)
Zionist Russian oligarchs are deep in Trump's corner.
Israel has been attacking Iran on Syrian soil with Putin's blessing.
I don't know what Putin's game is, but muti-polarity doesn't seem to be at the top of his
list as it is with some of us here.
There is only one way to deal with ZUSA aggression: DETERRENCE.
Iran should stop being so prudish regarding nukes. Iran could have had a stockpile by now.
Maybe North Korea can start doing business.
Peaceful means of resistance to Zionism do not work! Zionists are only satisfied with
total domination and they are proving it.
We are not free. We are powerless. We have already been muzzled left an right and they are
trying to legitimize restraint on our rights. We have no democracy. This has been happening
while you were all sleeping.
Trump is an enforcer of Zionism and many of you are drunk uncle toms high on his
neutralizing moonshine or stealth Zionists still peddling his Zionist bullshet as 4D
chess.
Trump is a Zionist enforcer and is accelerating ZEmpire domination. They know the jig is
up and time is of the essence. The goal is to make all resistance futile. Some of you here
have been helping them achieve this goal, and now your 11th-hour shock and awe and armchair
musings ring cheap and hollow.
You are chamberlains unable to call what is steering the Empire's domination by its name:
ZIONISM.
How can you fight the enemy you refuse to acknowledge? So here we are, NEXT STOP: IRAN AND
WAR.
What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The trillionaires are Zionists.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen.
Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.
Trump is a tool.
Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable
offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.
@Wallbanger Of
course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a close
friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and Kushner.
But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign policy
goals.
I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon foreign
policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two rather
different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences are only
superficial.
US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to having
military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries that have
or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such „full
spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long way for
explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons are
Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But their goal
of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads to conflicts
and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating factors.
Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards other
great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the US and
the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with the Golan
recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections (retrieving
remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course, Russia and
Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into account each
other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong economic
partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The general
principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to have good
relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia conflict,
Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is probably one
of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with Iran, are
important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite relevant for Israel
because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel remained neutral and has
strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good relations with as many powerful
nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller (albeit in many respects very strong)
country in a difficult part of the world.
Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a
powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some significant
influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and overall, these
countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China). But they will
never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN were there is just
Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny micronations that depend on
the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries at all cost to gain influence
relative to other great powers that are less extremely pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive
the US towards a costly „full spectrum dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and
worthy of support from the perspective of the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign
policy itself, due to risk management considerations, the priorities are different. The
best-case scenario for them is that a) Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US
can achieve and maintain „full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know
that this best-case scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good
relations between Israel and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia
important.
I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite
close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he had
some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted pro-Israeli
policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting along" with
relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum dominance" wherever
possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole, it seems Trump wanted
a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one of US neocons. If Israel
can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli and international press
does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet (which they do quite
often).
This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition
from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies
would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike
Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.
I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that does
not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the one,
while for others, it is more the other).
The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued
above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk
management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much
power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has in
the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going along
with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and this
dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may have been
a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be enough if he
is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with Russia, as Israel
has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according to the neocons are
very different.
But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its
relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a
reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it
gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for many
true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli and
anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is).
There also do not seem to be strong indications about Israeli involvement in
Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos,
but it was not necessarily the Israeli government as a whole that was behind this (they may
just have been needed because Israeli energy policy is one of the main specializations of
Papadopoulos), and I think there are at least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement
on the pro-Trump side.
Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not
so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not
have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some neocons
passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has probably become
a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel – partially for
ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased military
spending.
The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated white
men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries for
Zion.
i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons
couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and
immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff
but
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.
You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug on
Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.
right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist
but now is compromised and compliant.
too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier on
him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.
(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him
– the end result is the same)
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was appalled
at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said specifically
said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.
And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then
wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"
if neocons and the media now start going easier on him
then we're toast
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.
If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange
others..)
then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.
The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump,
is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.
But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war
on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in
flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.
But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump
with a seething malevolence.
And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic
over Trump.
a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch
@Rurik the
other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time
about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed as
walking the edge of disbelief.
this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's
candidacy.
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they will
simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait
until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.
To think that any indictments will come of this is naïve, and an understatement of the
power of the deep state. The only thing that keeps Trump alive is his usefulness to Netanyahu,
also known as Benji the NutnYahoo.
For anyone of a social democratic (or lefter) persuasion, and/or see war as something that
should only be used as an absolute last resort (due to it invariably being a moral horror),
then the Democrats have indeed been the lesser of two evils, and Republican-lite.
Take Obama for instance. He ran a cleverly ambiguous campaign where he sounded to many as
being progessive and left, a breath of fresh air, something finally that would put a stop to
limitless capitalism and unwind the Bush era. But in fact he's a 'centrist', which really means
thoroughly neoliberal. He's prepared to file some of the sharp edges off capitalism, but he
neither promised nor offered a genuine alternative to a lightly regulated free market.
I mean, look at his most famous legacy: the health care reforms. This is a thoroughly
market-based solution that leaves the marketplace largely as it was. Nationalization was
nowhere in sight. And the policy was based on one his elecotoral opponent enacted when he was
governing Massachusetts! It is literally the case that voting in Democrats at the national
level gets you the policy of Republican presidential candidates.
Also, he's quite happy to unilaterally blow up stuff, including innocent people, in other
countries, in order to crush his enemies and to look good domestically. We have no problems in
calling this 'evil' when our enemies do anything like this.
Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm (no link)
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or not. That question is a red
herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or not the Democratic
"leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want. Bernie
Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate system gives a
literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say that as someone
who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart
of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama
administration making a trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through
congress. Not seeing any point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The
Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party
that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North
Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east
ideas.
Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and
it's "Democrat". But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right
wing war mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has
converted to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the
tool of the Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to
pauperize the working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy
now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the
perfect candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk
smoothly without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or
positions. So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for
profits. Wall Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a
flying f*@k about the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal
who can be differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt
vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress.
There's that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a
Trump win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with
balanced budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia.
They will keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and
Lyft are massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those
licenses cost a lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing
multiple deaths and assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies
on all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good
Democrat" candidates do.
"... IMO, the numerous studies done over the decades since the Iranian Revolution and the futile attempt to overthrow it by waging war upon it via Iraqi proxy has proven to the US military that waging war again on Iran's a fatal policy mistake. ..."
It's not the amount per se; rather, it's who would be affected -- Deep State actors, not
deplorables. That such entities would find themselves victimized by Trump's actions provides
motivation to deter same.
IMO, the numerous studies done over the decades since the Iranian Revolution and the
futile attempt to overthrow it by waging war upon it via Iraqi proxy has proven to the US
military that waging war again on Iran's a fatal policy mistake.
The Bully Foursome--Bolton, Pompeo, Pence, and Trump--seem to believe they can get Iran to
submit where all other previous efforts have failed. Instead, their bullying tactics and
gifts to Zionistan generated blowback that's enlarging the Arc of Resistance, while
alienating Europe.
What's a Deep State actor to do? Pence is even more of a tyro than Trump and his rise to
POTUS must be avoided. If they could both be impeached and removed, then they'd get Pelosi,
which would likely be a relief.
With her as POTUS, it might be possible to derail Sanders.
But it must be admitted, grave damage to the Empire's facade's been done that's beyond
repair.
"... Plenty of people still fool themselves into believing Trump has been captured by the deep state and is only going along with them to stay alive. Bunk. Ever since Trump sat in the power chair he willingly joined the deep state. He's even going one further and his goal is a one world government led by the US. He knows the American populace won't condone a new war so his weapons are sanctions, the dollar, and trade wars. All viable tools as long as the US continues to control the financial system. ..."
It's complete fiction that the US is going after Venezuelan oil so as to confront Iran. If
Maduro goes so does Venezuela as civil war erupts and spreads to other countries. No oil
company is going to put itself and it's employees in such a danger zone.
It is also complete fiction that Trump was against going after Venezuela as he has been on
them almost from day one and every time Trump announces more sanctions or makes threats he's
as giddy as a kid in a candy store and relishes handing out the pain. In one of his latest
speeches to a gathering of the faithful he not only gleefully stomped on Venezuela but also
announced the US is going to overthrow the governments of Cuba and Nicaragua.
Trump was barely in office when the US undid the efforts by Obama to normalize relations
with Cuba and as of the first of the year put sanctions on Nicaragua.
This after NED and USAID last summer brought radicals from Nicaragua to DC for training in
riots and rabble rousing. Which they did after returning home. In his speech Trump claimed
that by overthrowing those governments this hemisphere will be the "only totally free
hemisphere in the world". If the plan was to get Venezuelan oil so as to shut off Iran the US
would have supported Maduro, Venezuela is no danger to US security, and offered to send in
the best engineers to get the oil industry rolling. The US is now sanctioning the tankers so
as to cut off even more revenue to Venezuela and deprive Cuba of oil.
Plenty of people still fool themselves into believing Trump has been captured by the deep
state and is only going along with them to stay alive. Bunk. Ever since Trump sat in the
power chair he willingly joined the deep state. He's even going one further and his goal is a
one world government led by the US. He knows the American populace won't condone a new war so
his weapons are sanctions, the dollar, and trade wars. All viable tools as long as the US
continues to control the financial system.
If the US does attack Iran it will be a Libya affair using only air power to cripple them
and cause internal chaos.
I found it particularly interesting that nations like Germany, Japan, Mexico and South Korea
which have traditionally been viewed as pro-American overwhelmingly found that the United
States was a greater threat to their nation than Russia. Not surprisingly, only a very small 15
percent of Israelis felt that the United States was a greater threat compared to 28 percent who
felt that Russia was a greater threat, however the percentage of Israelis that are concerned
about American power is up from only 9 percent in 2013.
Looking back in time, more people now believe that the United States is a greater threat to
their nation than in 2013 and 2017; in 2018, a median of 45 percent of all respondents believed
that the United States was a major threat to their nation, up from 38 percent in 2017 and 25
percent in 2013.
... ... ...
Once again, it is interesting to observe that nations like France and Germany that have
traditionally been viewed as pro-American have seen the highest increase in their assessment of
the threat posed by American power.
The growing power and influence wielded by the United States is now rather widely viewed by
the world as a far greater threat than the power and influence wielded by Russia, particularly
when one looks back to 2013. Respondents in just over 70 percent of the 26 nations in the study
feel that America forms a greater threat to their home nation than the much-vilified Russia, a
result that is not terribly surprising given the events of the past two years in
Washington.
says: April 23, 2019 at
6:15 pm GMT 100 Words What a joke. Trump is a Zionist. The "deep state" is Zionist. The
trillionaires are Zionists.
Trump moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. Continues the illegal wars in Syria and Yemen.
Unilaterally declares the Golan Heights to be Israeli territory.
Kushner is Genie Energy. Cheney, et al. Stealing Syrian national wealth.
Trump is a tool.
Those who supported Trump are fools. Those who thought Mueller would find impeachable
offenses are fools. We are all either fools or tools.
@Wallbanger
Of course, Trump is pro-Zionist, and he hardly needed any pressure for this. Kushner is a
close friend of Netanyahu, and we don't know anything about conflicts between Trump and
Kushner.
But I think the Russiagate conspiracy theory still may have served important foreign
policy goals.
I think it is important to distinguish between Israeli foreign policy and US neocon
foreign policy, even though they are close allies. At least superficially, these are two
rather different things, and to me, it is an open question to what degree these differences
are only superficial.
US neocons follow the doctrine of „full spectrum dominance". This leads them to
having military bases all over the world, stoking up conflicts, and destabilizing countries
that have or want good relations with rivals like China and Russia. The idea that such
„full spectrum dominance" will be used for the benefit of Israel certainly goes a long
way for explaining why neocons think it is worth the price – after all, many US neocons
are Jewish Zionists, and many of their lower-rank supporters are Christian Zionists. But
their goal of „full spectrum dominance" goes beyond matters related to Israel, it leads
to conflicts and tensions all over the world, Israel is just one of the motivating
factors.
Israeli foreign policy is very different. It does not share the US' hostility towards
other great powers. Israel has good relations with Russia and China. It refused to follow the
US and the EU in sanctioning Russia, Netanyahu meets Putin regularly, and, like Trump with
the Golan recognition, Putin also gave Netanyahu a present a short time before the elections
(retrieving remains of an Israeli soldier who was missing since 1982 from Syria). Of course,
Russia and Israel supported different sides in Syria, but they still seem to take into
account each other's interest to some degree. Israel also has good relations and a strong
economic partnership with China and participates in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. The
general principle seems to be that whenever there is a conflict and rivalry, Israel wants to
have good relations and influence on both sides. There are some exceptions, in the Sunni-Shia
conflict, Israel only has behind-the-scenes influence on the Sunni-Wahhabi side, but that is
probably one of the reasons why good relations with Russia, which has closer contacts with
Iran, are important to Israel. In the case of the conflict in Ukraine (which is quite
relevant for Israel because many Israeli citizens are from Russia or Ukraine), Israel
remained neutral and has strong connections to both sides. Such a policy of keeping good
relations with as many powerful nations as possible obviously seems smart for a smaller
(albeit in many respects very strong) country in a difficult part of the world.
Of course, the Israeli government is very much aware that there could hardly ever be a
powerful country where Israel is as influential as it is in the US. Israel has some
significant influence in Western Europe and Russia, criticizing Israel can be risky, and
overall, these countries have rather pro-Israeli policies (as does, as far as I know, China).
But they will never be as extremely pro-Israeli as the US. There are many votes in the UN
were there is just Israel and the US on one side (sometimes together with some tiny
micronations that depend on the US). Therefore, it is in Israel's interest that the US tries
at all cost to gain influence relative to other great powers that are less extremely
pro-Israeli. Thus, US neocons who drive the US towards a costly „full spectrum
dominance" policy are unequivocally positive and worthy of support from the perspective of
the Israeli government. But for Israeli foreign policy itself, due to risk management
considerations, the priorities are different. The best-case scenario for them is that a)
Israeli influence in the US remains strong and b) the US can achieve and maintain
„full-spectrum dominance" for a long time. But they also know that this best-case
scenario is far from assured, and therefore, they also consider good relations between Israel
and potentially powerful countries like China and Russia important.
I think Trump's foreign policy ideas (before any pressure was applied to him) was quite
close to the Israeli ideas (rather than the positions of the US neocons). Unlike Israel, he
had some ideas about confronting China (mainly on trade), and certainly, he wanted
pro-Israeli policies, but it seems he also wanted to have a general policy of „getting
along" with relatively important countries rather than pursuing „full-spectrum
dominance" wherever possible and stoking up proxy conflicts at every occasion. On the whole,
it seems Trump wanted a US foreign policy that is closer to the Israeli one than to the one
of US neocons. If Israel can „get along" with Russia, why shouldn't the US? The Israeli
and international press does not scream „treason" every time Netanyahu and Putin meet
(which they do quite often).
This idea of a normalization of US-Russian relations is what led to such strong opposition
from US neocons. I think they all knew that it would never be in doubt that Trump's policies
would be pro-Israeli. But that was not enough for them. According to them, the US, unlike
Israel, has to have a strongly anti-Russian stance.
I think there are two plausible explanations, one that does involve Israel and one that
does not. They may both be partially be true (probably, for some US neocons, it is more the
one, while for others, it is more the other).
The first explanation is that US neocons who strongly identify with Israel, as I argued
above, recognize that Israel should have good relations with Russia and China because of risk
management considerations, but at the same time, Israel wants to have the US to have as much
power as possible because it will never have as much influence in Russia and China as it has
in the US. The Russia hysteria has helped increasing military spending (and Democrats going
along with this), which may increase the chances of "full spectrum dominance" – and
this dominance will, among other things, be used on behalf of Israel. In that case, it may
have been a kind of misunderstanding. Trump may have thought that for neocons, it would be
enough if he is pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian and has normal, non-hostile relations with
Russia, as Israel has – ignoring that the roles Israel and the US should play according
to the neocons are very different.
But I am not so sure if Israel would really have minded much if the US had normalized its
relations with Russia. Netanyahu hardly ever was hostile towards Trump, he knew he was a
reliable ally. Some may even think it weakens the ability of the US to support Israel if it
gets entangled in conflicts and confrontations all over the world. So, I suppose that for
many true Israel-firsters, Trump was hardly seen as a problem (as long as he is pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian, and there had hardly been any doubt that he is). There also do not seem to
be strong indications about Israeli involvement in Russiagate/Spygate. Some Israelis seem to
have been involved in the entrapment of Papadopoulos, but it was not necessarily the Israeli
government as a whole that was behind this (they may just have been needed because Israeli
energy policy is one of the main specializations of Papadopoulos), and I think there are at
least as strong indications of an Israeli involvement on the pro-Trump side.
Russiagate/Spygate mainly seems to be an affair of US and British intelligence services, not
so much of Israel. Certainly, in the US, many neocons were strongly involved, but it may not
have so much to do with Israel. While support of Israel is one of the reasons why some
neocons passionately pursue „full-spectrum dominance", for many of them, this has
probably become a goal in itself, even in cases in which it is not needed for Israel –
partially for ideological reasons, partially because many of them profit from increased
military spending.
The right ((neocons)), on the other hand, see Trump as a quisling to rally the hated
white men into dying for greater Israel. The perfect Commander and Chief of the Janissaries
for Zion.
i agree that initially it was always a possibility he was a neocon plant i.e. neocons
couldn't get a war in Syria so decided to put up a candidate who'd promise stuff on trade and
immigration to get into office but then ignore it all afterwards and just do neocon stuff
but
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
2) neocons like Kristol hated him and did everything they could to stop him.
You might call them the Alan Dershowitz wing of the Jewish supremacists. I see that mug
on Tucker Carlson defending Trump, and he's positively beaming.
right but he'd be beaming like that even more if he knew Trump was originally isolationist
but now is compromised and compliant.
too early to tell for sure but my take is if neocons and the media now start going easier
on him i think that will prove they got him and want to keep him in office.
(nb it doesn't change anything if he was always a shill or he wasn't but they got him
– the end result is the same)
1) if so he didn't need to say the anti-war stuff
and
the only reason I was duped into voting for Dubya his first term, was because I was
appalled at Clinton's flouting of international law when he bombed Serbia, and Dubya said
specifically said he wasn't a "nation builder". Boy oh boy was I chumped by that one.
And we were all chumped by Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and serial war pig.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then
wait until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
So far, Trump hasn't started any new wars. So as Mr. Giraldi says, "one hopes"
if neocons and the media now start going easier on him
then we're toast
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to the
core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
If the media likes them, then they're as rotten as they come.
If the media hates them, (Ron Paul, Julian Assange
others..)
then there is likely at least something redeeming about them.
The main reason for (pathetically) clinging to some tiny, gossamer wisp of hope for Trump,
is that ((they)) continue to be unhinged in their hysterical enmity for all things Trump.
But considering that he's basically giving them everything they want, (sans an all out war
on Iran), it seems the main reason they still hate his guts, is because the despised rubes in
flyover country still like him. And I suppose because of a few good judges and justices.
But as long as Bubba continues to proudly wear the hat, they're going to hate Donald Trump
with a seething malevolence.
And I have to confess to getting great satisfaction by seeing these rats going apoplectic
over Trump.
a guilty secret of mine is that everyday that this sick, twisted bitch
@Rurik the
other potentially relevant thing about Trump imo is he made some comments on 9/11 at the time
about how strong the twin towers were (i forget the exact details) which could be construed
as walking the edge of disbelief.
this may be related to Brennan in particular having such a hysterical reaction to Trump's
candidacy.
it seems the only metric we have for determining whether or not a person is rotten to
the core, or not, is whether the media likes them, or not.
I would contend, this is not a reliable indicator. If they really dislike someone, they
will simply not report anything at all. It would be a declared and enforced taboo to
report.
Negative publicity is also publicity, and the guys behind the curtain know this.
But what choice do we have but to at least vote for the peace candidate, and then wait
until, on cue, we're all betrayed once again by the Jewish supremacist deepstate.
It won't change anything, but you won't feel betrayed.
One of the reasons I voted for DJT was because I wanted to know if the unelected elites (who
control the Deep State) would ever voluntarily surrender the reigns of power in DC without
bloodshed. Now I unequivocally know the answer to that question. There is no democracy, there
is no Republic and any Constitutional Rights us American citizens have left hang by a thread
(think 1st and 2nd Amendments).
At this point Trump is either a hostage of the Deep State or he has joined them.
@Sean "Trump
owes the Russians nothing, he was their way to stop Clinton."
-- Sean, you seem as taking really seriously the $4.700 spent by Russians on the Google
ads as well as the indictment of Russian "hackers and trolls" (the alleged army of Kremlin)
in absentia. Why then Mueller backed off (in panic) from the indicted' readiness to show up
in court?
You may have some special grievances against Russia and Russians, but why such obvious
depreciation of your intelligence by repeating after Adam Schiff?
Bolton? NSA? Do you mean NSC? Everything we hear about Bolton lately is ideological
labeling as a so-called Neocon, more ambiguous bullshit, or tainting him by association with
Israelis. Funny how everybody just forgot what Bolton did at the UN, when Bush shoehorned him
in there without congressional consent. Bolton personally constipated the drafting of the
Summit Outcome Document to remove awkward mentions of the magic word impunity. The old perv
put up 700 amendments to obstruct the process.
Now, who cares that much about impunity? And why would it be such a big deal, unless you
had impunity in municipal law but the whole world was committed to ending impunity? Cause if
you think about it, that's what the whole world has been doing for 70 years, codifying the
Pre-CIA Nuremberg Principles as international criminal law and developing state
responsibility for internationally wrongful acts as customary and then conventional
international law. Who doesn't want that?
CIA. Impunity is CIA's vital interest. They go to war to keep it all the time.
@DESERT FOX
Wisely, DESERT FOX recalled Colonel Fletcher Prouty, and wrote: " the CIA is the zionist
chain dogs that rule America!"
Dear DESERT FOX,
As you know, for some very dramatic time, Attorney Garrison held Clay Shaw's
feet-to-the-fire while demonstrating the latter businessman's connection to the Israeli
company, Permindex.
So naturally, a reasonable & respectful question arises, for which there is likely no
available & conclusive determination.
Are CIA, Mossad, and M16 joined as one (1) ruling and globally unaccountable
"(Western) Zionist chain dog" link? Tough one, D.F., but am confident you can intelligently
handle it. Thanks & salud!
@ChuckOrloski
From what I have read, MI6 is under zionist control and is the template for the CIA and the
Mossad and is the controller of both the CIA and the Mossad and all three are under zionist
control.
Another good book is The Committee of 300 by Dr. John Coleman a former officer in MI6 and
his videos on youtube.
This is a good article but it misses a key person, probably the most important, in this whole
sorry mess -- Mike Pence.
I strongly suspect Pence has been pulling a soft coup on Trump since Day 1. Pence is the
biggest Ziocon there is, we had our first hint during his VP debate in 2016 with Tim Kaine
when he said he would go to war with Russia over Syria. Trump countered him in the next
debate. I believe that the NYT op-ed, purportedly by a "senior WH official" that said Trump
was a buffoon but there are "adults" in charge of foreign policy at the WH, was written by
Pence, at least in part. The word "lodestar" was a dead giveaway, and he is the only one who
could not be fired. It is clear that the Pence admin is now running our foreign policy. He
has been making speeches everywhere to gather support against all "our" enemies – Iran,
Ukraine, NKorea, China, Venezuela, Syria.
A while back Trump was furious that Pence had hired (((Jon Lerner))), a Never Trumper and
personal advisor to Nikki Haley at the UN as his personal advisor. Not sure if Pence dump him
in the end but the fact that he even hired him in the first place should tell you who Pence
is. Not since LBJ has there been a VP this involved in foreign policy. Pence is toxic. You
can tell Pompeo and Bolton report to him. Wouldn't surprise me if he worked with Rosenstein
to bring in Mueller. Pence 's wife despises Trump. She probably only agreed to let Pence be
VP because he and his handlers promised her Trump will be impeached so he'd be president.
Of course, Trump is not completely innocent. He is an unprincipled idiot megalomaniac and
is easily manipulated. What he's doing with immigration shows you who he really is, a total
liar. Kushner the treasonous rat SIL is about to unleash a mass Chindian importation
immigration plan that'll piss off all of Trump's base
PAUL JAY Can I–Can I just intervene for just a sec? The problem here is both on
Venezuela and Iran the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment is on the same page as
Trump. Netanyahu is on the same page as Trump. The Saudis are on the same page as Trump. When
Trump throws this missile, missiles into Syria after the supposed gas attack, Chuck Schumer
says finally Trump's acting president -- is a president. The problem is is that as much as
these guys vilify and are dangerous -- these guys meaning the Democrats and that whole
establishment are dangerous on Russia-
STEPHEN COHEN I don't disagree.
PAUL JAY They'll converge with Trump on some very dangerous stuff in Iran.
STEPHEN COHEN I don't disagree. But that brings me to my final point, I guess, because we
are at the time we are in. We now have, I think, at last count 19 or 20 Democratic would be
contenders for the presidential nomination; 19 or 20. We need to ask ourselves which, if any,
of these people see these dangers clearly, and ask them. But I have a feeling that the
mainstream media will not ask them, because these are uncomfortable issues for them. I also
think that the one candidate who has embraced a position similar to my own, Tulsi Gabbard, was
immediately attacked by NBC, as you know. Scurrilously.
That it's a question of what kind of discussion–because according to our democracy
these existential issues that you and I have discussed are discussed during presidential
campaigns. This is when we clarify and make our choices. It seems to me this is unlikely to
happen, partly because the mainstream media doesn't permit voices like mine any longer. Though
they used to welcome me. I used to work for them. It would be interesting to see how they treat
Tulsi Gabbard, who's the closest to this kind of anxiety about the new Cold War with Russia,
has taken positions on this. There may be others, but I haven't–I haven't noted that.
We'll see how they're–if there's an attempt to suppress her view, or to give her a fair
time. Now, she'll have to do well in a primary somewhere to get that. But it's a little
discouraging that of 19 or 20 Democrats, only one thus far has spoken with some clarity about
this, what I consider to be the number one existential issue; the danger of war with
Russia.
Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
I think the real question is not whether Trump is successful or
not. That question is a red herring in American politics today. The real question is whether or
not the Democratic "leadership" can allow nomination of a candidate that the Democrat rank and
file want. Bernie Sanders should have won the nomination last time. But the superdelegate
system gives a literal handful of mandarins the ability to fake the primary process. (I say
that as someone who has significant issues with some of Sanders positions.)
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump won
because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a government of
the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got screwed. Black
people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the heart of the DNC was
exposed for all to see in the emails. Trump win because of the Obama administration making a
trade deal top secret classified and trying to force a vote through congress. Not seeing any
point in voting, Democrats didnt.
All the evidence since shows the DNC leadership didn't learn anything. They are just as
contemptuous of voters, just as manipulative with their window dressing as ever. The Democratic
party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a party that stopped
every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and North Korea. There's now
2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle east ideas. Put some solar
energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights bullshit and it's "Democrat". But
the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just as wildly right wing war mongering.
The 1960's is long over. The Democratic party hasn't seen a new idea since and has converted
to govern to the right of Nixon. Way to Nixon's right. The Democratic party is the tool of the
Uber-ization of not just America, but the whole world. Flour and break the law to pauperize the
working class, and suck money to a few in the SF Bay Area. That's policy now.
You can see it already. Sanders is ahead. But Buttigieg is being anointed. He's the perfect
candidate. He's gay! He's out of the closet! And he's a corporate tool who can talk smoothly
without speaking a clear word. Best of all, he has ZERO foreign policy experience or positions.
So he'll be putty in the hands of the corporations that want endless war for profits. Wall
Street wants him. And the street owns the Democratic party. Will he give a flying f*@k about
the middle and working class? Will he be anything but another neo-liberal who can be
differentiated from a neo-conservative only by mild difference in racism? (Overt vs.covert)
At least Buttigieg isn't Beto O'Rourke, the most completely empty skin in Congress. There's
that.
All the evidence I see is no. The Democrat "leadership" don't understand. I predict a Trump
win, or else a squeaker election that barely scrapes by with a win.
No matter what, the idiot Democrats won't get it. Pelosi will do her best to cast the
Republicans anti-tax anti-government (federal) government culture war in concrete with balanced
budget horse manure. The Democrats will continue to force a new cold war on Russia. They will
keep backing companies that steal from the middle and working class. (Yes, Uber and Lyft are
massive theft operations. They implemented taxi service without licenses. Those licenses cost a
lot of money to those who bought them. They put the public at risk causing multiple deaths and
assaults from unlicensed taxi drivers.)
Trump's appeal is that he at least talks a game of "f*@k you". Domestically it's all lies on
all sides. He lies to everyone. But at least he doesn't lie smoothly like the "good Democrat"
candidates do.
Obviously everybody's motives are mixed. The same guys who are calculating the economic
advantages of supporting Trump are likely to be cultural nativists too. That said, I think a
lot of the traditional Republicans who have come around to heartfelt Trumpism supported him
once he got the nomination for rational (zweckrational) reasons. A moderate Democrat like
Clinton might not seem like much of a threat, but the era of triangulation is coming to an
end no matter who's in charge. The imperative problems of the times -- drastic inequality,
economic stagnation, a train wreck of a health care system, climate change -- will have to be
faced with measures deeply threatening to the existing order of things, especially since
sheer demography is undermining the white Christian base of right-wing politics. Under the
circumstances, the only way to defend privilege is to embrace some kind of craziness. The
incompetence of the administration and the decline of American power and prestige that goes
with it are a trade-off. In any case, though Trump may be worse than necessary, any
conservative government will necessarily oversee the debasement of the country in the name of
race and religion. As Molly Bloom once murmured, "as well him as another."
jim harrison #24: "Under the circumstances, the only way to defend privilege is to embrace
some kind of craziness. The incompetence of the administration and the decline of American
power and prestige that goes with it are a trade-off."
I think you've put it in a nutshell. But the recognition of this particular thought is
prevented in the minds of conservatives, both upper and lower class, by an opposing thought.
The conservative logic is that defending privilege is scientifically proper. It is to defend
the material hierarchy in which you, yourself, may ascend on your own merits as a productive
successful individual. Privilege is not simply "I got mine, so you get yours": it is
conservatives' presumed key to capitalism's overall success, thus to defend privilege is to
defend the US's status as the world's strongest, most vibrant economy.
There are several reasons why this law of the jungle may no longer remain operational in
the US, and they started before Trump 's hastening of US decline. If these reasons ever dawn
upon the lower-class conservatives, that awakening may not come yet for 10 or 20 years as the
unavoidable bills become due and global financial markets begin to divest from the US as if
it were a money-loser. In the meantime the upper class will have taken its money offshore, as
foreign economies grow and liberalize investment. Thus it is that neoliberals (in Quinn
Slobodian's particular description, of a free-floating globalized financial class that
manipulates local national policies) can cut themselves free of the US as it descends further
into stratified poverty and brutality. The elites, simply by following the financial markets,
will gut the US.
Your quote describes a trade-off that is a vicious circle. It looks impossible to break
unless there is a generally agreed-upon rewrite of political economy. I repeat "generally
agreed-upon", because the real need is to change a big social preference, and as economists
say,"preferences are exogenous", meaning they are prior to the application of the toolkit of
modern economics. The US was the first large advanced capitalist country, and it may become
the first large advanced democratic socialist country if it is to avoid fascism.
Uncle Jeffy 04.22.19 at 2:05 pm (no link)
Happy Charles Krauthammer Day!
In Memoriam, of course. But his brilliant insight (that there were WMDs in Iraq, and all
we needed was a little more time to find them) will live on forever ..
Jay 04.22.19 at 11:43 pm (no link)
or maybe they weren't eager for World War 3 with Russia over Syria or the Ukraine?
I voted for Trump after previously voting for Ralph Nader. And Obama proved beyond a doubt
that Nader was right. Meanwhile Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would do; he has shown
that our entire election system is rigged by the CIA (obviously not very thoroughly rigged).
Like or hate Trump, only a traitor would not be concerned that the CIA is giving marching
order to the media and colluding to derail candidates it does not approve of.
Unless a "democrat" stands up who is willing to talk about unconstitutional wars,
unconstitutional bailouts, unconstitutional surveillance and unconstitutional rigging of the
two major parties, Trump is far better because he is forcing the public to see how corrupt DC
is. We have been in a constitutional crisis since at least the 1990's. Of course if you are
too weak and stupid to handle any of that discussion, just bury your head and pretend that
"racism" is the only reason Trump won.
bruce wilder 04.23.19 at 12:21 am (no link)
Reading the post and comments, I can help but feel the entire agenda is about feeling good
about one's own political fecklessness. The abject moral and economic failures of
left-neoliberalism / lesser evilism Democratic Party politics are staring at you. And, you
are projecting that outward as if Trump is a failure of the Republican Party and its
politics!
Trump has done exactly what I hoped he would do; he has shown that our entire election
system is rigged by the CIA (obviously not very thoroughly rigged).
If you mean that (as a result of Trump's election) most people in the US now believe that
that your entire election system is rigged by the CIA, then you're wrong: most people in the
US do not believe that your entire election system is rigged by the CIA. On the other hand,
you can't mean that as a result of Trump's election you now believe that to be true, because
(on your own say-so) you already believed it to be true before Trump's election.
If you mean that as a result of Trump's election you feel justified in priding yourself on
having superior insight to the poor dupes who still believe in the system, then I would
believe that's how you feel; but perhaps that's not what you mean. I hope that's not what you
mean.
Trump is far better because he is forcing the public to see how corrupt DC is
No, the number of people who did not believe that DC was corrupt before Trump but who have
come to believe that it is corrupt because of Trump is so small as to be insignificant.
likbez 04.23.19 at 5:58 am (no link)
@Brian 04.21.19 at 2:43 pm ( 18)
First of all thank you for your post. You insights are much appreciated. Some
comments:
The real question is whether or not the Democratic "leadership" can allow nomination of
a candidate that the Democrat rank and file want.
In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination. And Democratic leadership mainly
consists of "CIA-democrats"
Trump won because Hillary was a horrific candidate. Voters stayed home, disgusted. Trump
won because the Obama administration didn't deliver hope nor change. He delivered a
government of the corporate criminal bankers for them. Middle and working class America got
screwed. Black people got screwed worst. Trump won because the utter corruption at the
heart of the DNC was exposed for all to see in the emails.
This is a very apt description of reasons for which Trump had won, but anti-war sentiments
played also important role and probably should be added to the list. People with neocon
foreign policy platform might face hard wing in 2020 as well too. That does not means that
voters will not be betrayed again like in case of Trump and Obama, but still
The Democratic party is the party of endless war even more than the Republicans. It's a
party that stopped every effort by Trump to wind down or end war posture with Russia and
North Korea. There's now 2 parties in Netanyahu's pocket implementing Likuds insane middle
east ideas. Put some solar energy and LGBTQ butter on it with a side of women's rights
bullshit and it's "Democrat". But the politicians are just as venal. The legislature just
as wildly right wing war mongering.
True. But in 2020 that might be their undoing. That's why this corrupt gang is more afraid
of Tulsi more then of Trump.
In general the level of crisis of neoliberalism will play important role in 2002
elections, especially if the economy slows down in 2020. Wheels might start coming off the
neoliberal cart in 2020; that's why Russiagate hysteria serves as an "insurance policy". It
helps to cement the cracks in the neoliberal façade, or at least to attribute them to
the chosen scapegoat.
One good thing that Trump has done (beside criminal justice reform) is that he helped to
discredit neoliberal media. That effort should be applauded. He really turned the Twitter
into a razor to slash neoliberal MSMs.
"... In May, the company, Crowdstrike, determined that the hack was the work of the Russians. As one unnamed intelligence official told BuzzFeed, "CrowdStrike is pretty good. There's no reason to believe that anything that they have concluded is not accurate ..."
"... Perhaps not. Yet Crowdstrike is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to Russia. Crowdstrike's founder and chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch , is also a senior fellow at the Washington think tank, The Atlantic Council, which has been at the forefront of escalating tensions with Russia. ..."
"... As I reported in The Nation in early January , the connection between Alperovitch and the Atlantic Council is highly relevant given that the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the State Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. In recent years, it has emerged as a leading voice calling for a new Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... But meanwhile the steady drumbeat of "blame Russia" is having an effect. According to a recent you.gov/Economist poll, 58 percent of Americans view Russia as "unfriendly/enemy" while also finding that 52 percent of Democrats believed Russia "tampered with vote tallies." ..."
Today something eerily similar to the pre-war debate over Iraq is taking place regarding the
allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election. Assurances from the
intelligence community and from anonymous Obama administration "senior officials" about the
existence of evidence is being treated as, well, actual evidence.
State
Department spokesman John Kirby told CNN that he is "100% certain" of the role that Russia
played in U.S. election. The administration's expressions of certainty are then uncritically
echoed by the mainstream media. Skeptics are likewise written off, slandered as " Kremlin
cheerleaders " or worse.
Unsurprisingly, The Washington Post is reviving its Bush-era role as principal publicist for
the government's case. Yet in its haste to do the government's bidding, the Post has published
two widely debunked stories relating to Russia (one on the scourge of Russian inspired "fake
news", the other on a non-existent Russian hack of a Vermont electric utility) onto which the
paper has had to append "editor's notes" to correct the original stories.
Yet, those misguided stories have not deterred the Post's opinion page from being equally
aggressive in its depiction of Russian malfeasance. In late December, the Post published an
op-ed by Rep. Adam Schiff and former Rep. Jane Harmon claiming "Russia's
theft and strategic leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic Party and other
officials present a challenge to the U.S. political system unlike anything we've
experienced."
On Dec. 30, the Post editorial board
chastised President-elect Trump for seeming to dismiss "a brazen and unprecedented attempt
by a hostile power to covertly sway the outcome of a U.S. presidential election." The Post
described Russia's actions as a "cyber-Pearl Harbor."
On Jan. 1, the neoconservative columnist Josh Rogin
told readers that the recent announcement of
sanctions against Russia "brought home a shocking realization that Russia is using hybrid
warfare in an aggressive attempt to disrupt and undermine our democracy."
Meanwhile, many of the same voices who were among the loudest cheerleaders for the war in
Iraq have also been reprising their Bush-era roles in vouching for the solidity of the
government's case.
Jonathan Chait, now a columnist for New York magazine, is clearly convinced by what the
government has thus far provided. "That Russia wanted Trump to win has been obvious for
months," writes Chait.
"Of course it all came from the Russians, I'm sure it's all there in the intel," Charles
Krauthammer told Fox News on Jan. 2. Krauthammer is certain.
And Andrew Sullivan is certain as to the motive. "Trump and Putin's bromance," Sullivan told MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Jan. 2, "has
one goal this year: to destroy the European Union and to undermine democracy in Western
Europe."
David Frum,
writing in The Atlantic , believes Trump "owes his office in considerable part to illegal
clandestine activities in his favor conducted by a hostile, foreign spy service."
Jacob Weisberg agrees, tweeting: "Russian covert action threw the election to Donald Trump.
It's that simple." Back in 2008, Weisberg
wrote that "the first thing I hope I've learned from this experience of being wrong about
Iraq is to be less trusting of expert opinion and received wisdom." So much for that.
Foreign Special Interests
Another, equally remarkable similarity to the period of 2002-3 is the role foreign lobbyists
have played in helping to whip up a war fever. As readers will no doubt recall, Ahmed Chalabi,
leader of the Iraqi National Congress, which served, in effect as an Iraqi government-in-exile,
worked hand in hand with the Washington lobbying firm Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey (BKSH)
to sell Bush's war on television and on the op-ed pages of major American newspapers.
Chalabi was also a trusted source of Judy Miller of the Times, which, in an apology to its
readers on May 26,
2004, wrote : "The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been
named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced
reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration
and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles." The pro-war lobbying of the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee has also been exhaustivelydocumented .
Though we do not know how widespread the practice has been as of yet, something similar is
taking place today. Articles calling for confrontation with Russia over its alleged "hybrid
war" with the West are
appearingwithincreasingregularity
. Perhaps the most egregious example of this newly popular genre appeared on Jan. 1 in
Politico
magazine. That essay, which claims, among many other things, that "we're in a war" with
Russia comes courtesy of one Molly McKew.
McKew is seemingly qualified to make such a pronouncement because she, according to her bio
on the Politico website, served as an "adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government
from 2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015." Seems reasonable
enough. That is until one discovers that McKew is actually registered with the
Department of Justice as a lobbyist for two anti-Russian political parties, Georgia's UMN
and Moldova's PLDM.
Records show her work for the consulting firm Fianna Strategies frequently takes her to
Capitol Hill to lobby U.S. Senate and Congressional staffers, as well as prominent U.S.
journalists at The Washington Post and The New York Times, on behalf of her Georgian and
Moldovan clients.
"The truth," writes McKew, "is that fighting a new Cold War would be in America's interest.
Russia teaches us a very important lesson: losing an ideological war without a fight will ruin
you as a nation. The fight is the American way." Or, put another way: the truth is that
fighting a new Cold War would be in McKew's interest -- but perhaps not America's.
While you wouldn't know it from the media coverage (or from reading deeply disingenuous
pieces like McKew's) as things now stand, the case against Russia is far from certain. New
developments are emerging almost daily. One of the latest is a report from the
cyber-engineering company Wordfence, which concluded that "The IP
addresses that DHS [Department of Homeland Security] provided may have been used for an attack
by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with
Russia."
Indeed, according to Wordfence, "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be
Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an
indicator of compromise for any website."
On Jan. 4,
BuzzFeed reported that, according to the DNC, the FBI never carried out a forensic
examination on the email servers that were allegedly hacked by the Russian government. "The
FBI," said DNC spokesman Eric Walker, "never requested access to the DNC's computer
servers."
What the agency did do was rely on the findings of a private-sector, third-party vendor that
was brought in by the DNC after the initial hack was discovered. In May, the company,
Crowdstrike, determined that the hack was the work of the Russians. As one unnamed intelligence
official told BuzzFeed, "CrowdStrike is pretty good. There's no reason to believe that anything
that they have concluded is not accurate. "
Perhaps not. Yet Crowdstrike is hardly a disinterested party when it comes to Russia.
Crowdstrike's founder and chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch , is also a senior fellow at the
Washington think tank, The Atlantic Council, which has been at the forefront of escalating
tensions with Russia.
As I
reported in The Nation in early January , the connection between Alperovitch and the
Atlantic Council is highly relevant given that the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the State
Department, NATO, the governments of Latvia and Lithuania, the Ukrainian World Congress, and
the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk. In recent years, it has emerged as a leading voice
calling for a new Cold War with Russia.
Time to Rethink the 'Group Think'
And given the rather thin nature of the declassified evidence provided by the Obama
administration, might it be time to consider an alternative theory of the case? William Binney,
a 36-year veteran of the National Security Agency and the man responsible for creating many of
its collection systems, thinks so. Binney believes that the DNC emails were leaked, not hacked,
writing
that "it is puzzling why NSA cannot produce hard evidence implicating the Russian
government and WikiLeaks. Unless we are dealing with a leak from an insider, not a hack."
None of this is to say, of course, that Russia did not and could not have attempted to
influence the U.S. presidential election. The intelligence community may have
intercepted damning evidence of the Russian government's culpability. The government's
hesitation to provide the public with more convincing evidence may stem from an
understandable and wholly appropriate desire to protect the intelligence community's sources
and methods. But as it now stands the publicly available evidence is open to question.
But meanwhile the steady drumbeat of "blame Russia" is having an effect. According to a
recent you.gov/Economist
poll, 58 percent of Americans view Russia as "unfriendly/enemy" while also finding that 52
percent of Democrats believed Russia "tampered with vote tallies."
With Congress back in session, Armed Services Committee chairman John McCain is set to hold
a series of hearings focusing on Russian malfeasance, and the steady drip-drip-drip of
allegations regarding Trump and Putin is only serving to box in the new President when it comes
to pursuing a much-needed detente with Russia.
It also does not appear that a congressional inquiry will start from scratch and critically
examine the evidence. On Friday, two senators -- Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Sheldon
Whitehouse --
announced a Senate Judiciary subcommittee investigation into Russian interference in
elections in the U.S. and elsewhere. But they already seemed to have made up their minds about
the conclusion: "Our goal is simple," the senators said in a joint statement "To the fullest
extent possible we want to shine a light on Russian activities to undermine democracy."
So, before the next round of Cold War posturing commences, now might be the time to stop,
take a deep breath and ask: Could the rush into a new Cold War with Russia be as disastrous and
consequential -- if not more so -- as was the rush to war with Iraq nearly 15 years ago? We
may, unfortunately, find out.
James W Carden is a contributing writer for The Nation and editor of The American
Committee for East-West Accord's eastwestaccord.com. He previously served as an advisor on
Russia to the Special Representative for Global Inter-governmental Affairs at the US State
Department.
Don G. , February 5, 2017 at 14:29
Questioning whether the Russians hacked or didn’t hack is playing into the US
narrative to demonize Russia. (Putin)
It simple doesn’t matter as all nations hack as much as possible to enhance and protect
their national interests. Surely Russia has hacked against the US no more than a tenth of
what the US had done against Russia.
The narrative is nothing but a propaganda lie but it’s been accepted by the American
people and mostly because of the fight that goes on due to domestic politics, one major party
against the other.
There’s a very good reason to stop promoting the narrative because it only helps to
bring Americans onside with more efforts to demonize Putin and to keep all sides in the US
promoting their aggression worldwide. Americans are likely easily 90% prowar now and will
show little or no resistance to the coming war on Iran. <img alt=''
src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05d2bb98b641e9e9ab8f3dc738e31a0?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg'
srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f05d2bb98b641e9e9ab8f3dc738e31a0?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg
2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
yugo , February 4, 2017 at 13:54
Hysteria has reached fever pitch. Russia’s fake news is apparently so beguiling that
it even threatens western democratic discourse. Combine this with its cyber weaponry and
Moscow, so we are told, may interfere in this year’s German elections to benefit the
hard-right. Such incessant fear mongering has already prompted calls for the censorship of
Russian propaganda. It won’t be long before a witch-hunt emerges, directed against
‘fellow travellers’, those who dare to doubt the Russian threat.
They insist the west made matters worse in Ukraine by not acknowledging that it was a
classic example of a young state that didn’t naturally command the allegiance of all
its peoples. Other examples are Georgia’s Abkhazians and South Ossetians,
Moldova’s Trans-Dniester Slavs and Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians.
They also doubt the Russian threat to the Baltic states. What is amazing is Moscow’s
temperate response to Estonia and Latvia’s gross violation of international norms in
denying citizenship to those of its Russian minority who are not conversant in Estonian and
Latvian respectively. Nato and the EU turned a blind eye when membership was granted to these
two states.
Fellow travellers furthermore claim the west will keep on floundering in the Middle East
as long as it persists in treating Saudi Arabia as a valued ally, while viewing Iran as a
permanent enemy. We have for far too long ignored Saudi Arabia’s promotion of Wahhabism
and its playing of the destructive sectarian card against ‘apostate’ Shiites.
Take the merciless attacks on Shiite worshippers by Sunni jihadis of a Wahhabist persuasion.
It occurs with sickening regularity throughout the Middle East. The terrorists attacking
westerners are invariably Sunni jihadis, not Shiites. Worse still, Saudi Arabia together with
Nato member Turkey facilitated the emergence of Isis. We bizarrely gave priority to toppling
Syria’s secular regime.
The first loyalty of these fellow travellers is to their nation state rather than
unfettered globalism. No wonder the western elite disparage their national patriotism,
calling it populism. It was, after all, the Achilles Heel of Homo Sovieticus. The elite fear
the same fate awaits Homo Europaeus and globalist Homo Economicus.
Michael K Rohde , February 3, 2017 at 15:12
This is beginning to look exactly like Iraq 2 and why the same players that led us into
that fake war which is still not paid for because the initiators made sure and get themselves
a tax cut before they launched it are still being listened to makes it clear. Even with a
change in administrations and party our government continues in the same wrong headed
direction, to war with the enemies of Israel. When will it stop? When will we take back
control of our foreign policy and destiny. <img alt=''
src='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc900a84653501242923790946494dbc?s=60&d=identicon&r=pg'
srcset='https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/cc900a84653501242923790946494dbc?s=120&d=identicon&r=pg
2x' class='avatar avatar-60 photo' height='60' width='60' />
Michael Hoefler , February 3, 2017 at 23:29
As Ray McGovern said several times (not quoting): that Israel is the elephant in the room.
Netayahu will not rest until he has all of the Arab states fighting among themselves. IMO he
thinks that that will guarantee Israel protection.
IMO – all that does is put Israel into a continuing worse situation. There will always
be someone stronger to come along to overcome them – someday – sometime. If they
made peace with those nations and worked with them, traded with them – they would be
much safer in the long run.
The mainstream media in th USA and, increasingly in the rest of the West are vehicles for
propaganda from various factions within the Imperial Deep State. All these outlets are good
for is to map the power relations between these factions at least this the case in the major
issues of the day.
This misbehavior going on right now. One factions close to Trump wants to go to war with
Iran because, of course there has to be war or the Deep State as a whole stuffers and the
people will begin to look at their shakles. The other faction wishes to go to a brinksmanship
sort of Cold War situation. The Trumpists believe that making friends with Russia and then
destroying Iranian power is the best approach to controlling the MENA region by creating a
loose alliance of KSA, Israel, Turkey and Russia in which a weak Iran would be forced to
enter the Empire and Russia in return would be given more control of Ukraine and Eastern
Europe. I suspect Trump may also want to undercut NATO and the EU. That is my guess. To put
it another way, Russia is strong and well led and Iran is not.
stan , February 3, 2017 at 14:17
You can read chapter 6 of Mein Kampf if you want to see how this war propaganda stuff
works. It is not group think or mistaken ideas. It is deliberate lies to scare you and a
carefully crafted false narrative to make it all seem reasonable. People cannot believe that
their leaders would tell such a big lie, and that’s why it works. The goal is murder
and conquest to get territory, natural resources, and control of business and commerce.
Controlling markets for drugs, gambling, and prostitution is for nickel and dime crooks.
Controlling markets for natural resources, banking, and consumer and industrial goods is
where the real money is. Think of governments as criminal business syndicates and you
aren’t far off. Remember, President Obama had a hit list, flew around plane loads of
secret cash to make illegal payoffs, and bragged about offing his opponent in the head and
dumping his body in the river.
Jeremy , February 4, 2017 at 11:33
Yes, Stan,well put! you will never see this sort of talk in the articles here, as the
consipiracy theorist label is always one to avoid, but I agree that when we think in terms of
a group of people trying to attain “security” the same way any other gangster
does, it becomes much less far fetched. George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and
you ain’t in it!” Men and women of power and wealth will always do what they have
to in order to preserve that power and wealth for their children. There is really no
conspiracy needed, just a bunch of people at the top looking after themselves and their
families.
Tania Messina , February 3, 2017 at 14:13
Ah, yes, we’ve always needed a boogeyman to keep us all crazed with fear and the
neocons busy with their destruction of society. If there is a crazy out there today, it is
those neocons and their puppets who were so intent on destroying “seven countries in
five years” and not being able to achieve that diabolical end as so neatly planned.
And, now, they’re throwing temper tantrums, because, surprise of surprises! a non
career politician comes along who uses common sense for a change and dares to say, “Why
can’t we be friends with Russia?” With that comment many exhausted Americans
perked up and listened while the Dulles boys turned somersaults in their graves!
The arrogance and superiority of those who constantly blame Russia for their alleged
expansionist ambitions seem blinded to our own aggressions. Fifteen years in Iraq? We finally
have a president who talks of peace and we demonize him as the warmonger ready to press the
button, while I seem to remember that it was the other candidate who arrogantly referred to
Putin as Hitler!
It is articles like this one by James Carden that we should be teaching in our schools,
researching the facts and discussing in our classrooms so that hopefully a new generation
might grow up with intelligent exchange rather than the brainwash that has been strangling
our society for too many years.
Mark Thomason , February 3, 2017 at 13:04
This controversy is driven by Democratic denial of defeat, and infighting in which those
defeated seek to hang on to power inside the Democratic Party. It is the Hillary crowd. It
can be evidence free because it is driven by political calculation of private power needs,
not truth.
And the WMD fiasco is a perfect comparison, because the same people drove the same sort of
fact-free theme for private reasons, as Wolfowitz put it, the story around which varying
separate interests could be rallied.
"... One might reasonably ask if America in its seemingly enduring role as the world's most feared bully will ever cease and desist, but the more practical question might be "When will the psychopathic trio of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams be fired so the United States can begin to behave like a normal nation?" ..."
"... This hatred of all things Trump has been manifested in the neoconservative "Nevertrump" forces led by Bill Kristol and by the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" prominent on the political left, regularly exhibited by Rachel Maddow. ..."
"... Whether the Mueller report is definitive very much depends on the people they chose to interview and the questions they chose to ask, which is something that will no doubt be discussed for the next year if not longer. Beyond declaring that the Trump team did not collude with Russia, it cast little light on the possible Deep State role in attempting to vilify Trump and his associates. ..."
"... The media has scarcely reported how Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice (DOJ), has been looking into the activities of the principal promoters of the Russiagate fraud. Horowitz, whose report is expected in about a month, has already revealed that he intends to make criminal referrals as a result of his investigation. ..."
"... The first phase of the illegal investigation of the Trump associates involved initiating wiretaps without any probable cause. This eventually involved six government intelligence and law enforcement agencies that formed a de facto task force headed by the CIA's Director John Brennan. Also reportedly involved were the FBI's James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, and Admiral Michael Rogers who headed the National Security Agency. ..."
"... The British support of the operation was coordinated by the then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since been forced to resign. Brennan is, unfortunately still around and has not been charged with perjury and other crimes. In May 2017, after he departed government, he testified before Congress with what sounds a lot like a final unsourced, uncorroborated attempt to smear the new administration ..."
"... The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia, Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel. ..."
"... The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the supporters of the Deep State. ..."
"... You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zionists. No one in NY except Zionists would associate with Trump. ..."
The real "deplorable" in today's United States is the continuation of a foreign policy based
on endless aggression to maintain Washington's military dominance in parts of the world where
Americans have no conceivable interest. Many voters backed Donald J. Trump because he committed
himself to changing all that, but, unfortunately, he has reneged on his promise, instead
heightening tension with major powers Russia and China while also threatening Iran and
Venezuela on an almost daily basis. Now Cuba is in the crosshairs because it is allegedly
assisting Venezuela. One might reasonably ask if America in its seemingly enduring role as the
world's most feared bully will ever cease and desist, but the more practical question might be
"When will the psychopathic trio of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Elliott Abrams be fired so the
United States can begin to behave like a normal nation?"
Trump, to be sure, is the heart of the problem as he has consistently made bad, overly
belligerent decisions when better and less abrasive options were available, something that
should not necessarily always be blamed on his poor choice of advisers. But one also should not
discount the likelihood that the dysfunction in Trump is in part comprehensible, stemming from
his belief that he has numerous powerful enemies who have been out do destroy him since before
he was nominated as the GOP's presidential candidate. This hatred of all things Trump has been
manifested in the neoconservative "Nevertrump" forces led by Bill Kristol and by the "Trump
Derangement Syndrome" prominent on the political left, regularly exhibited by Rachel
Maddow.
And then there is the Deep State, which also worked with the Democratic Party and President
Barack Obama to destroy the Trump presidency even before it began. One can define Deep State in
a number of ways, ranging from a "soft" version which accepts that there is an Establishment
that has certain self-serving objectives that it works collectively to promote to something
harder, an actual infrastructure that meets together and connives to remove individuals and
sabotage policies that it objects to. The Deep State in either version includes senior
government officials, business leaders and, perhaps most importantly, the managed media, which
promotes a corrupted version of "good governance" that in turn influences the public.
Whether the Mueller report is definitive very much depends on the people they chose to
interview and the questions they chose to ask, which is something that will no doubt be
discussed for the next year if not longer. Beyond declaring that the Trump team did not collude
with Russia, it cast little light on the possible Deep State role in attempting to vilify Trump
and his associates. The investigation of that aspect of the 2016 campaign and the possible
prosecutions of former senior government officials that might be a consequence of the
investigation will likely be entertaining conspiracy theorists well into 2020. Since Russiagate
has already been used and discarded the new inquiry might well be dubbed Trumpgate.
The media has scarcely reported how Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), has been
looking into the activities of the principal promoters of the Russiagate fraud. Horowitz,
whose report is expected in about a month, has already revealed that he intends to make
criminal referrals as a result of his investigation. While the report will only cover
malfeasance in the Department of Justice, which includes the FBI, the names of intelligence
officers involved will no doubt also surface. It is expected that there will be charges leading
to many prosecutions and one can hope for jail time for those individuals who corruptly
betrayed their oath to the United States Constitution to pursue a political vendetta.
A review of what is already known about the plot against Trump is revealing and no doubt
much more will be learned if and when investigators go through emails and phone records. The
first phase of the illegal investigation of the Trump associates involved initiating wiretaps
without any probable cause.
This eventually involved six government intelligence and law enforcement agencies that
formed a de facto task force headed by the CIA's Director John Brennan. Also reportedly
involved were the FBI's James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Attorney
General Loretta Lynch, Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, and Admiral
Michael Rogers who headed the National Security Agency.
Brennan was the key to the operation because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) court refused to approve several requests by the FBI to initiate taps on Trump
associates and Trump Tower as there was no probable cause to do so but the British and other
European intelligence services were legally able to intercept communications linked to American
sources. Brennan was able to use his connections with those foreign intelligence agencies,
primarily the British GCHQ, to make it look like the concerns about Trump were coming from
friendly and allied countries and therefore had to be responded to as part of routine
intelligence sharing. As a result, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner
and Gen. Michael Flynn were all wiretapped. And likely there were others. This all happened
during the primaries and after Trump became the GOP nominee.
In other words, to make the wiretaps appear to be legitimate, GCHQ and others were quietly
and off-the-record approached by Brennan and associates over their fears of what a Trump
presidency might mean. The British responded by initiating wiretaps that were then used by
Brennan to justify further investigation of Trump's associates. It was all neatly done and
constituted completely illegal spying on American citizens by the U.S. government.
The British support of the operation was coordinated by the then-director of GCHQ Robert
Hannigan who has since been forced to resign. Brennan is, unfortunately still around and has
not been charged with perjury and other crimes. In May 2017, after he departed government, he
testified before
Congress with what sounds a lot like a final unsourced, uncorroborated attempt to smear the
new administration :
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and
interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I
was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised
questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those
individuals."
Brennan's claimed "concerns" turned out to be incorrect. Meanwhile, other interested parties
were involved in the so-called Steele Dossier on Trump himself. The dossier, paid
for initially by Republicans trying to stop Trump, was later funded by $12 million from the
Hillary campaign. It was commissioned by the law firm Perkins Coie, which was working for the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). The objective was to assess any possible Trump involvement
with Russia. The work itself was sub-contracted to Fusion GPS, which in turn sub-contracted the
actual investigation to British spy Christopher Steele who headed a business intelligence firm
called Orbis.
Steele left MI-6 in 2009 and had not visited Russia since 1993. The report, intended to dig
up dirt on Trump, was largely prepared using impossible to corroborate second-hand information
and would have never surfaced but for the surprise result of the 2016 election. Christopher
Steele gave a copy to a retired of British Diplomat Sir Andrew Wood who in turn handed it to
Trump critic Senator John McCain who then passed it on to the FBI. President Barack Obama
presumably also saw it and, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, "If it weren't for
President Obama, we might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we did that
set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today, notably, special counsel
Mueller's investigation."
The report was leaked to the media in January 2017 to coincide with Trump's inauguration.
Hilary Clinton denied any prior knowledge despite the fact that her campaign had paid for it.
Pressure from the Democrats and other constituencies devastated by the Trump victory used the
Steele report to provide leverage for what became the Mueller investigation.
So, was there a broad ranging conspiracy against Donald Trump orchestrated by many of the
most senior officials and politicians in Washington? Undeniably yes. What Trump has amounted to
as a leader and role model is beside the point as what evolved was undeniably a bureaucratic
coup directed against a legally elected president of the United States and to a certain extent
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams. One can only hope that investigators dig deep
into what is Washington insiders have been up to so Trumpgate will prove more interesting and
informative than was Russiagate. And one also has to hope that enough highest-level heads will
roll to make any interference by the Deep State in future elections unthinkable. One hopes.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is [email protected].
The President is part of the Deep State. To understand what the Deep State will and will not tolerate answer these questions.
What do both parties agree on? If they appear to disagree, look to see if anything changes
when one party has the power to cause change or does the party in power make excuses to avoid
change? Those things that the populus is against but never change or get worse are what the
Deep State wants
The Deep State wants a constant state of tension with 'hostile' countries (Iran, Russia,
Venezuela, China, Syria and others). This scares the crap out of ignorant Americans and
allows unjustifiable spending on war matériel.
The Deep State wants a steady supply of cheap foreign labor to provide wealth to the
supporters of the Deep State.
The Deep State wants our financial institutions to never fail (FED 2009) even at the
expense of 90% of Americans. The Deep State wants financial institutions to provide financial
products to the wealthy which cripples the vast majority of Americans.
The silly internecine squabbles within the Deep State are a ruse to misdirect the public
from important issues like constant war, legal and illegal immigrants taking jobs from
Americans and the increased transfer of wealth for the 90% to the supper weathy.
There will never be a wall and illegal immigration will continue to be a problem. All the investigations into Trump, the DNC, Hillary and all the rest will never come to
justice. The wealth transfer will not stop
Until Americans realize these diversions for what they are and put an end to it through
what ever means necessary
it was successful as Trump was likely forced to turn his back on his better angels and
subsequently hired Pompeo, Bolton and Abrams.
Oh plezzze .you sound like you've been drugged.
Trump never had any better angels as any reporter and journalist whoever interviewed or
investigated him would tell you.
And come on! .You know damn well Adelson sent Bolton and you should also know damn well
why the Orange Boy staffed his adm with Zionists. No one in NY except Zionists would associate
with Trump.
i think some of the conspiracy was about controlling Trump's foreign policy going forward but
i also think some of it was people like Brennan worried CIA collusion with Saudi funded
jihadist groups since 9/11 (and possibly before) might come out.
"... The report found that the agreement would increase gross domestic product by 0.35 percent after inflation, or $68.2 billion, and create 175,700 jobs -- fewer than the economy has recently produced in a single month, on average. It would increase United States trade with Canada and Mexico by about 5 percent, as well as provide a modest lift to agriculture, services and manufacturing activity. ..."
In Search for Leverage, Trump May Be Undercutting His Own Trade Deals
By Ana Swanson
President Trump has argued that this aggressive and unpredictable negotiating style brings
countries to the table and allows him to extract concessions.
But his approach is causing concern among businesses and foreign officials, who say the
uncertainty could undermine the United States's global role.
Trump's Nafta Revisions Offer Modest Economic Benefits, Report Finds
By Ana Swanson
WASHINGTON -- A government report has concluded that the Trump administration's revised
North American trade agreement would offer modest benefits to the economy, challenging the
president's claims that the accord would make far-reaching changes.
Mr. Trump has reviled the quarter-century-old North American Free Trade Agreement as the
worst trade pact in existence and blamed it for pushing up the trade deficit, or the gap
between what the country imports and what it exports. Over the past year and a half, he gave
his administration a mandate to improve the pact. In November, Canada, Mexico and the United
States signed an updated accord, which the president rebranded as the United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and the new deal is awaiting ratification from legislators in
all three countries.
On Thursday, the United States International Trade Commission, a government body, released
an independent analysis of the accord's potential effects on the country's economy, a report
required by law before Congress votes on the deal.
The report found that the agreement would increase gross domestic product by 0.35 percent
after inflation, or $68.2 billion, and create 175,700 jobs -- fewer than the economy has
recently produced in a single month, on average. It would increase United States trade with
Canada and Mexico by about 5 percent, as well as provide a modest lift to agriculture,
services and manufacturing activity.
"In light of the size of the U.S. economy relative to the size of the Mexican and Canadian
economies, as well as the reduction in tariff and nontariff barriers that has already taken
place among the three countries under Nafta, the impact of the agreement on the U.S. economy
is likely to be moderate," the commission .
On Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released
a wide-ranging plan to fix the U.S. college system, with proposals including making two-year
and four-year public college free and expanding the size and scope of the federal Pell Grant
program. And one particularly radical idea is sure to grab the attention of young people around
the country: wiping out student loan debt for the vast majority of American borrowers. "The
time for half-measures is over," Warren, one of many politicians and public figures hoping to
secure the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, wrote in a post published Monday on Medium.
"My broad cancellation plan is a real solution to our student debt crisis. It helps millions of
families and removes a weight that's holding back our economy." Last year, outstanding student
debt in the U.S. topped $1.5
trillion , a growing financial burden that Warren argues is "crushing millions of families
and acting as an anchor on our economy." "It's reducing home ownership rates," she wrote. "It's
leading fewer people to start businesses. It's forcing students to drop out of school before
getting a degree. It's a problem for all of us." To address the problem, Warren is suggesting
what she calls a "truly transformational" approach: wiping out $50,000 in student loan debt for
anyone with a household income below $100,000. People with student loans and a household income
between $100,000 and $250,000 would receive substantial relief as well. At that point, "the
$50,000 cancellation amount phases out by $1 for every $3 in income above $100,000," Warren
wrote.
WASHINGTON ( -- President Donald Trump is lashing out at current and former aides who
cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, insisting the deeply
unflattering picture they painted of him and the White House was ''total bullshit.''
In a series of angry tweets from Palm Beach, Florida, Trump laced into those who, under
oath, had shared with Mueller their accounts of how Trump tried numerous times to squash or
influence the investigation and portrayed the White House as infected by a culture of lies,
deceit and deception.
''Statements are made about me by certain people in the Crazy Mueller Report, in itself
written by 18 Angry Democrat Trump Haters, which are fabricated & totally untrue,'' Trump
wrote Friday, adding that some were ''total bullshit & only given to make the other
person look good (or me to look bad).''
The attacks were a dramatic departure from the upbeat public face the White House had put
on it just 24 hours earlier, when Trump celebrated the report's findings as full exoneration
and his counselor Kellyanne Conway called it ''the best day'' for Trump's team since his
election. While the president, according to people close to him, did feel vindicated by the
report, he also felt betrayed by those who had painted him in an unflattering light -- even
though they were speaking under oath and had been directed by the White House to cooperate
fully with Mueller's team.
The reaction was not entirely surprising and had been something staffers feared in the
days ahead of the report's release as they wondered how Mueller might portray their testimony
and whether the report might damage their relationships with Trump.
... ... ...
In one particularly vivid passage, Mueller recounts how Trump called McGahn twice at home
and directed him to set in motion Mueller's firing. McGahn recoiled, packed up his office and
threatened to resign, fearing the move would trigger a potential crisis akin to the Saturday
Night Massacre of firings during the Watergate era.
In another section, Mueller details how Trump questioned McGahn's note-taking, telling the
White House counsel that, ''Lawyers don 't take notes'' and that he'd ''never had a lawyer
who took notes.''
''Watch out for people that take so-called ''notes,'' when the notes never existed until
needed,'' Trump said in one of his tweets Friday. Others whose contemporaneous notes were
referenced in the report include former staff secretary Rob Porter and Reince Priebus,
Trump's first chief of staff.
Trump ended his tweet with the word, ''a...'' suggesting more was coming. More than eight
hours later, he finally completed his thought, calling the probe a ''big, fat, waste of time,
energy and money'' and threatening investigators by saying, ''It is now finally time to turn
the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very
serious crimes, perhaps even Spying or Treason.'' There is no evidence of either.
Bernie Sanders and the Myth of the 1 Percent
The very rich are richer than people imagine.
By Paul Krugman
A peculiar chapter in the 2020 presidential race ended Monday, when Bernie Sanders, after
months of foot-dragging, finally released his tax returns. The odd thing was that the returns
appear to be perfectly innocuous. So what was all that about?
The answer seems to be that Sanders got a lot of book royalties after the 2016 campaign,
and was afraid that revealing this fact would produce headlines mocking him for now being
part of the 1 Percent. Indeed, some journalists did try to make his income an issue.
This line of attack is, however, deeply stupid. Politicians who support policies that
would raise their own taxes and strengthen a social safety net they're unlikely to need
aren't being hypocrites; if anything, they're demonstrating their civic virtue.
But failure to understand what hypocrisy means isn't the only way our discourse about
politics and inequality goes off the rails. The catchphrase "the 1 Percent" has also become a
problem, obscuring the nature of class in 21st-century America.
Focusing on the top percentile of the income distribution was originally intended as a
corrective to the comforting but false notion that growing inequality was mainly about a
rising payoff to education. The reality is that over the past few decades the typical college
graduate has seen only modest gains, with the big money going to a small group at the top.
Talking about "the 1 Percent" was shorthand for acknowledging this reality, and tying that
reality to readily available data.
But putting Bernie Sanders and the Koch brothers in the same class is obviously getting
things wrong in a different way.
True, there's a huge difference between being affluent enough that you don't have to worry
much about money and living with the financial insecurity that afflicts many Americans who
consider themselves middle class. According to the Federal Reserve, 40 percent of U.S. adults
don't have enough cash to meet a $400 emergency expense; a much larger number of Americans
would be severely strained by the kinds of costs that routinely arise when, say, illness
strikes, even for those who have health insurance.
So if you have an income high enough that you can easily afford health care and good
housing, have plenty of liquid assets and find it hard to imagine ever needing food stamps,
you're part of a privileged minority.
But there's also a big difference between being affluent, even very affluent, and having
the kind of wealth that puts you in a completely separate social universe. It's a difference
summed up three decades ago in the movie "Wall Street," when Gordon Gekko mocks the limited
ambitions of someone who just wants to be "a $400,000-a-year working Wall Street stiff flying
first class and being comfortable."
Even now, most Americans don't seem to realize just how rich today's rich are. At a recent
event, my CUNY colleague Janet Gornick was greeted with disbelief when she mentioned in
passing that the top 25 hedge fund managers make an average of $850 million a year. But her
number was correct.
One survey found that Americans, on average, think that corporate C.E.O.s are paid about
30 times as much as ordinary workers, which hasn't been true since the 1970s. These days the
ratio is more like 300 to 1.
Why should we care about the very rich? It's not about envy, it's about oligarchy.
With great wealth comes both great power and a separation from the concerns of ordinary
citizens. What the very rich want, they often get; but what they want is often harmful to the
rest of the nation. There are some public-spirited billionaires, some very wealthy liberals.
But they aren't typical of their class.
The very rich don't need Medicare or Social Security; they don't use public education or
public transit; they may not even be that reliant on public roads (there are helicopters,
after all). Meanwhile, they don't want to pay taxes.
Sure enough, and contrary to popular belief, billionaires mostly (although often
stealthily) wield their political power on behalf of tax cuts at the top, a weaker safety net
and deregulation. And financial support from the very rich is the most important force
sustaining the extremist right-wing politics that now dominates the Republican Party.
That's why it's important to understand who we mean when we talk about the very rich. It's
not doctors, lawyers or, yes, authors, some of whom make it into "the 1 Percent." It's a much
more rarefied social stratum.
None of this means that the merely affluent should be exempt from the burden of creating a
more decent society. The Affordable Care Act was paid for in part by taxes on incomes in
excess of $200,000, so 400K-a-year working stiffs did pay some of the cost. That's O.K.: They
(we) can afford it. And whining that $200,000 a year isn't really rich is unseemly.
But we should be able to understand both that the affluent in general should be paying
more in taxes, and that the very rich are different from you and me -- and Bernie
Sanders. The class divide that lies at the root of our political polarization is much
starker, much more extreme than most people seem to realize.
The usual media suspects, the Trump-Putin conspiracy crowd, ignored this: Bernie was a
smashing success on FoxNews Bethlehem, Pa townhall.
veryone agrees: Bernie Sanders' Fox News appearance was a major success.
"Sanders takes on Fox -- and emerges triumphant," proclaimed Politico. Vice judged
Bernie's appearance "victorious." The Washington Post opined that Bernie's stellar
performance "suggest[s] that [Trump] can, indeed, be beaten." The Atlantic, usually eager to
declare that Bernie has blundered, conceded that "it paid off."
But most coverage restricts its analysis to Sanders' 2020 election prospects, overlooking
the true significance of the event. It's not just that he's willing to make a pitch to Fox's
viewership and thus stands a better chance at winning the presidency -- it's that the Right
could lose some of the working-class support it doesn't deserve, a process that could easily
snowball out of their control." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/04/berni-sanders-town-hall-fox-news
And when Bernie asked the crowd if they would exchange their company health care plan for
M4A, the crowd went nuts.
Of course, Krugman, Pelosi, and the corrupt, centrist Democratic establishment will
continue to assure us that 'people are happy with their corporate coverage." BS!!!
The 'no, we can't' crowd here will undoubtedly assure us that 'sure, they'd love universal
coverage, but it's not politically feasible.' They need to watch the Fox Town Hall. If it's
not feasible, then it's because Democrats don't want it (in deference to insurance
companies,) not because it's not feasible.
No surprise there. In geopolitics, one bad deed deserves another...US constantly interfering
in others' politics, too. Sadly, Democrats will seize on this to push for confrontation with
Russia. Question is, what do they want, nuclear war?
What's sickly ironic to me is that Democrats could care less about the security of the
voting system, even after the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.. Why is it OK for
billionaires and corporation to rig electronic voting machines against Democrats? Where was a
Mueller Commission back then?
Personally, I think that billionaires' election theft is much more effective and
consequenctial than any Russian meddling, which was probably not that effective anyway.
Sanders has clearly demonstrated what resonates with progressive voters...and even with many
Fox viewers.
But Pelosi and the corrupt Democratic establishment ignore that...and can't even come up
with any coherent message or an appealing agenda at all. Instead, they insist on continuously
replaying Hillary's sour grapes. What is the point? How many votes will Hillary's bitterness
get for Democrats?
That's a third Warren blunder after reparations blunder and Indian heritage blunder. She
might be out of the race soon...
Does not she understand that impeachment of Trump means President Pence? What is idiotic
statement. She is definitely no diplomat and as such does not belong to WH.
Senator Elizabeth Warren on Friday called for lawmakers to start impeachment proceedings
against President Trump, saying he obstructed Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Warren became the first of the Democratic presidential candidates to unambiguously call
for impeachment proceedings. Most senior Democrats in Congress have stopped far short of it
following the delivery of Mueller's 448-page report.
"The severity of this misconduct demands that elected officials in both parties set aside
political considerations and do their constitutional duty,'' the Massachusetts Democrat said
on Twitter. "That means the House should initiate impeachment proceedings against the
President of the United States."
Also Friday, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for an
unredacted version of Mueller's report as Congress escalates its investigation. Trump and
other Republicans dismissed the report's findings.
The redacted version of Mueller's report details multiple efforts Trump made to curtail a
Russia probe he feared would cripple his administration. While Mueller declined to recommend
that Trump be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, he did not exonerate the president, all
but leaving the question to Congress.
The report stated, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that
the President did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she doesn't support impeachment without bipartisan
backing because it would be too divisive for the nation She signaled she wanted the House to
continue to fulfill its constitutional oversight role.
''We believe that the first article -- Article 1, the legislative branch -- has the
responsibility of oversight of our democracy, and we will exercise that,'' she said in
Belfast on Friday.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee,
said, ''It now falls to Congress to determine the full scope of that alleged misconduct and
to decide what steps we must take going forward.'' He expects the Justice Department to
comply by May 1.
On Twitter Friday, Warren said the report "lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign
government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that
help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack."
She said Mueller "put the next step in the hands of Congress," adding in another tweet
that "[t]o ignore a President's repeated efforts to obstruct an investigation into his own
disloyal behavior would inflict great and lasting damage on this country, and it would
suggest that both the current and future Presidents would be free to abuse their power in
similar ways."
According to a Warren aide, the senator started to read the Mueller report Thursday during
a plane ride back to Boston following campaign stops in Colorado and Utah.
Warren, according to the aide, felt it was her duty to say what she thought after reading
the report but does not plan to emphasize impeachment on the campaign trail.
Mary Anne Marsh, a Boston-based Democratic strategist who is not connected to any
presidential campaign, said Warren has been the first Democratic candidate to stake out
numerous policy stances during the campaign. Her impeachment statement will force everyone
else running for president to take a position, Marsh said.
"More often than not the field is reacting to her positions," she said.
Warren's call for impeachment proceedings, Marsh said, "shows she's willing to lead."
"She's willing to make the hard calls," Marsh said.
After the Mueller report's release, Trump pronounced it ''a good day'' and tweeted ''Game
Over.'' Top Republicans in Congress saw vindication in the report as well. On Friday, Trump
was even more blunt, referring to some statements about him in the report as "total
bullshit."
House minority leader Kevin McCarthy said it was time to move on and said Democrats were
attempting to ''vilify a political opponent.'' The California lawmaker said the report failed
to deliver the ''imaginary evidence'' incriminating Trump that Democrats had sought. ...
Now, liberals are pressing the House to begin impeachment hearings, and the issue is
cropping up on the presidential campaign trail.
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat who is running for president, was asked
Friday if Trump should be impeached as he made an appearance at a Stop & Shop union
picket line in Malden .
"I think that Congress needs to make that decision," he said. "I think he may well deserve
it, but my focus, since I'm not part of Congress, but I am part of 2020, is to give him a
decisive defeat at the ballot box, if he is the Republican nominee in 2020."
On Friday, Julián Castro, a former housing secretary running for the Democratic
nomination, said he thought "it would be perfectly reasonable'' for Congress to open
impeachment proceedings.
Senator Kamala Harris, a California Democrat who is running for president, told MSNBC on
Thursday that she also thinks Mueller should testify. When asked about impeachment
proceedings, she told that outlet, "I think that there's definitely a conversation to be had
on that subject, but first I want to hear from Bob Mueller."
Cory Booker, the New Jersey senator running for president, was asked about impeachment
during a campaign trip to Nevada. Specifically in regard to impeachment, he said, ''There's a
lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusions like
that.''
In the House, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is now signed on to an
impeachment resolution from fellow Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan.
But senior leaders remain cool to the idea.
Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the number two in the House Democratic leadership,
told CNN on Thursday, "Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is
not worthwhile at this point." However, Hoyer quickly revised his comments, saying "all
options are on the table."
While it clear anti-Seminissm to hate Jews as the ethnic groups, it is quite different about
Zionism -- Jewish nationalism with the elements of supremacist ideology that puts Israel as the
central symbol of "jeweshnessh"
In the eyes of Spokoiny, the three types of contemporary anti-Semitism, be it Left, Right
or Islamic ("which is not only fascistic but outright genocidal," according to Spokoiny) are
in fact one by nature: "there's just one type of anti-Semitism that simply dresses its ugly
persona in different ideological garments." So it isn't just the Jews that should be
reunited; the Goyim, or shall we say the rest humanity, aren't diverse either, their
oppositions to Jewish politics, Israel or Zionism are only a matter of "different ideological
garments."
In Spokoiny's universe, the Jews are hated for being Jews. It is not that some oppose
Israel for being racist, expansionist and genocidal. It is not because some may be upset that
the Israeli Lobby dominates Western foreign affairs in the open. It is not because American
and British boys and girls are sent to fight and die in Zio-con wars, it is not because some
have noticed that it was a bunch of prominent Jewish intellectuals who have managed to
reshape the Western ethos by means of so-called progressive ideologies. It is not because the
media seems to be biased in favour of a criminal state, which happens to be a Jewish one. In
Spokoiny, reasoning and self-reflection are pushed aside. In his universe some just hate Jews
blindly, irrationally and for no reason.
But Spokoiny may as well be right. There is a common element in the Left-wing, Right-wing,
Christian and Islamic opposition to Jewish politics, culture and ideology: opposition to
choseness is how Bernard Lazare described it in his 1894 Zionist text Antisemitism:
Its History and Causes . There is a shared common ground that unites all those so-called
'anti-Semites.' The alleged 'enemies of the Jews' are people who want the Jewish past to be
subject to scrutiny like all other historical chapters, Israeli barbarism to be curtailed,
Wall Street to be restricted, Palestine to be free. They want globalisation to be halted,
immoral interventionism to die out. The so-called 'anti-Semites' actually follow the Zionist
promise, they want Jews to finally assimilate and become 'people like all other people.' The
so-called 'enemies of the Jews' are upholding the most enlightened rational universalist
ethical positions. They treat Jews as ordinary people and expect their state and institutions
to subscribe to ethical standards.
Spokoiny hates Alain Soral, the French intellectual who was sentenced this week to one
year in prison by a French court for "negationisme" (history revisionism).
In the eyes of French Jewish institutes and Spokoiny, Soral is the ultimate enemy. He has
managed to present a unifying message that appeals to the Left, the Right and Muslim
immigrants. Soral calls for a universal reconciliation, between them all under a French
nationalist egalitarian ethos. The French Jewish institutions see Soral's call as a vile
anti-Semitic message as it doesn't seem to accommodate Jewish exceptionalism. However, some
Jews have joined Soral's movement. But they clearly demoted themselves to French patriots.
They left chosenism behind, they see themselves primarily as French.
"We in the Jewish community need to believe him (Soral)." Spokoiny writes, "We need to
stop participating in the divide-and-conquer game of those who hate us." In other words,
Spokoiny wants to see Jews as one monolithic identity. One that sticks together and exercises
its power. If Spokoiny or anyone else thinks that such politics may eradicate anti-Semitism,
he or she must be either naïve or just stupid . What Jews need to do is to self-reflect,
to ask themselves why anti-Semitism is rising again. Jews must identify their own role in
this emerging reality. Rather than constantly blaming their so called 'haters,' Jews may want
to repeat the early Zionist exercise and ask what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and
politics that makes Jewish history into a chain of disasters.
The conclusion of Chapter
1 of Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Israel Shahak:
There are two choices which face Israeli-Jewish society. It can become a fully closed
and warlike ghetto, a Jewish Sparta, supported by the labour of Arab helots, kept in
existence by its influence on the US political establishment and by threats to use its
nuclear power, or it can try to become an open society. The second choice is dependent on
an honest examination of its Jewish past, on the admission that Jewish chauvinism and
exclusivism exist, and on an honest examination of the attitudes of Judaism towards the
non-Jews.
The second choice would require Jews to 'demote themselves' to mere humanity. There
seems to be no hope of that.
Jews do seem to be incapable or completely unwilling to self-reflect on their behavior
and its effects. Instead, they pathologize the goyim saying its somehow inherent.
Zionism is despised all over the political spectrum. So called anti-semitism is not just
some far right nazi ideology. Leftists, muslims, blacks etc. are all seeing Jewish behavior
as a real threat.
The hostility and destructive, subversive behavior to western culture and institutions
is despised by the right. The left hates the racist and hostile murderous behavior to the
Palestinians. Both hate the zio-con wars.
Jews are not in a good situation. However, most of them are completely unwilling to
change their behavior. In fact, they seem to be pushing even harder and faster. It is not
looking like there is going to be a good outcome for the Jews at the rate they're currently
going.
' what is exactly in Jewish culture, identity and politics that makes Jewish history
into a chain of disasters '
One wonders to what extent exactly this characterization is accurate. Even if it is true
to some extent, can't the history of all peoples be characterized as a 'chain of
disasters'?
Take the Jews of any particular region: the Ukraine, say. Okay, fine -- they suffered
the pogroms associated with Khmelnitsky's uprising and the Holocaust. Some would add the
pogroms of late Tsarist Russia, but here's an unpleasant fact: those weren't all that big a
deal
Meantime, what about the gentiles? Well, first off, I don't think anyone did well
out of Khmelnitsky's uprising: gentiles were being slaughtered in job lots as well. Then
there were the artificial famines of Stalin's regime, which were inflicted primarily --
exclusively? -- on the Christian peasantry. The Nazis weren't nice to Ukrainian gentiles
either. There was the holocaust of the Mongol invasions.
Etc. Things are tough all over. We could engage in the same compare and contrast for
Spanish Jews and gentiles, French Jews and gentiles, German Jews and gentiles, and so on.
Some evils were inflicted mostly on the Jews, some mainly on the gentiles, some
indifferently on both.
Even if one could establish that Jews have come in for more than their fair share
of abuse, it's obviously a wild distortion of the past to see Jews alone as victims. The
Thirty Years War was catastrophic for German gentiles as well as German Jews. 75% of the
German gentile civilians trapped in Konigsberg when it fell to the Russians wound up being
murdered, starved to death, or otherwise done in. Was it better to be a Jew or a gentile
then?
Jews don't have a monopoly on victimhood, and to assume otherwise is to indulge in a
pernicious fantasy. We wind up agreeing that Jews are uniquely entitled to misbehave,
because they alone have been abused. Neither end of that proposition is valid.
"Anti-semite" has lost its sting, because every justified criticism of the Zionist Israeli
government is declared to be anti-semitism. The word is so overused and misapplied as to be
useless. Indeed, to be declared "anti-semite" by the Israel Lobby is to be declared a
person of high moral conscience.
"[Hitler] has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all western
thought since the last war, certainly all "progressive" thought, has assumed tacitly that
human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security, and avoidance of pain. In such a view of
life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues.
Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with exceptional strength, knows that
human beings don't only want comfort, safety, short working-hours, hygiene, birth-control
and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want struggle and
self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flag and loyalty-parades Whereas Socialism, and even
capitalism in a grudging way, have said to people "I offer you a good time," Hitler has said
to them "I offer you struggle, danger and death," and as a result a whole nation flings
itself at his feet"
? George Orwell
BRH, in his perversity, supports Capitalism/Communism and the growth of the Gay Disco
Global State. He should be with us but that would mean discarding this Holy of Holies, World
War Two American military triumphalism. He jus can't, the Truth be damned.
Americans really do not understand who Hitler was, and that is EVRYONE I know. And they
never understood, even in the 50s. But the British understand, but made a deal with the
devil.
But let's start everything in order.
For the dualistic consciousness of Americans, the natural desire is to belittle the role
of the USSR in the defeat of Hitler's Germany, since this does not fit their concept of "good
guys vs bad guys " – if the Russians are the bad guys, then why did they fight along
with the good guys against the bad guy Hitler?
In addition, in the process of changing generations, they are more and more inclined to
the view that Hitler was not so bad, and their fathers and grandfathers put a lot of
accusations against him, just as America puts many accusations on those she desire to bomb
today.
Of course, this should not apply to American intelligentsia, but, as I understand it, it
is difficult to live in a society that professes these or other errors en masse, and not to
allow these errors to penetrate your brain and soul, even if you absolutely know that these
errors are invented by you propaganda.
Especially if these errors are invented by your own propaganda.
Hitler was vilified publicly but glorified privately by the elite (Allen Dulles in
particular). He provided a valuable service by providing the test bed for theories and
practices (eugenics, wholesale population controls and disruptions, sophisticated propaganda
techniques, and perpetual full-spectrum wars) which have since been perfected and are being
implemented much more discreetly and effectively now.
If our leaders & media want to protect our elections, not just score political pts,
first & most important thing we must do is institute b/up paper ballots by passing my
Securing America's Elections Act so no one can manipulate our votes & hack our
elections
apenultimate on Sat, 04/20/2019 - 2:45pm Hello All,
First, in response to others saying Leftists should support Bernie unless they have an
adversity to winning elections, I propose a couple of thoughts. The first is this link showing
Jimmy Carter's status in the Democratic primary race through June of 1975--he's almost exactly
where Tulsi is right now in polling, and guess what? He won against the giants of his time.
At this point, my advice is to support who you think is best, not who someone tells you is
the only realistic choice.
Here is another factoid for the caucuses/primaries--candidates who do not get at least 15%
of the votes do not get any delegates. Think of the strategic ramificaitons of that for a few
minutes. Assuming Biden enters the race, many of the Harris, Booker, O'Rourke, Buttigieg level
of candidates do not poll above 15% in many (or any) states, but if they remain in the race, it
depresses Biden's results. There are a lot of potential various outcomes there depending on how
things play out, and Tulsi staying in the race is not a major factor at this point.
In the past week, Tusli has made 8 stops in Iowa and 4 stops (including 1 today) in New
Hampshire on the campaign trail. Good to see her get out and stumping in the early states.
Some very good media things going on. Tulsi was on FOX News with Brett Baier, and she
handled it really well. As he tried to talk over her and twist her words, she essentially just
talked over him:
Finally, Tulsi will be on Jimmy Dore today (if she has not been already). Look for that
interview on YouTube in the upcoming week.
In two recent national polls--Emerson and Morning Consult--Tulsi is polling at 1%. This is
important as a second potential placement for the televised Democratic debates (needing to poll
at 1% or greater in at least 3 national or early primary state polls). If there end up being
more than 20 candidates with 65,000 unique donors or polling at least 1% in 3 polls, they will
allow only candidates that met both criteria. Tulsi seems to be there at this point--including
the 2 national polls above, and getting 2% in the last Nevada poll.
I think the ancestry scandal is about as important as wearing white pants after Labor
day.
You are far too partisan, you ignore the creation of the CPA and all the benefits it give
the public when Republicans at this very moment are looking to loosen the Pay Day Loan
lending rules.
I guess a 1400% interest rate is just not enough, do you support the loan sharks and rip
off banks? Yes or No.
What does Alcoholics Anonymous have to do with Elizabeth Warren?
By AA he meant Affirmative Action, not Alcoholics Anonymous. Although people with lots of
Native American DNA often have drinking problems. prudence would dictate "don't sell whiskey
and guns to Elizabeth Warren."
Look at the spin machine in action. She used the benefits of lying about her American
Indian ancestry to further her career and derive perks. We all know it. AA is a joke and
utter reverse racism in action.
No, she kept pushing it even to the point of claiming that her genetic result of 1/1024
Indian proved her claim. The lack of judgement -- both technical and political -- is simply
astounding. Then she apologized to the Cherokee for pretending to be one of them since she
doesn't meet the tribal criterion. To my knowledge she has never back off her claim beyond
that -- and never apologized to Whites for trying to get out of OUR Tribe, the one she was
born into.
I always try to look at the big picture, the whole episode was foolish but she harmed no
one and gained nothing.
Has she pushed the anti Russian crap? That would bother me as we have been the aggressor
with Russia and that is really dangerous.
As we speak nuclear armed bombers are flying daily close the the Russian borders and
Russia has to scramble jets to ward them off. One pissed off Russian fighter pilot and there
goes the world!
She is pushing for criminalizing White Nationalism -- as if We aren't persecuted enough
already. Foolishness to the nth degree. Whites have been amazing passive as their Nation has
been stolen from them. And those who make peaceful change impossible ..
"... Corrupt, centrist Democrats will demand that voters choose whatever turkeys the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC choose to run in 2020. And Republicans will back Trump. ..."
Fist of all Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. So his great advantage is that he
really knows the "kitchen"
What about you ? What are your credentials to discuss this Byzantium issue and use "ad hominem" attack ?
AND Likbez favorably cites a comment from JohnH – the village idiot who loves to writes all sorts of stupid stuff at Mark
Thoma's place!
The idea that in democratic societies the intelligence agencies tend to escape the control of executive branch and abuse their
capabilities (" the tail start wagging the dog") is not new.
So the variation of this pretty established idea raised in JohnH post is not something to complain about. It is an interesting
hypothesis that might or might not be true but definitely deserve consideration. In short it can be refined to the following statement:
"only candidates with enough compromising material in the hands of intelligence agencies are allowed to be elected."
I do not subscribe to it and believe other considerations were at the core of launching of the color revolution against Trump.
But the whole Pike commission was about abuse of power by CIA. And remember that none of the US presidents was able to remove
J. Edgar Hoover, who dies in this position, so such methods were used in the past.
In this sense the love of Mueller demonstrated by many commenters in this blog looks slightly misplaced and can be justified
only on the grounds "the end justifies the means" Which is a pretty slippery slope.
Currently both CIA and FBI are definitely over-politicized with FBI assuming the role of "kingmaker" in 2016 elections, pushing
Sanders under the bus by exonerating Hillary. If you do not know or do not understand this established and pretty much undisputable
historical fact that I can't help. FBI elected Trump. As simple as that.
As for JohnH, do you mean comments like this one?
JohnH -> kurt, April 19, 2019 at 07:13 AM
Funny! kurt has no idea what the Mueller Report says but Glenn Greenwald has dissected it:
"The key fact is this: Mueller – contrary to weeks of false media claims – did not merely issue a narrow, cramped,
legalistic finding that there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump associates for conspiring with Russia and then
proving their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That would have been devastating enough to those who spent the last two
years or more misleading people to believe that conspiracy convictions of Trump's closest aides and family members were
inevitable. But his mandate was much broader than that: to state what did or did not happen.
That's precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American
with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was
no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this
three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: "in some instances, the report points
out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event."
Enough of the sour grapes. Hillary lost. Time for Democrats to adopt a positive agenda to cure what ails the country
if they're even capable of anything beyond blaming Republicans for their incompetence.
And the following
JohnH -> Christopher H . April 18, 2019 at 03:56 PM
After the Trump-Putin conspiracy cratered, Democrats fixed on Barr–why won't he release the report? They were livid,
because supposedly Barr was hiding something.
Now that the report has been released, Democrats will have new ammunition, which they will ingeniously distort to conflate
with the discredited Trump-Putin conspiracy:
"See, we were right!!!" they will howl until election day "it's all Republicans' fault!!!" Not that anyone cares.
Of course, Trump has his own conspiracy now who put Trump-Putin in to motion, and did they violate the law. No matter,
Trump will bask in his victimhood and probably win in 2020, since Trump-Putin exposed Democrats as being even less credible
than Trump, the serial liar.
And of course, nothing will get done. Pelosi will get miniscule changes done to Obamacare and crow, "See? We can do it!"
Of course, the Senate will have nothing of it, so Pelosi's vast accomplishments will go for naught, which she counted on,
since the miniscule changes were nothing more than electioneering voter bait. No one will care.
Corrupt, centrist Democrats will demand that voters choose whatever turkeys the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC choose to run
in 2020. And Republicans will back Trump.
Plenty of 'entertainment' for the next 18 months, nothing of substance will happen unless Democrats jump on the bandwagon
for a Trump war
I think it is pretty legitimate level of discussion and it does not look like he is a rabid Trumpster. Please note "Trump-Putin
exposed Democrats as being even less credible than Trump, the serial liar."
"Within approximately five hours of Trump's statement, GRU officers targeted for the
first time Clinton's personal office. "
The report shows that Russia coordinated with Trump even if he was unaware of it.
Do you understand that you implicate Obama administration in total and utter incompetence,
if not pandering to the foreign intervention into the USA elections. The latter is called
criminal negligence in legal speak.
So all our three letter agencies with their enormous budgets and staff including NSA which
intercepts all incoming/outgoing communications (and probably most internal communications)
can't protect the USA elections from interference that they knew about ? Why they did not
warn Trump?
Or NSA assumed that it was yet another CIA "training exercise" imposing as Russian
hackers?
It not clear why Russia need such a crude methods as, for example, hacking Podesta email
via spearfishing (NSA has all the recodings in this case), as you can buy, say a couple of
Google engineers for less then a million dollars (many Google engineers hate Google with its
cult of performance reviews and know that they are getting much less then their Facebook
counterparts, so this might well be not that difficult) and get all you want without extra
noise.
Historically Soviet and, especially, East German intelligence were real experts in
utilizing "humint". With the crash of neoliberal ideology that probably is easier for
Russians now then it was for Soviets or East Germans in 60th-80th.
For example, from my admittedly nonprofessional point of view, the most logical assumption
about DNC hack is that it was a mixture of the internal leak (download of the files to the
UCB drive) and Crowdstrike false flag operation (cover up operation which included implanting
Russian (or Ukrainian) malware from Vault 7 to blame Russians.
"Do you understand that you implicate Obama administration"
They did screw up.
Wrong. The fact that they did not warn/brief Trump suggests that this was an a
deliberate and pre-planned attempt to entrap him by initiating Russian contacts by
FBI/CIA/MI6 moles
Papadopoulos set up ( via Josef Misfud (MI6) and Stefan Halper (CIA) ). At the time
Halper probably was reporting to the current CIA director Gina Haspel who was at this
time CIA station chief in GB. She is a Brennan protégé, of recent Skripals
dead ducks hoax fame.
Surveillance was specifically established to collect compromising material on Trump
and his associates with high level official in Obama administration (and probably Obama
himself) playing coordinating role.
Colonel Lang's blog is a good source of information on those issues with posts by
former intelligence specialists.
And please note that I am not a Trump supporter. I resent him and his policies.
"... Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with Russia. ..."
"... Of course Trump wants to take the war side. Saudi wants war. Israel wants war. Nothing else counts. ..."
"... Tulsi won't surrender. But she obviously won't win the nomination either. ..."
"... Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing ..."
"... I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate his veto of Yemen resolution ..."
"... don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting louder. ..."
"... It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. ..."
"... Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters! ..."
"... Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate. But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection, daily. ..."
"The president has said that he does not want to see
this country involved in endless wars . I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News
audience at Monday's town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country." Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress. But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities." With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia. Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle
East? Because that is where he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq. In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost. Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and an
anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of these
Middle East wars. Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become. Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime. Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there. Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles. When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported. The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing. And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor any
"intervention"? Have you showed him any appretiation for it? Or it was a time when you were
all for it as long as it was against Commies?
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have
captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Agree. But don't worry. On the second ballot, the super delegates will override the
obvious preference of voters for a "no more wars" candidate and give it to Biden. Who will
lose.
Much like Brexit, an antiwar/anit interventionist in the USA has nowhere to go. Both parties
have substantial hawkish wings. Any move to peace/antiintervention by the party in power is
immediately attacked by the party out of power. MSDNC is practically howling for war with
Russia.
No one to blame but himself. The anti-Russia insanity made it hard for him to stick to that
part of his program, but there is a lot more he could have done, starting by not surrounding
himself with war-mongering idiots like Pompeo and Bolton.
I mean, can we actually be honest here? The Neocons simply do not see Sanders as a genuine
threat. He has an unfair advantage. He can, for instance, criticize American foreign policy
without being accused of anti-semitism.
Those who wish Trump had maintained a more maverick
stance of foreign policy should ask themselves if they supported him energetically enough.
He's a survivor first and foremost. If you aren't working to offer him a legit life
preserver, this is all on you.
>>When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela<<<
And this is why Trump is going to win on the 'national security' issue. As long as U.S.
troops don't actually fight and die in foreign countries the voters love U.S. 'being tough
with its enemies'.
As long as Trump confines his actions to tormenting 3rd world countries, like Venezuela,
Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, and Yemen with sanctions and military assistance to other
belligerents any opposition will be portrayed as 'hating or apologizing for America the force
for good'.
Being objective, what is more provocative, sending a small number of specialists to
prevent cyber sabotage for the standing govt, or trying to install a new President, seizing
their assets and preventing their oil trade. We are the bullies and the day when we finally
squander our wealth we will find out that we have no friends despite being an alleged force
for good.
I thought that we determined a long time ago that taking something out of another persons
trash can was not stealing.
Trump may have said 'no more wars' but he never acted on it. So, someone else came along
and picked up the discarded slogan. It's not stealing
I wish Tulsi could get more traction. I voted trump believing his anti war statements. Hate
his veto of Yemen resolution. I still defend trump from unfair attacks but am not a supporter
any more.
Pat – good analysis. But don't underestimate the perpetual war power's grip on the
Democrat party. Pro war liberals like the NYtimes aren't going away in fact they are getting
louder.
Adriana "By the way, Pat, do you know that Jimmy Carter did NOT get the US into any war, nor
any 'intervention'? Have you showed him any appretiation [sic] for it? Or it was a time when
you were all for it as long as it was against Commies?"
No, but he did initiate funding for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet
"invasion," specifically to incite the Soviets to invade and get caught in their own Vietnam
War-like quagmire. President Carter succeeded in that effort, but the world has suffered the
unintended consequences of US funding for jihadist militants ever since.
Oh, and the Carter Administration also continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the
"legitimate" government of Cambodia after the Vietnamese Stalinists drove them from power in
1978. I'm sure this was partly done with Cold War calculations in mind – US ally
Communist China was an enemy to both the Soviet Union and its Vietnamese client state, and
the Khmer Rouge were clients of China – but I do not doubt that sticking it to the
Vietnamese who had so recently embarrassed the US played a part in that policy decision,
too.
The Reagan Administration maintained both policies, by the way, by continuing to fund the
Mujahideen and to uphold the fiction that the Khmer Rouge was still Cambodia's legitimate
government (kind of like the fiction that Juan Guaidó is Venezuela's "legitimate"
president).
You are right, if I had just more energetically supported Trump he wouldn't be giving Israel
and Saudi Arabia everything they want and trying to start a war with Iran. That poor guy.
Would just saying nice things about him have been enough or should I have completely drank
the koolade, MAGA hat and all?
Regarding Pat's argument as usual there is some truth here, but he keeps acting like this
is a complete surprise and that Trump has "become" a hawk. Yes some of the campaign promises
mentioned are accurate but he was talking about blowing up Iranian ships and tearing up the
nuclear agreement on the campaign trail. He was never an anti-war candidate, he was just
anti-whatever the previous presidents did candidate. Besides one statement about being
even-handed there was every indication he was going to be at least as reflexively pro-Israel
as any previous president and unsurprisingly he is more. Paul was the only
anti-interventionist candidate and anyone who thinks otherwise was either willfully ignorant
or not paying attention.
It is remarkable that Buchanan considers Trump's veto to be constitutional, but then, so
does Khanna. It is remarkable that neither Buchanan nor Khanna would ever consider the
necessity to impeach Presidents like Bush, Obama, and Trump for their unconstitutional and
criminal acts of aggressive war – or the responsibility of The People to replace the
Congress of incumbents with representatives that have not already repeatedly and persistently
broken their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Instead, Buchanan delivers yet another installment of the Incompetence Dodge: if only the
Czar wasn't a sociopathic criminal! If only he listened to us, his loyal supporters!
It is difficult to decide which kind of unprincipled opportunist is worse – the kind
that successfully profits from Trump, like McConnell, or the kind that hopes in vain for
their paleolithic cause to benefit.
Besides breaking his "no more wars" campaign promises, Trump has not built a wall, jailed
Hillary, capped the deficit, re-instated Glass-Steagall, overturned Obamacare, controlled the
cost of prescription drugs, de-funded Planned Parenthood,
nor pushed legislation for the infrastructure of the country. The potential "peace president"
in 2016 is nothing more than another "perpetual war president".
Sanders never "stole" anything, Buchanan. What you're (slowly, dimly) realizing is that your
boy Trump never cared a speck for a more sane, less bellicose U.S. foreign policy.
I will never understand why Trump cultists ever believed he did. A clown who's big
complaint about the Iraq war is that "we didn't take the oil" is an unlikely peace advocate.
But to be a member of the Trump cult you have to engage in massive psychological projection,
daily.
Of course in Buchanan's case there's another excuse: He's been so dazzled by Trump's
relentless bigotry that everything else, every lie, every cheat, is simply a second- or
third-tier concern, something to explain away. How many pathetic exercises in blame-shifting
has The American Con published under Buchanan's byline since 2016? And all signs are that
they'll keep right on with it until the happy day when Trump is finally gone.
So, you have a very odd circumstance where we have a lot of discussion about Russia's
influence here. They have got nothing. They have sanctions, nothing. As a journalist, I find it
quite amazing that there's no question raised with Pelosi, with Schumer, with any of the
leading Democrats. What is going on? You attack Trump for everything. How come you don't attack
him for giving Netanyahu a blank check to do what he wants? It must be frustrating to an
observer like yourself, no?
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
"... Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy." ..."
Who is taking the over/under on whether Barr will actually investigate the origins of the attempted entrapment of Trump in Russia
collusion and the roles played by key players in US law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the Brits & Aussie government
agencies therein?
I'm willing to bet that it will all be swept under the rug and that Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch & Rice will not be testifying
to any grand jury. Barr has received multiple criminal & conspiracy referrals from Rep. Devin Nunes. However, Trump himself disregarded
Nunes recommendation to declassify several documents & communications including the FISA application on Carter Page. The question
is does Trump want to get to the bottom of the conspiracy? So far all he's done is tweet. IMO, Barr is the epitome of a Swamp
Rat.
"Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." – Sun Tzu
I have a feeling that President Trump will declassify and release the relevant documents in a manner that they will have maximum
effect. It is stunning that the entirety of federal law enforcement, intelligence, and State department embraced and fortified
Russian misinformation in their jihad against Trump.
This must never happen again. At least the operation was run by political hacks, former analysts who fancied themselves as
operators. Their ham- fisted prints are over this shit storm. Thank you God for Comey, Brennan, and Clapper -- the three stooges
of espionage.
I suppose that it's possible that AG Barr's DoJ will mount a serious investigation into the many tentacles ongoing governmental
debacle that began with the Lynch DoJ providing political direction and cover for Comey's FBI to lie down on the Clinton e-mail
investigation. Which came first, the cover up, or the capitulation, is not completely clear. Perhaps it was a hand in glove affair.
Suffice it to say that by any standard of competence, it was a faux effort.
In my opinion, what was not done should constitute the elements of an obstruction violation. It would be a difficult charge
to argue before a jury. Was the level of incompetence such that a reasonable person could not believe that it could not exist
in the FBI, that there had to be malicious intent?
Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas
in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough
reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy."
Once again the question, could they possibly have been so incompetent. "What the heck" appears to have been the launching pad;
Clinton's going to win anyway, Trump will be crushed under the unmaskings, leaks, and innuendo; and no one will ever find out.
But Trump wins, and the unwholesome political cabal is now stuck with an investigation of an incoming President whom they had
tried to frag on the skimpiest evidentiary grounds imaginable. And worse, he appears to be sensing there is something rotten in
the state of Denmark, and Cardinal Jim Comey is a shitty liar, and now he's out, and what is going to happen to this garbage scow
they've launched, now with Comey gone. How do they kill this thing? Worse, how do they kill the political riot this thing has
caused. They can't; they double down; they take out another insurance policy - Jim Comey's good bud, Bob Mueller with a posse
of partisan attorneys, many vets of the Obama DoJ, a couple of squads of FBI Agents, including two who were prominent in the e
mail case and the Steele inquiry, and a set up akin to a shadow DoJ. What could go wrong? They would hound the bastard out of
office.
Which returns us to the question of whether Barr will mount a serious investigation into the political scandal of the last
100 years, at least. I suppose it is possible, but right now I'm not optimistic. For one thing Barr appeared at the big press
conference with Rod Rosenstein. Rod Rosenstein is at minimum a critical witness. There is every reason to suspect that Comey,
McCabe, Mueller, and Rosenstein conferred before Comey's leak to the NYT via a lawyer friend in furtherance of Mueller's appointment.
Going side by side with Rosenstein at this juncture doesn't augur well.
On the other hand, the continuing lunatic behavior of the demented left may give Barr no other choice but to sort the mess
out once and for all for the good of the country. We'll see.
The biggest take I got out of the Mueller report is that Trump is a sleazy character and that is not what I want from the president,
the Face of America to the rest of the world. Whether the Deep State went after Trump in an organized fashion is just noise in
my ears. To me that is just normal political infighting the same as Trump and other Republicans went after Obama for being an
illegitimate President as a non-citizen.
Sorry, but it IS NOT "normal political infighting" for the cabal to have sought and still to seek the overthrow of of the legitimate
head of state and government.
The country was divided before Mueller Report. Now it is even more divided.
Notable quotes:
"... We wouldn't know that a Clinton-linked operative, Joseph Mifsud, seeded Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had 'Dirt' on Hillary Clinton - which would later be coaxed out of Papadopoulos by a Clinton-linked Australian ambassador, Alexander Downer, and that this apparent 'setup' would be the genesis of the FBI's " operation crossfire hurricane " operation against the Trump campaign. ..."
"... We wouldn't know about the role of Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to commission the Steele dossier. Fusion is also linked to the infamous Trump Tower meeting , and hired Nellie Ohr - the CIA-linked wife of the DOJ's then-#4 employee, Bruce Ohr. Nellie fed her husband Bruce intelligence she had gathered against Trump while working for Fusion , according to transcripts of her closed-door Congressional testimony. ..."
"... Now the dossier -- financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee , and compiled by the former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele -- is likely to face new, possibly harsh scrutiny from multiple inquiries . - NYT ..."
"... The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia, leading Alfa Bank executives to file a lawsuit against Fusion GPS in October 2017, claiming their reputations were harmed by the Steele Dossier. ..."
"... And who placed the Trump-Alfa theory with various media outlets? None other than former FBI counterintelligence officer and Dianne Feinstein aide Dan Jones - who is currently working with Fusion GPS and Steele to continue their Trump-Russia investigation funded in part by George Soros . ..."
"... Of course, when one stops painting with broad brush strokes, it's clear that the dossier was fabricated bullshit. ..."
"... after a nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and roughly 40 FBI agents and other specialists, no evidence was found to support the dossier's wild claims of "DNC moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners, or years of Trump-Putin intelligence trading ," as the Times puts it. ..."
"... As there was spying, there must necessarily also have been channels to get the information thus gathered back to its original buyer - the Clinton campaign. Who passed the information back to Clinton, and what got passed? ..."
"... the NYTt prints all the news a scumbag would. remember Judith Miller, the Zionazi reporter the NYT ..."
"... There was no 'hack.' That is the big, anti-Russia, pro-MIC lie which all the other lies serve. ..."
"... Seth Rich had the means and the motive. So did Imran Awan, but it would make no sense for Awan to turn anything over to wikileaks . . .he would have kept them as insurance. ..."
"... Until the real criminals are processed and the media can be restored you don't have a United States. This corruption is beyond comprehension. You had the (((media)) providing kickbacks to the FBI for leaked information. These bribes are how CNN was on site during Roger Stones invasion. ..."
"... So now the narrative is, "We were wrong about Russian collusion, and that's Russia's fault"?! ..."
As we now shift from the "witch hunt" against Trump to 'investigating the investigators' who spied on him - remember this; Donald
Trump was supposed to lose the 2016 election by almost all accounts. And had Hillary won, as expected, none of this would have seen
the light of day .
We wouldn't know that a Clinton-linked operative, Joseph Mifsud,
seeded Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos with the rumor that Russia had 'Dirt' on Hillary Clinton - which would later be
coaxed out of Papadopoulos by a Clinton-linked Australian ambassador, Alexander Downer, and that this apparent 'setup' would be the
genesis of the FBI's "
operation crossfire hurricane " operation against the Trump campaign.
We wouldn't know about the role of Fusion GPS - the opposition research firm hired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to commission
the Steele dossier. Fusion is also linked to the infamous
Trump Tower meeting , and hired
Nellie Ohr - the CIA-linked wife of the DOJ's then-#4 employee, Bruce Ohr. Nellie fed her husband Bruce intelligence she had
gathered against Trump while working for Fusion ,
according to transcripts of her closed-door Congressional testimony.
And if not for reporting by the Daily
Caller 's Chuck Ross and others, we wouldn't know that the FBI sent a longtime spook, Stefan Halper, to infiltrate and spy on
the Trump campaign - after the Obama DOJ paid him over $400,000
right before the 2016 US election (out of more than $1 million he received while Obama was president).
According to the New
York Times , the tables are turning, starting with the Steele Dossier.
[T]he release on Thursday of
the report
by the special counsel , Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months -- that while many Trump aides
had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were
impossible to prove . Mr. Mueller's report contained over a dozen passing references to the document's claims but no overall assessment
of why so much did not check out.
While Congressional Republicans have vowed to investigate, the DOJ's Inspector General is considering whether the FBI improperly
relied on the dossier when they used it to apply for a surveillance warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The IG also wants
to know about Steele's sources and whether the FBI disclosed any doubts as to the veracity of the dossier .
Attorney General Barr, meanwhile, said he will review the FBI's conduct in the Russia investigation after saying the agency
spied on the Trump
campaign .
Doubts over the dossier
The FBI's scramble to vet the dossier's claims are well known. According to an April, 2017
NYT report , the FBI agreed
to pay Steele $50,000 for "solid corroboration" of his claims . Steele was apparently unable to produce satisfactory evidence - and
was ultimately not paid for his efforts:
Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new intelligence reports. One, dated Sept.
14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice"
on what to do.
The agent said that if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts,
according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . -
NYT
Still, the FBI used the dossier to obtain the FISA warrant on Page - while the document itself was heavily shopped around to various
media outlets . The late Sen. John McCain provided a copy to Former FBI Director James Comey, who already had a version, and briefed
President Trump on the salacious document. Comey's briefing to Trump was then used by CNN and BuzzFeed to justify reporting on and
publishing the dossier following the election.
Let's not forget that in October, 2016, both Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman John Podesta promoted the conspiracy theory
that a secret Russian server was communicating with Trump Tower.
The report was debunked after internet sleuths traced the IP address to a marketing server located outside Philadelphia, leading
Alfa Bank executives to file a lawsuit against Fusion GPS in October 2017, claiming their reputations were harmed by the Steele Dossier.
And who placed the Trump-Alfa theory with various media outlets? None other than former FBI counterintelligence officer and Dianne
Feinstein aide Dan Jones - who is currently working with Fusion GPS and Steele to continue their Trump-Russia investigation funded
in part by
George Soros .
Russian tricks? The Times notes that Steele "has not ruled out" that he may have been fed Russian disinformation while assembling his dossier.
That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their
bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump's presidency as well.
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. "Russia has huge experience
in spreading false information," he said. -
NYT
In short, Steele is being given an 'out' with this admission.
A lawyer for Fusion GPS, Joshua Levy, says that the Mueller report substantiated the "core reporting" in the Steele memos - namely
that "Trump campaign figures were secretly meeting Kremlin figures," and that Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, had directed
"a covert operation to elect Donald J. Trump."
Of course, when one stops painting with broad brush strokes, it's clear that the dossier was fabricated bullshit.
The dossier tantalized Mr. Trump's opponents with a worst-case account of the president's conduct. And for those trying to
make sense of the Trump-Russia saga, the dossier infused the quest for understanding with urgency.
In blunt prose, it suggested that a foreign power had fully compromised the man who would become the next president of the
United States.
The Russians, it asserted, had tried winning over Mr. Trump with real estate deals in Moscow -- which he had not taken up --
and set him up with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel in 2013, filming the proceedings for future exploitation. A handful of aides
were described as conspiring with the Russians at every turn.
Mr. Trump, it said, had moles inside the D.N.C. The memos claimed that he and the Kremlin had been exchanging intelligence
for eight years and were using Romanian hackers against the Democrats , and that Russian pensioners in the United States were
running a covert communications network . -
NYT
And after a nearly two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and roughly 40 FBI agents and other specialists, no
evidence was found to support the dossier's wild claims of "DNC moles, Romanian hackers, Russian pensioners, or years of Trump-Putin
intelligence trading ," as the Times puts it.
Now that the shoe is on the other foot, and key Democrats backing away from talks of impeachment, let's see if lady justice will
follow the rest of us down the rabbit hole.
This is why the whole FISA court is a joke. What is their remedy if their power is abused? What happens. Well,... the FISA
courts was lied to and found out about it in the early 2000's. Mueller was FBI chief. So they got a strongly worded dressing-down,
a mark in their permanent record from high school, and NO ONE was fired... no one was sanctioned, no agent was transferred to
Alaska.
Fast forward 10 or 12 years and the FBI is doing this **** again. Lying to the court... you know the court where there are
no Democrat judges or Republican judges.. they are all super awesome.... and what is the remedy when the FISA court is told they've
been lied to by the FBI and used in a intel operation with MI6, inserting assets, into a freaking domestic Presidential campaign!!!
and then they WON. Good god.
And what do we hear from our court? Nadda. Do we hear of some Federal Judges hauling FBI and DOJ folks in front of them and
throwing them in jail? Nope. It appears from here... that our Federal Justices are corrupt and have no problem letting illegal
police-state actions go on with ZERO accountability or recourse. They could care less evidently. It's all secret you know... trust
us they say.. Why aren't these judges publicly making loud noises about how the judiciary is complicit , with the press, in wholesale
spying and leaking for political reasons AND a coup attempt when the wrong guy won.???
Where is awesome Justice Roberts? Why isn't he throwing down some truth on just how compromised the rule of law in his courts
clearly are in the last 10 years? The FISA court is his baby. It does no good for them to assure us they are concerned too, and
they've taken action and sent strongly worded letters. Pisses me off. ? Right? heck of rant...
When did Russians interfere in our elections?? 2016. Who was president when Russians interfered with elections?? oobama. Who
was head of the CIA?? Brennan. Who was National Intelligence director?? Clapper. Who was head of the FBI when the Russians interfered
in our elections?? Comey. The pattern is obvious. When Trump was a private citizen the oobama and all his cabinet appointees and
Intel Managers had their hands on all the levers and instruments of Government..and did nothing . Your oobama is guilty of treason
and failing his Oath Of Office...everybody knows this.
This article is still a roundabout gambit to blame Russia.
Fair enough, where's Bill Browder? In England. Browder's allegations were utilized to try and damage Russia, even though Russia
(not the USSR), is about the most reliable friend America has.
Russia helped Lincoln, and were it not for that crucial help, there'd be no America to sanction Russia today. The Tsar paid
for that help with his dynasty, when Nicholas II was murdered, and dethroned.
Americans are truly ungrateful brutes..
Now, sanctions, opprobrium, and hatred are heaped on Russia, most cogently by chauvinistic racists, who look down their noses
at Rus (Russ) and yet, cannot sacrifice 25 millions of their own people, for the sake of others.
Russians are considered subhuman, and yet, the divine spark of humanity resides solely in their breasts. The zionists claim
a false figure of 6 million for a faux holocaust, and yet, nobody pays attention to the true holocaust of 25 millions, or the
many millions before that disastrous instigated war.
That the Russians are childlike, believing others to be like them, loyal, self sacrificing, and generous, has now brought the
world to the brink of armageddon, and still, they bear the burden of proof, though their accusers, who ought provide the evidence,
are bereft of any..
Thomas Jefferson it was, who observing whatever he observed, exclaimed in cogent agitation, that "I fear for my countrymen,
when I remember that God is Just, and His Justice does not repose forever".
Investigate Jared and Ivanka Kushner, along with Charles Kushner, and much ought be clear, no cheers...
I don't buy that "Few bad apples at the top", "Good rank and file" Argument. I have never seen one. We should assume everyone
from the top to the bottom of FBI, DOJ, and State, just to get started, probably every other three better agency is bad. At least
incompotent, at worst treasonous.
As there was spying, there must necessarily also have been channels to get the information thus gathered back to its original
buyer - the Clinton campaign. Who passed the information back to Clinton, and what got passed?
the NYTt prints all the news a scumbag would. remember Judith Miller, the Zionazi reporter the NYT used to push
the Iraq war with all sorts of ********? after the war was determined to be started under a false premise and became common knowledge
there were no wmds in iraq the nyt came forward and reported the war was ******** as if they were reporting breaking news.
they have done the same thing here. they pushed the russiagate story with both barrels even though the informed populace knew
it was ******** before trump was sworn in as potus. now that the all the holes in the story are readily apparent the nyt comes
forward with breaking revelation that something is wrong with the story.
The Seth Rich investigation; where is it now? Murder of a campaign staffer; tampering with or influencing an election, is it
not? Hmmm... When nine hundred years old you become, look this good you will not.
Once upon a time there was a Bernie supporter. And his name was Seth Rich. Then there was a "botched robbery", which evidence
that was concluded on, I have no idea. Do you? Anyhow, The End.
Seth Rich had the means and the motive. So did Imran Awan, but it would make no sense for Awan to turn anything over to
wikileaks . . .he would have kept them as insurance.
Why wouldn't Assange name the source for the DNC emails? Is this a future bargaining chip? And what if he did name Seth Rich?
He would have to prove it. Could he?
They've got Assange now...Maybe they should ask him if it was Seth Rich who gave him the emails?
Maybe even do it under oath and on national television. I don't think it's still considered "burning a source" if your source
has already been murdered....
Until the real criminals are processed and the media can be restored you don't have a United States. This corruption is
beyond comprehension. You had the (((media)) providing kickbacks to the FBI for leaked information. These bribes are how CNN was
on site during Roger Stones invasion.
Treason and Sedition is rampant in America and all SPY roads lead to Clapper, Brennan and Obama...This needs attention.
The media is abusive and narrating attacks on a dully elected president
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. "Russia has huge experience
in spreading false information," he said. -
NYT
You have got to be ******* kidding me. So now the narrative is, "We were wrong about Russian collusion, and that's
Russia's fault"?!
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
Following the highly anticipated public release of the ( 10%
redacted ) Mueller report, donations to President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign spiked
by over $1 million, according to Trump campaign COO Michael Glassner.
... ... ...
It's clear the Trump camp is in celebration mode as it now turns to "investigating the
investigators."
In my opinion, Trump is effectively quite a bit less militarist, overseas, than this
predecessors. This despite the truly alarming rhetoric.
But the reduction in foreign adventurism is primarily due to the paralysis of his
administration, from being so widely distrusted.
The benefit, if you can call it that, is that the mask is off now (at least from the point
of view of some allies who were willing to look the other way under Bush and Obama). What
is/was under the mask hasn't changed, and is not likely to in this generation of
policy-makers.
And domestically Trump is without a doubt militarist. We have industrial scale child abuse
at the border, as the cruelest and most obvious example. A generation of ever more
conservative judges is set to defend such practices. Defense contractors enjoy the best
access to unde executive branch. And even the so called resistance spends their days
worshipping the national security agencies, and encouraging jingoist paranoia.
Another 10 years of this and the budding police state, that's been coming together since
Bush, will be fully grown.
In my opinion, Trump is effectively quite a bit less militarist, overseas, than this
predecessors. This despite the truly alarming rhetoric.
I disagree because each new President doesn't start from day 1. Low hanging fruit and
lessons the Russians and Chinese learned in light of Libya (which is the U.S. is run by
dangerous children) have altered world structures. At the same time, wunder weapons which
deployed against Iraq 2003 aren't as wonderful against stronger targets.
The Coalition in the Gulf War included the USSR. This was world wide undertaking and
example of phenomenal cooperation, and even then the Iraqis largely withdrew at the start of
ground hostitlities, ignoring a chance for a major counter attack, after 6 months of bombing
and a decade long war. The 2003 war was possible with as few troops because Iraq was a
disaster from an additional 10 years of sanctions and pre-positioned bases and no fly zones.
Many Iraqi soldiers and Baath officers assumed the U.S. would arrive and embarrassed into
leaving when no WMDs were found and leave after killing/arresting Hussein.
A country like Iran is several magnitudes of difference. The at the time publicized
Millenium War Games demonstrated a major U.S. assault on Iran would end in disaster. The
recent warming of relations with North Korea is a direct result of South Korean elections
where almost 80% of votes were cast for "peace" candidates. Without the South Koreans,
attacking North Korea is out of the question. I think about Obama's dismissing of Russia as a
regional power. This is true. Its just that Obama seemed to not understand Russia was
concerned about issues in their region. The U.S. might be lashing out rhetoric wise and
running special operations in weaker areas of Africa, but much of the actual foreign policy
situation has been determined because the low hanging fruit is gone. The Venezuela operation
was expected to be done by defecting Venezuelan soldiers, and now that has passed, we are
passing additional sanctions on Cuba largely to show how tough we are.
I'm taking 'militarist' to mean, first of all, direct body count, or number of people
displaced due to wars we started. Right now it looks like by the end of 2020, the Trump admin
will come in behind both GW Bush and Obama administrations by these measures.
Maybe if the Boltons and Pompeos of the world had their way, we would have weekly cruise
missile strikes on Iran, full economic sanctions on China, and anyone involved in the ICC
would be captured and 'renditioned' to Guantanamo bay.
But I don't think they have the trust of enough of the US govt to do it. These guys are so
plainly insane, their agenda so over the top aggressive, that it becomes self defeating. Not
exactly comforting, but it's what we got.
"... The Clinton camp has demonstrated an almost monomaniacal focus on 'winning' to the exclusion of all else. ..."
"... If Sanders splits the Democrat Party, he will be handing Trump a second term, but laying the groundwork for a reformed and restored Democrat Party in later campaigns. If Sanders toes the line and supports Clinton for a second run, he will also be basically handing Trump a second term. (Unless something catastrophic happens between now and the election. Those Black Swans will pop up out of nowhere, as is their wont.) ..."
"... The Clinton phenomenon shows up a basic flaw in politics. Concentration of political power, no matter how effected, will end up in ruin. What is so sad is that the Clintons are not unique, but exemplars of a perennial trend; corruption, both personal and public. ..."
"... While I certainly don't doubt that the Clintonistas are banking on that strategy, it's dependent on all the not-Bernie candidates happily playing along being cannon fodder to stop Bernie. ..."
"... The present top predator class's basic mistake is a common one. After a string of success's, no group seriously considers the fact that nothing is permanent. That would bring the groups self identity as being "Exceptional" into doubt. Hopefully, this present apex predator class will suffer the same malign fate as have all others who have gone before. ..."
"... The Sanders staff and supporters and well-wishers should think about how to re-engineer Trump's "fake news" schtick as much or as little to be able to use it for the Sanders' Campaigns own self-defense and protection. ..."
"... Where is the congressional investigation of the role the press played in "the disinformation campaign against the American people and their presidential election of 2016?" now THAT would be news worthy. ..."
"... Some us remember that WaPo published 16 negative pieces on Bernie in 16 hours during the run up to the last election. By those standards, "our famously free press" is only getting warmed up but the electorate is ready this time. ..."
But let's
start with a national problem in the 2016 election -- the role of the press in trying to make
sure, to the extent it could, that Bernie Sanders would lose to Hillary Clinton. One of the
best sources of information for this is Thomas Frank's long-form examination " Swat Team: The media's
extermination of Bernie Sanders, and real reform ," written for the November 2016 issue of
Harper's Magazine . (Unless you're a Harper's subscriber, the article is
paywalled. An archived version can
be found here .)
Frank states his goal: "My project in the pages that follow is to review the media's
attitude toward yet a third politician, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who ran for the
Democratic presidential nomination earlier this year. By examining this recent history, much of
it already forgotten, I hope to rescue a number of worthwhile facts about the press's attitude
toward Sanders. Just as crucially, however, I intend to raise some larger questions about the
politics of the media in this time of difficulty and transition (or, depending on your panic
threshold, industry-wide apocalypse) for newspapers."
His examination of the "press's attitude toward Sanders" produces a striking discovery:
I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even
gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval.
This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their
way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't
pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. A New York
Times article greeted the Sanders campaign in December by announcing that the public had
moved away from his signature issue of the crumbling middle class. "Americans are more
anxious about terrorism than income inequality," the paper declared -- nice try, liberal, and
thanks for playing. In March, the Times was caught making a number of post-publication
tweaks to a news story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his
legislative victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was
finally defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa
headline, HILLARY CLINTON MADE HISTORY, BUT BERNIE SANDERS STUBBORNLY IGNORED IT.
Frank marshalls much data to support his claims. I'll leave you to examine those details for
yourself.
"Defining Sanders Out"
Frank then turns to the question of why this occurred (emphasis mine below):
I think that what befell the Vermont senator at the hands of the Post should be of
interest to all of us. For starters, what I describe here represents a challenge to the
standard theory of liberal bias. Sanders was, obviously, well to the left of Hillary Clinton,
and yet that did not protect him from the scorn of the Post -- a paper that
media-hating conservatives regard as a sort of liberal death squad. Nor was Sanders undone by
some seedy journalistic obsession with scandal or pseudoscandal. On the contrary, his record
seemed remarkably free of public falsehoods, security-compromising email screwups,
suspiciously large paychecks for pedestrian speeches, escapades with a comely staffer, or any
of that stuff.
An alternative hypothesis is required for what happened to Sanders, and I want to propose
one that takes into account who the media are in these rapidly changing times. As we shall
see, for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post ,
there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views . He
seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of
directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed.
That threat was to their own status as insider Ivy League–educated
friends-of-people-with-power, especially Democratic Party power, which had aligned itself with
the upper 10%, the professional class, against the lower 90%, the great unwashed.
In Bernie Sanders and his "political revolution" I believe these same people saw
something kind of horrifying: a throwback to the low-rent Democratic politics of many decades
ago . Sanders may refer to himself as a progressive, but to the affluent white-collar
class, what he represented was atavism, a regression to a time when demagogues in rumpled
jackets pandered to vulgar public prejudices against banks and capitalists and foreign
factory owners. Ugh.
Choosing Clinton over Sanders was, I think, a no-brainer for this group. They understand
modern economics, they know not to fear Wall Street or free trade. And they addressed
themselves to the Sanders campaign by doing what professionals always do: defining the
boundaries of legitimacy, by which I mean, defining Sanders out.
And it wasn't just bias in the way the news was written; the editorials and op-eds
were also brutal. As Frank points out, "the Post's pundit platoon just seemed to despise Bernie
Sanders."
Four Year Later
It's been four years since 2015, when the upstart first reared his head and showed himself a
viable threat. The forces arrayed against him have had time to reflect, as have the forces on
his side.
Will the the leaders of the present Party do all they can to extinguish the threat of
Sanders' "political revolution"? It's clear they've
already started . Will the press do their part to stem the tide? The jury's out so far.
Some coverage has been remarkably
bad (also
here ), while other coverage is
surprisingly fair . We'll see.
In those four years the voters have also had time to reflect. Many took note of the 2016
sabotage, as they would call it, and many are ready, their remembered anger just waiting to be
rekindled. Party leaders are aware of this. As a former vice-chair of the DNC
said recently , "if we even have anybody raising an eyebrow of 'I'm not happy about this,'
we're going to lose [the general election] and they'll have this loss on their hands," meaning
the DNC.
It won't take much to make a martyr of Sanders in the eyes of his supporters, especially
after 2016. The only questions are:
• Is the fear of Sanders and his political revolution, which would send many of them
scrambling for other work and start to cut Party ties to the donor class, enough to make their
opposition turn to obviously illegal means?
• If Sanders is indeed made "a martyr," as the party official quoted above fears, what
will be the response of the independent voters who swell those stadium appearances?
The stakes were high in 2016. Given our greater nearness to looming catastrophes, climate
being just one of them, the stakes are exponentially higher today. We do indeed live in
interesting times .
Putting on my Bespoke Tinfoil Hat, I'll posit that the "dirty tricks" are already
happening. As Magister Strether declared, the Clintonistas also have had two years to plan
for combating a strong Sanders campaign.
To the extent this is about politics, it is about institutional politics, not public policy
politics. The Clinton camp has demonstrated an almost monomaniacal focus on 'winning' to the
exclusion of all else.
So, I expect a crowded field of Democrat primary candidates to drown
out Sanders as much as possible and to, most importantly, deny Sanders a first round win at
the convention. Then, the "olde guard" comes into play and the Superdelegates can swing the
nomination to H Clinton as a "Unity Candidate."
That is when Sanders will face his most
difficult decision. Will he abandon the Democrat Party as a bad job? Sanders seems to be
leaving a Third Party run option open with his development of a parallel structure to the
Party apparatus.
If Sanders splits the Democrat Party, he will be handing Trump a second term, but laying the
groundwork for a reformed and restored Democrat Party in later campaigns. If Sanders toes the
line and supports Clinton for a second run, he will also be basically handing Trump a second
term. (Unless something catastrophic happens between now and the election. Those Black Swans
will pop up out of nowhere, as is their wont.)
The interesting problem here is whether or not any party can govern the nation with only ten
or fifteen percent of the population's support. To manage such would, presumably, involve the
full on imposition of an authoritarian state.
Our cousins to the South have much to teach us about how extremes of inequality play out "on
the ground." Oligarchies will sail along without a care in the world until a major opposition
rises up to contest for supremacy. Usually, as the Southern experience shows, those contests
will end up in fire and bloodshed, over and over again, down the years.
The Clinton phenomenon shows up a basic flaw in politics. Concentration of political power,
no matter how effected, will end up in ruin. What is so sad is that the Clintons are not
unique, but exemplars of a perennial trend; corruption, both personal and public.
America was supposed to bring the "blessings of democracy" to the "less well off" of the
southlands. The opposite is happening today.
While I certainly don't doubt that the Clintonistas are banking on that strategy, it's
dependent on all the not-Bernie candidates happily playing along being cannon fodder to stop
Bernie.
Problem is, the establishment isn't as unified as it was in 2016, and many of them
would have no problem poking the rest of the establishment in the eye if they thought it
would increase their chances of winning. A split convention with ~9 candidates coming in with
delegates isn't just a threat to Bernie's chance, it's a threat to all but one candidate.
There's a strong motivation for them, even stronger than for Bernie quite frankly, to thin
the herd out as fast as possible, and I think we're going to see some ugly politics done with
that goal in mind. The establishment in-fighting is going to be nastier than the
Bernie-establishment fighting.
Of course, if it does work out and they superdelegate Biden in even though Bernie had the
most overall votes but shy of an outright majority, they'll be dooming themselves to not just
giving Trump another term but relegating the Democrats to second place status in US politics
for a generation. But clearly they're willing to pay that price to keep their country club in
control of the party.
I think the crowd of establishment neoliberals is going to backfire on the DNC. They will fragment
their loyalists while uniting the Sanders voters, who saw through the same shtick in 2016,
and arguably in 2012.
In typical DNC fashion, their scheme to rig the election by bringing in superdelegates for
the second round will be sabotaged by their arrogance and opportunistic minions all running
for their own [x] slots, and diluting the strength of their donor owners.
The other side is not understanding HRC's support either. Her voters weren't all
neoliberals. Between the certainty of her victory, the narratives of a secret "liberal" HRC,
and her importance to an older generation, these are not transferrable to other candidates
because Terry MacAuliffe or any celebrity says so.
Obama vowed to take it personally if African Americans don't show 2014 Democrats the same
support he received in 2012. Cult like attention doesn't necessarily transfer.
True. And, if you wish to draw parallels, the demise of social-democratic parties in
Europe, especially the British, German, and French, shows this is a global pattern being
juiced by, and carried out by, a global elite of which the US is part and a leading
member.
Bernie wants to have a rebuilt, renewed Democratic Party that reflects social-democratic
norms as they have historically been in Europe. The problem? Soc-Dem parties have mostly
surrendered to the neo-liberal agenda just as the Dems here have. Sweden, Denmark, the
Netherlands – all have shifted mightily to the Right.It is no mistake or error on their
part. Their class interests demand they take sides. All these parties are outgrowths of
professional upper middle-class elements who have taken these parties from the working class.
In doing so, they dragged the "liberal" press with them to become propaganda mouthpieces for
their true "brothers". The causes and particular results within each party could take volumes
to describe – suffice it to say they wee all enemies of elites in their origin, and
were treated as such, spied upon, infiltrated, and whatever else it took to tame them.
All of that seemingly coordinated effort would appear to tin-foil-hatters and many others
to be evidence of some conspiring, if not RICOesque activity. Given the thrust of
those noted anti-Sanders media efforts, the century-old Upton Sinclair quote may be
repurposed.
It is difficult to get a man to understand report on something, when his salary
(and social standing, and access to the best parties, tables, schools, et cetera) depends
on his not understanding acknowledging it.
Freedom of the press keeps getting attacked from ever more clever enemies, thereby
reinforcing its utter necessity.
Sinclair's Quote (TM) is famous exactly because it is applicable across all timelines, all
classes of person, and all types of organization.
Human nature doesn't seem to have changed over the last hundred millennia or so.
Going back over the recent past several thousand years of human history, it becomes clear
that the present assault on press freedom is but another evolution of the perpetual war on
the individual's right to think independently.
The present top predator class's basic mistake is a common one. After a string of success's,
no group seriously considers the fact that nothing is permanent. That would bring the groups
self identity as being "Exceptional" into doubt. Hopefully, this present apex predator class
will suffer the same malign fate as have all others who have gone before.
Happy Good Friday to all the religious out there. For the rest, enjoy a weekday without the
stock market to worry about.
They could also come out and vote for one of the little Vanity Third Parties. If the
DemParty ticket is not some combination of Sanders Warren Gabbard . . . . and several-to-many
million Bitter Berners vote for a Third Party, and the Dem Ticket loses, and the numbers of
Dem voters + the numbers of Third Party voters would add up to having been a victory for the
Dems; then a message will have been sent about the cruciality of the Bitter Berner vote and
how it can not be safely ignored if "winning the election" really is the goal.
I think its incumbent to remember its not Sanders per se that is causing orthodoxy to act
out . its what he represents e.g. something that can throw a spanner in the good works of
neoliberalism.
Sanders crimes are for enabling the unwashed an opportunity to consider options outside
that dominate narrative.
Challenging the the foundational cornerstone of methodological individualism and all the
aspects bolted on too it – seems a critical point to advance. Lots of time and energy
is spent on questioning the bolt-ons, yet for every one refuted the core can spit out more,
dog chasing tail experience.
Even to the point of forwarding nationalism in one breath and bespoke individualism in the
other – our nationalism protects my squillions . and the consequences of that is
"Natural" [tm].
One of Sander's main 'crimes' is to offer the "unwashed" potentially 'real' Hope. The
Obama-bot offered Hope in bad faith. Thus, both sides of the Classical Greeks' ambiguous view
of 'Hope' are on display. Hope came last out of Pandora's box. The Chorus is still out on the
verdict.
With Obama's false hope, you'd be lucky to receive a dry sip from the water bag as you
continue to grasp, with bloodied and blistered hands, that trireme oar, knowing in the back
of your mind that you'll Never truly escape the chains holding you down to that hot, burning
deck of death !
The Sanders staff and supporters and well-wishers should think about how to re-engineer
Trump's "fake news" schtick as much or as little to be able to use it for the Sanders'
Campaigns own self-defense and protection.
Whenever the media run a dishonest news article, the Sanders Campaign could call it Fake
News. Whenever the media run a dishonest editorial, the Sanders Campaign could call it Fake
Views. The Sanders Campaign could speak of Fake News and Views from the Rich Corporate
MSM.
the "liberal", "progressive" upper class and most of the upper middle class democrats did
well by trump's tax giveaway.
noam chomsky calls them moderate republicans. they stand for identity issues but not
financial ones, nothing that would involve taxing them to give to the rest of the
country.
when it comes down to it most of them will prefer to give trump four more years and hope for
the best and taking back the white house with one of their own later than supporting a
socialist. they're hoping not to face that prospect (in the mirror as well as otherwise) by
defeating bernie – and probably warren, who isn't seen as a big threat now – in
the primaries. if the bernie supporters sit the election out then trump is on them goes the
view.
If biden falters early I see bloomberg coming in as a democrat. if bernie wins anyway i see
schultz coming in as an independent.
it will take a near miracle
I want to see a Sanders vs. Trump election not least because it I think the choice it
forces will put the neoliberal, entitled 10% -- the same neoliberal Clinton supporters who
derided and mocked those Sanders supporters who wouldn't or couldn't get on board with HRC --
in an a similar but reversed position.
Will they follow their own self-righteous admonitions
from four years ago and vote for their hated primary opponent to remove Trump as they
hectored Sanders supporters to do? Will they sit out the election, unable to hold their noses
and vote a Sanders ticket likely to raise their taxes? Exactly the way many Sanders
supporters did with HRC and were viciously excoriated by that same 10% for doing? Or will
they go full "evil"/self-loathing and secretly vote for the Satan Trump to keep the country
out of socialist hands and prevent having their taxes raised?
I can't wait to hear the
neoliberal chattering classes trying to publicly reason it out. Many exploding heads, rank
hypocrisy, and much cognitive dissonance will be on full public view.
The article mentions that some media seems reasonably fair this time around maybe some
thinking sanders can't be stopped, or the lack of somebody obviously about to be
coronated.
If Biden doesn't take off more media will become fair institutions want to be on the winning
side.
Anti-Sanders press? Oh come on. The Anti-Clinton press was in full bloom as well. Sanders
has been a mess so far. SJW politics, health care reform and free college ..basically the
Clinton 2016 playbook. It didn't build the enthusiasm to make her campaign electoral proof
against the Trump Russian supporters hack, bots and fake news campaigns to ship up her
likeability issues.
Then Biden comes out with what one union rep called kitchen table issues. Major corporate
welfare for domestic manufacturers, multi trillion dollar infrastructure program, stuff Obama
campaign ed on in 2008 but pivoted away from by September 2009 which in Biden's opinion, hurt
his Presidency.
Bernie much like AOC live so much in esoteric fantasy, much like Hillary
Clinton .which made him such a nice foil to her. The problem is this time, he is going to go
against a bunch of other candidates that are bullshitters, reality manipulators and salesmen,
he gets drowned. Well beyond Biden as well, there is going to be 15+ sniping away.
Bernie needs to pivot imo by fall of the union vote is going to turn on him
You seem confused. The press was anti Sanders and very much pro Clinton during the
primaries.
The anti Clinton press played some role in the general election, but for the most part by
noticing her actual flaws. There was also an enormous amount of anti Trump press, again based
on his actual flaws, but he also received massive free publicity during the whole year and it
turned out his voters simply didn't care about his flaws.
Bernie is using the Clinton playbook? I don't think so. And as for the unions endorsing
Biden, it's been at least 40 years since the rank-and-file voted with the union bosses.
If I say something enough times, especially if I have a big media outlet, it is true. Up
is down; an orange is the city of Houston; DNC slicksters who would sell your grandmother for
cat food are just reg'lar folks fighting for all of us
wow, you don't think the press was aligned against bernie, that is stunning. What color is
the sky in your world? Have you ever been to earth?
So bernie was using hillary's playbook? Hillary clinton?
I'm guessing you think you can just "say stuff", and it will be taken seriously. Fat chance
with that drivel . time to get a clue
even the most casual observer would remember the hit squad on bernie in every aspect of the
media . but for those who don't have the ability to discern reality, the secret is to " bang
the rocks together" . so dude.. watch your fingers.
This is the most incoherent post I have seen on this site. I truly mean that. How in the
world could anyone think that Bernie is copying Clinton of all people? SHE was the one
leading on policy? What bubble do you live in?
"Bernie much like AOC live so much in esoteric fantasy"
Based on what? What policies that he supports are unpopular and would not work? When he
goes to West Virginia and meets with a room full of Trump supporters, goes on Fox and
connects with people there, are you claiming that most other candidates, especially left of
center, could do the same? How could anyone, especially after the leaks, claim that the press
wasn't fully on the side of the Clinton campaign, often openly colluding with the
campaign?
You seem confused about who kept playing the SJW cards as well. I think I remember in the
first Sanders-Clinton debate a point where Sanders called for re-breaking-up, re-Glassing and
re-Steagalling the banks. And Clinton said " breaking up the banks won't do a THING about
racism." And it is the anti-Sanders Neera Tandecrats seeking the nomination who are
presenting themselves as a live action multi-choice menu of SJW Housekeeping Seal of Approval
Identy choices.
Sanders was here yesterday and as requested by Lambert I'll have something to say about it
during Water Cooler. But I will say that the crowd was very enthusiastic and the press
coverage fair. 2020 may not in fact be a replay of 2016. This time Trump including TDS is the
spectre that hangs over the entire process.
Remember when Bernie had pulled even, if not ahead of Hillarity, just prior to the 2016
Dim convention? And he had the Speech of His Life in either AZ or NV?
And Trump was set to speak at the identical time?
And the media focused on Trump's empty podium, mysteriously empty for 1.5 hours
And the media did not cover Bernies speech-of-the-year, not one whit?
Never, ever forget -- and treat the media with the derision and suspicion they have so
justly earned
Yes the Dem press will be flinging poo at Sanders. But take a gander at Faux News and
their town hall with Bernie – and Tucker Carlson's amazing mention of Dem Party
cheating of Sanders in the primary. Just as the "liberal" press gave Trump tons of free
publicity, so too the reactionary press seems to be giving free coverage to Sanders.
It will be nice to see Sanders wipe the floor with Biden. And if the Dems cheat again and
nominate Biden or some other obedient and photogenic bought and paid for candidate, watch
Trump wipe the floor with them.
Will the Dems fall on their swords again to keep Sanders out? They will try, helped by
their pals in the propaganda apparatus.
It's kinda like how we used to tease our Nazi 'bagger, Republican friends, about
Re-antimating Zombie Reagan to run, since they had nobody that wasn't a pathetic, waddling
stereotype to vote for? Maybe, simply run Dead Kennedys. Meanwhile, perhaps a holographic
Fred Rodgers, Sally Struthers' disembodied whine or comforting Dr Seuss character? Liberals
all like Gandalf, right?
The people here have more time than money. And they ( we) have invested our time in
finding out enough things to where the spenders of fire hose-loads of money find us resistant
to their propaganda.
So since the money will not be taken out of politics until the people who engineer the money
into politics have been driven out of public life, the rest of us will have to fight on
various un-monetized battlefields.
Time isn't money. Time is life itself.
A British-India Indian is once supposed to have said ( to the West in general . . .) " You
have all the watches. But we have all the time."
After a couple of years of " the press" yammering on with stories of "Russians" subverting
our elections, when will we see the real "deplorable's" be shamed. The press, and their snide
comments,their acts of omission,their down right lying, their assault on the hearts and minds
of the voting population. The press is probably the most valuable group in the election of
Donald trump. They are the ones who champion the lie and the smear, they are the ones who
make the news "fake", so the supporters of trump have something to latch onto.
Where is the congressional investigation of the role the press played in "the
disinformation campaign against the American people and their presidential election of
2016?"
now THAT would be news worthy.
Thanks for taking on this, Yves! I look forward to future installments!
IMO, it has become increasingly difficult for mainstream media (MSM) to de-legitimatize
Bernie this time around. My take is that I see #TeamSanders taking steps to make sure the
signal-to-noise ratio remains in Sanders' favor. MSM attempts this time around take on
more of a mindless screeching tone, and thus far, given the Senator's now nationwide
popularity, it appears that far less people are being moved by these attempts (see latest
nationwide poll). But it's all going to play on repeat from 2015/2016. Krugman has already
begun his insufferable tone policing and
disqualifying .
Some us remember that WaPo published 16 negative pieces on
Bernie in 16 hours during the run up to the last election. By those standards, "our
famously free press" is only getting warmed up but the electorate is ready this time.
Here in Massachusetts, almost all the Our Revolution chapters are in affluent
municipalities (if you've studied American history you've heard of them: Concord, Cambridge,
Lexington, Amherst), with a couple that are supposedly forming in less affluent communities.
The events that have been advertised have all been in these more affluent communities so I
imagine that's where the real action is. I emailed the one chapter I saw for a more working
class community like my hometown and got no response.
In the Our Revolution MA Facebook group, there are some wonderful people, but there has
been almost no discussion of the housing crisis, which is the biggest progressive issue
facing the state right now. The resolution to the housing crisis will require precisely
overcoming opposition to new housing in those affluent municipalities.
So, how do your organize a real progressive movement when the people who call themselves
progressives are overwhelmingly deeply embedded in the top 10%?
This is unfortunately Putnam's decline of bowling leagues. There isn't an easy answer. One
of the points of The 50 State Strategy was the recognition of this problem and the need for
support and even the ability to access space for the purposes of meeting places. Obama used
his celebrity to stamp out much of these efforts. People can't do it forever, so in a sense
everyone is starting over with an openly hostile DNC under Perez. Obviously, the decade of
additional economic decline for most Americans is a problem.
One problem is the sympathetic among the 10% need to understand the "moderate suburban
Republicans" have polished jackboots ready to go and have no interest in good government
despite their seemingly "polite" nature. The DSA's brake light clinic is probably the model
that needs to be followed, just expanded. Something like "free tax filing" assistance in
January. Obviously, CPAs have to earn a living, but taxes don't need to be done in April.
Maybe they could be paid.
If the establishment rigs the process once again and Sanders doesn't get the nomination, I
will not vote for the anointed Democratic candidate. I forced myself to vote for Hillary
Clinton and I will never do that again. I also will do everything in my power to burn down
the Democratic party. I wonder if the establishment has a clue as to how furious most people
are? Are they paying attention to what's happening throughout Europe–and I wonder how
long it will be before you see weekly protests here? P.S. I'm ordering my yellow vest now
.
And, how far back should politicians go? Should descendants of the Visigoths have to give
money to Italians for the sack of Rome in 410?
Should the US government make reparation payments for killing countless Filipino civilians
in the early 1900s during the armed occupation of the Philippines?
Or to descendants of Japanese-Americans who died in internment camps during World War
II?
Assange actually undermined the key pre-condition of the Deep state existence -- secrecy.
Notable quotes:
"... Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. ..."
"... The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US empire. ..."
"... HItchen's Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ..."
I'm just going to toss this one here at the end because I'm seeing it go around a lot in the
wake of the Mueller report.
Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has
claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that
WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth
Rich.
This claim is unsubstantiated because, as we discussed in Smear 4, the public has not seen a
shred of evidence proving who was or was not WikiLeaks' source, so there's no way to know there
was any deception happening there. We've never seen any hard proof, nor indeed anything besides
official narrative, connecting the Russian government to Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 to
WikiLeaks, and Daniel Lazare for Consortium News documents that there are in fact some
major
plot holes in Mueller's timeline. Longtime Assange friend and WikiLeaks ally Craig Murray
maintains that he knows the
source of the DNC Leaks and Podesta Emails were two different Americans, not Russians, and
hints that one of them was a DNC insider. There is exactly as much publicly available evidence
for Murray's claim as there is for Mueller's.
Mainstream media has been blaring day after day for years that it is an absolute known fact
that the Russian government was WikiLeaks' source, and the only reason people scoff and roll
their eyes at anyone who makes the indisputably factual claim that we've seen no evidence for
this is because
the illusory truth effect causes the human brain to mistake repetition for fact.
The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he
implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something
happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any
of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which
incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US
empire.
And I guess that's it for now. Again, this article is an ongoing project, so I'll be
updating it and adding to it regularly as new information comes in and new smears need
refutation. If I missed something or got something wrong, or even if you spotted a typo, please
email me at [email protected] and let
me know. I'm trying to create the best possible tool for people to refute Assange smears, so
I'll keep sharpening this baby to make sure it cuts like a razor. Thanks for reading, and
thanks to everyone who helped! Phew! That was long.
We don't have to like Julian Assange, but the release of the "Collateral Damage" video
alone is enough to justify defending Assange and the freedom of the press.
She really didn't debunk the thing about Seth Rich very well. Basically just said that
whatever Mueller said wasn't true, which doesn't go very far for me. He definitely did imply
that he got at least some of his info from Rich so if there is some sort of proof of that, it
needs to be supplied; otherwise Mueller's story is the only one.
I have recently seen a political cartoon with Dotard then saying: "I love Wikileaks" + " I
will throw her in jail" and now saying: "I know nothing about Wikileaks" + "I will throw him
in jail"
It summed up perfectly that swine's lack of integrity.
It's so simple. Assange and Wikileaks exposed Hillary, Podesta, and the entire DNC to be
lying, deceiving, hypocritical, disingenuous, elitist bastards. His crimes are miniscule
compared to that, and all who attempt to condemn Assange only show us that they are members
of that foul group.
Excellent thorough content. And Kim Schmitz pointed out they'll drag things on for as long
as possible and try to add additional things as they go. Such a bunch of sad, pathetic
control freaks. Covering up their own failures, crimes and short comings with a highly
publicized distraction putting the screws to a single journalist.
“ Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved
both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange .
And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files , 32 pages , but they’re all
classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore
you can’t have them.
That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I
mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between
people and devices.”
Assange and Snowden are freedom fighters, exposing the duplicitous, corrupt, and criminals
to the entire world.
The hundreds of millions of mindless zombies are so brainwashed by the fake news industry,
that if Assange and Snowden are not spies, they are criminal in some capacity.
I have liberal, conservative, and libertarian leaning friends, and virtually every one of
them believe Assange and Snowden are traitors to America, got innocent people killed, are
rapists, or too cowardly to stand trial in the USA.
What has happened to common sense and some necessary cynicism?
Why even bother arguing with these people. Assange gave up his liberty to reveal the
truth, and the American public said in essence "so what." No one except the leakers and
whistle-blowers faced any punishment, and I can't think of a single national politician who
even talks about doing anything about the misconduct that was revealed. Yeah, a small
percentage of the population is outraged at what was revealed, but the vast majority
literally don't give a ****.
Hehe... I guess you will find out how wrong you are in 2020 :-) His release of Hillary's
emails gave Trump 2016... and him turning his back on Assange took away his chances in
2020
Most regular readers on ZH know but this is an echo chamber for "Always Trumpers" so there
won't be many commenters on this article. Rather than defend his DOJ's extradition attempts
with implausible theories they'll be chattering back and forth about the Mueller Report.
Agreed. It's amazing to me that people who claim to be believers of the MAGA message don't
see the harm associated with the arrest of Assange, and all of the other uniparty **** Trump
is perpetuating. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Yeah and yet.... everyone seemed to credit Hillary's loss to the release of her emails on
wikileaks... Hmm that narrative that seems to be trying to minimize the impact on Trumps
chances in 2020 really breaks down in the face of that fact doesn't it?? Trump has no hope...
just stop... get behind a republican that has a chance... Trump doesn't... he lost half of
his base... get over it...
"... Do you know, by the way, speaking of meddling, that Biden went to Moscow and told Putin not to return to the presidency in 2012? ..."
"... One recent Democratic presidential candidate was taped asserting "we should not have held the election unless we could determine the outcome" in another foreign country. ..."
"... If Russia did not meddle significantly in the US election, the political class may have had to ponder that possibly the Russians believed that the decline of the US in the world stage did not merit the effort. ..."
"... To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, "Democracy is for little people", not for the meddling-in-foreign-democracies policymakers of the Bos-Wash corridor. ..."
STEPHEN COHEN: Well, just stay for one minute on Russia, because the China thing is
worth talking about too. But he says, almost alone, for the first time–how long has it
been since we had a president really pursue detente? It's been a very long time. Obama called
it a reset, but it was fraudulent. It was basically saying to the Russians, "Give us
everything, and we aren't going to give you anything." It was doomed from the beginning. Plus,
they wagered that Putin wouldn't return to the presidency. Do you know, by the way, speaking of
meddling, that Biden went to Moscow and told Putin not to return to the presidency in 2012?
PAUL JAY : No.
STEPHEN COHEN : Wrap your head around that a minute. The vice president of the United
States goes to Moscow and tells Putin, who's now prime minister because he termed out, but he
could return, "We don't think you should return to the presidency." So you know what I'm
wondering, I'm wondering whether Biden's calling up Putin today and asking Putin whether Biden
should get into the presidential race here. I mean, what the hell? What the hell? And we talk
about meddling? So the point about Trump, to finish this, is for the first time in many, many
years, a presidential candidate, one that I didn't vote for and didn't care for, had said it's
necessary to cooperate with Russia.
Perhaps the assumption of Russia meddling in our election is a simple case of
projection.
As has been documented, the USA has frequently meddled in other countries' elections or
election outcomes (Iran, Russia, Chile, Central America).
One recent Democratic presidential candidate was taped asserting "we should not have held
the election unless we could determine the outcome" in another foreign country.
If Russia did not meddle significantly in the US election, the political class may have
had to ponder that possibly the Russians believed that the decline of the US in the world
stage did not merit the effort.
To paraphrase the late Leona Helmsley, "Democracy is for little people", not for the
meddling-in-foreign-democracies policymakers of the Bos-Wash corridor.
When I see the right-of-center DNC supporters saying, “Our democracy has been
attacked,” I an reminded of the interview Hermann Goering gave while he was waiting to
be executed.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
I think Professor Cohen has a real point in the following statements:
" In the era of weapons of mass destruction, not only nuclear, but primarily nuclear, ever
more sophisticated, the Russians now have a new generation of nuclear weapons -- Putin
announced them on March 1, they were dismissed here, but they're real–that can elude
any missile defense. ..
Russia has now thwarted us; they now have missile defense-evading
nuclear weapons from submarines, to aircraft, to missiles. And Putin has said, 'It's time to
negotiate an end to this new arms race,' and he's 100 percent right. So when I heard Trump
say, in 2016, we have to cooperate with Russia, I had already become convinced
So I began to speak positively about Trump at that moment -- that would have been
probably around the summer of 2016 -- just on this one point, because none of the other
candidates were advocating cooperation with Russia "
Then, when he goes on to elaborate on China's weaponry and posit including them in the
next round of draw-down negotiations, as far off as that may look – that to me is what
Trump can use for his re-election. I do believe his attitude towards Russia won him his first
term.
Those Russia-gate kooks need to focus on the American people, not on Trump. Well, maybe
they did, and still do. It's really about us, not him.
When I see the right-of-center DNC supporters saying, "Our democracy has been attacked," I
an reminded of the interview Hermann Goering gave while he was waiting to be executed.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
"... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
"... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
"... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director
of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy
and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.
"Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have
noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing
so he remained above the fight," he said.
And
Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial
University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.
The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.
However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several
years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those
who may replace him would respond.
I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding
himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills
(and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump
can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity
of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow
and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with
Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures
for the various departments.
If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture
so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity
politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different
departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.
Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what
they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in
the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and
everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models
of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?
I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet.
Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with
three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off
the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that
there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge
and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.
A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions
remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected
and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).
April 19, 2019 He's vagaries, have turned Donald Trump, as uncharismatic a figure as could
be, into the leader of a sixty-three million strong personality cult.
... ... ...
By 2016, the widespread unpopularity of neoliberal, liberal imperialist, Wall Street and
military-industrial complex friendly politics, which the Clintons did so much to establish,
helped Trump secure an Electoral College victory. So did Hillary Clinton's shortcomings as a
First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. The tone deafness of the campaign she and her team
ran didn't help either.
... ... ...
For the still continuing debacles that began to unfold on her watch, she is by no means the
only one at fault. But wherever she most plainly left her mark – in Honduras, Libya,
Syria and elsewhere – she became the most culpable of all the contemporaneous Clintonite
politicians; more culpable even than Barack Obama himself, notwithstanding the fact that
ultimately the buck stopped with him.
No doubt, retrograde, racist, and nativist populism would be a factor in today's politics
even had Hillary left Bill after his fling with Monica, and even if she had then given the rest
of her life over to the idle pleasures dear to the Donald's first First Lady, the peerless
Ivana, mother of three, not just one, bearer of bad seed.
But had, say, John Kerry been calling the shots instead of Hillary during Obama's first
term, there might not now be the refugee crises – in Europe and on the U.S.-Mexico border
-- that are causing so much strife in the world today.
And then there is Clinton's role in the revival of Cold War anti-Russian animosities and her
part in encouraging the Obama administration's war on whistle blowers and, more generally, on
First Amendment protections of journalists.
Culpability for the criminally sadistic prison sentence Chelsea Manning was forced to
endure, and is now enduring again because prosecutors want her to turn on Julian Assange; and
for the de facto imprisonment, and whatever comes next, of Assange himself are on her as much
as on any other miscreant in the Democratic and Republican folds.
But reasons to oppose the mainstream Democratic Party from the left don't explain the Trump
base, at least not directly. It is that "basket of deplorables," more than anything else, which
accounts for Trump's continuing hold over the American government and for the present and
future consequences of the Trump presidency.
Perhaps the idea is just to keep "the resistance" alert or perhaps those who make the claim
really believe it; whichever is the case, the conventional wisdom nowadays is that Trump will
be hard to defeat in 2020. Needless to say, in a sane society, he would lose in a landslide
running against a potted plant.
Nevertheless, later-day Clintonites have seized on the idea of Trump being a formidable
opponent because, for their purposes, it is useful – for scaring Democrats into
nominating someone like Hillary or worse to run against the Trumpian menace. Joe Biden is
worse; he just hasn't yet had the chance to do as much harm.
There is ample reason to worry, though, that, as long as the Trump base remains intact,
Democrats will again find a way to turn an all but certain victory into a pitiful defeat.
All they would have to do to remain losers is accede to the idea that the way forward is to
field candidates of the kind that made Trump and Trumpism possible and even necessary.
That there is an urgent need to win back white working class voters is beyond dispute, even
if not all MSNBC and CNN "experts" agree. However, contrary to what they claim, this does not
imply "moderation" or "centrism" or any of the other common sense nostrums currently being
bandied about. No way.
Let Obama and others inveigh against "purity." Their way is a losing way. It might seem
right at first – in the way that avoiding strenuous exercise might seem right for
patients recovering from heart attacks or surgeries. But, over time and at great human cost, it
has become clear that just the opposite is the case. This has been demonstrated time and
again.
These considerations help explain why there is, and ought to be, a left opposition to
Clintonism and, more broadly, to the mainstream Democratic Party. However, they explain the
existence and durability of the Trump base only insofar as the rising inequality Clintonism
encourages does. That is only part of the story.
A very sizeable minority of voters, roughly sixty-three million of them -- voted for Trump
in 2016. Realizing the enormity of the mistake they made, quite a few of them have defected
from the Trumpian ambit. Astonishingly, though, quite a few have not.
The defections mostly happened early on. The size of the Trump base has, by most accounts,
remained fairly stable for the past two years, even as the obviousness of Trump's unfitness for
much of anything, much less the presidency, has become a lot harder than it used to be to
ignore.
... ... ...
The best answers are often ones that academic and media gurus deem superseded. The idea that
Trump supporters are remaining loyal to him mainly for economic reasons is a case in point.
Trump's policies plainly harm the "forgotten man" Franklin Roosevelt spoke of; just as
plainly, they favor the "economic royalists" whose hatred Roosevelt said he welcomed. He was
talking about the Trump base demographic of his time. And yet Trump's base abides.
To be sure, Trump's supporters are not the smartest kids on the block. But it is not just
ignorance and stupidity that keeps them on board. It is also economic reality.
The ways presidents and their administrations affect the economy, and therefore the economic
wellbeing of individuals affected by the economy they preside over, are complicated.
Even so, our overripe capitalist economy, some ten years after Obama et. al . saved
it from going under as the world financial system that sustained it was melting down, should be
delivering Trumpism its deathblow – partly thanks to the self-serving machinations of the
Donald and his minions, and partly for reasons beyond Trump's or anyone else's control.
That deathblow is surely coming – probably sooner than later. When it does, thanks to
the "deconstruction" of the regulatory state along with nearly all other mitigating factors,
the outcome won't be pretty.
For now, though, the gods or God, always on the lookout for ways to do us mortals harm have
been working overtime to keep the economic indicators looking good.
The sad fact of the matter, though, is that there are times when the indicators mislead.
Thus Trump's tax cuts for the rich caused them to improve for a while. But this was because
Trump gave the economy the statistical equivalent of a sugar high.
To his supporters, this was viewed as evidence of the adroitness of their man's stewardship
of the economy. Rightwing media hosts, abetted by a few academics and journalists who ought to
know better, encouraged their delusion.
They even seem to have convinced, or at least neutralized, some of Trumpism's earliest
victims. Being unable not to notice how the wrong-headedness and general incoherence of
Trumpian kakistocratic rule made them worse off, they nevertheless remained loyal -- taking one
for the team.
Some of them may only be "values voters" with piss poor values. Most of them, though, are
victims of a well-executed con. Their seemingly limitless willingness to be deluded by a venal
and sadistic egotist and the kakistocrats who serve him is truly awe-inspiring.
[In a "kakistocracy," the worst, the least qualified, the most unscrupulous and corrupt
rule. The Trump administration is a full-blown kakistocracy.]
***
Trump or no Trump, capitalist economies go through cycles of boom and bust. On this, all
major economic theorists – from Karl Marx to Milton Friedman – agree.
The Obama era 'fixes' to the Great Recession, consisting mostly of bailouts to banksters
awash in "get out of jail free" cards, restored a semblance of the old regime's economic order.
And so, the rich continue to get richer in ways that generate economic data that suggest that a
recovery is underway.
In truth, though, the most that most people can say is that they are doing about as well as
their counterparts a generation or two back did, and that their share of the nation's wealth is
at least not deteriorating more than it already has.
With recoveries like that, our later-day economic royalists hardly even need recessions to
keep workers feeling and being insecure!
Thus Trump has been benefiting from what got going, partly with government help but also in
the normal course of events in capitalist economies, when Obama was starting out. The resulting
statistical rise, such as it is, has been going on for roughly ten years. Unless capitalism has
fundamentally changed – which, of course, it has not -- it cannot go on for much longer.
As such things, go, ten years is already a long time.
When Trump's luck runs out, nearly everyone will find him or herself worse off than they
currently are, and worse off than need be. The most ardent Trump supporters will be among the
hardest hit.
In the Obama era, there were no soft landings, but there were no catastrophic downturns
either. But now, thanks to Trump, the guardrails are mostly gone. When the Donald's lucky
streak ends, the "collateral damage" will therefore be worse than a decade ago.
On the one hand, though, it will be glorious to watch him, his children, and his close
associates fall. On the other, they will be taking a lot down with them.
The suffering will affect nearly everybody to some extent – but pity, above all, the
true believers, the certifiable loonies, and the victims who just won't face up to the fact
that they have been snookered.
Trump will continue to menace until either his health fails – thanks God for
cholesterol! -- or Republicans rise up and desert him.
He knows no shame, and the mean-spiritedness and capacity for self-deception of his
supporters seem to know no bounds.
But there is always the economy, stupid. It has a way of concentrating the minds of even the
most obtuse among us.
As long as his supporters can convince themselves that the economy is fine, even if it is
not, and that Trump's "deals" offer hope for a better future – not for Muslims or Central
Americans, of course, but for people like them -- it won't matter that their president is a
laughing stock.
It just might matter, though, that he is leading them to ruination in ways that, try as they
might, they cannot deny.
If that won't be enough to cause at least some of them, enough to make a difference, at long
last finally to turn against Trump, then nothing will, and there will be nothing to do but,
like souls entering the Inferno, to "abandon all hope."
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble for saying this, but what does
it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate
policies, and waging more of these costly wars?"
And just to drive home this point, quote:
"This is not a joke. This is not about me. This about all of us. This is about our future. About making sure we have
one."
Tulsi did get in to trouble. A day after the video posted on Twitter, it had been deleted by Twitter without explanation
Mark Dierking , April 18, 2019 at 15:53
Thanks to you any everyone that has responded for the thoughtful comments. If you are able to edit yours, a more accessible
link for the Safari browser is:
By 2016, the widespread unpopularity of neoliberal, liberal imperialist, Wall Street and
military-industrial complex friendly politics, which the Clintons did so much to establish,
helped Trump secure an Electoral College victory. So did Hillary Clinton's shortcomings as a
First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. The tone deafness of the campaign she and her team
ran didn't help either.
... ... ...
For the still continuing debacles that began to unfold on her watch, she is by no means the
only one at fault. But wherever she most plainly left her mark – in Honduras, Libya,
Syria and elsewhere – she became the most culpable of all the contemporaneous Clintonite
politicians; more culpable even than Barack Obama himself, notwithstanding the fact that
ultimately the buck stopped with him.
No doubt, retrograde, racist, and nativist populism would be a factor in today's politics
even had Hillary left Bill after his fling with Monica, and even if she had then given the rest
of her life over to the idle pleasures dear to the Donald's first First Lady, the peerless
Ivana, mother of three, not just one, bearer of bad seed.
But had, say, John Kerry been calling the shots instead of Hillary during Obama's first
term, there might not now be the refugee crises – in Europe and on the U.S.-Mexico border
-- that are causing so much strife in the world today.
And then there is Clinton's role in the revival of Cold War anti-Russian animosities and her
part in encouraging the Obama administration's war on whistle blowers and, more generally, on
First Amendment protections of journalists.
Culpability for the criminally sadistic prison sentence Chelsea Manning was forced to
endure, and is now enduring again because prosecutors want her to turn on Julian Assange; and
for the de facto imprisonment, and whatever comes next, of Assange himself are on her as much
as on any other miscreant in the Democratic and Republican folds.
But reasons to oppose the mainstream Democratic Party from the left don't explain the Trump
base, at least not directly. It is that "basket of deplorables," more than anything else, which
accounts for Trump's continuing hold over the American government and for the present and
future consequences of the Trump presidency.
Perhaps the idea is just to keep "the resistance" alert or perhaps those who make the claim
really believe it; whichever is the case, the conventional wisdom nowadays is that Trump will
be hard to defeat in 2020. Needless to say, in a sane society, he would lose in a landslide
running against a potted plant.
Nevertheless, later-day Clintonites have seized on the idea of Trump being a formidable
opponent because, for their purposes, it is useful – for scaring Democrats into
nominating someone like Hillary or worse to run against the Trumpian menace. Joe Biden is
worse; he just hasn't yet had the chance to do as much harm.
There is ample reason to worry, though, that, as long as the Trump base remains intact,
Democrats will again find a way to turn an all but certain victory into a pitiful defeat.
All they would have to do to remain losers is accede to the idea that the way forward is to
field candidates of the kind that made Trump and Trumpism possible and even necessary.
That there is an urgent need to win back white working class voters is beyond dispute, even
if not all MSNBC and CNN "experts" agree. However, contrary to what they claim, this does not
imply "moderation" or "centrism" or any of the other common sense nostrums currently being
bandied about. No way.
Let Obama and others inveigh against "purity." Their way is a losing way. It might seem
right at first – in the way that avoiding strenuous exercise might seem right for
patients recovering from heart attacks or surgeries. But, over time and at great human cost, it
has become clear that just the opposite is the case. This has been demonstrated time and
again.
These considerations help explain why there is, and ought to be, a left opposition to
Clintonism and, more broadly, to the mainstream Democratic Party. However, they explain the
existence and durability of the Trump base only insofar as the rising inequality Clintonism
encourages does. That is only part of the story.
A very sizeable minority of voters, roughly sixty-three million of them -- voted for Trump
in 2016. Realizing the enormity of the mistake they made, quite a few of them have defected
from the Trumpian ambit. Astonishingly, though, quite a few have not.
The defections mostly happened early on. The size of the Trump base has, by most accounts,
remained fairly stable for the past two years, even as the obviousness of Trump's unfitness for
much of anything, much less the presidency, has become a lot harder than it used to be to
ignore.
... ... ...
The best answers are often ones that academic and media gurus deem superseded. The idea that
Trump supporters are remaining loyal to him mainly for economic reasons is a case in point.
Trump's policies plainly harm the "forgotten man" Franklin Roosevelt spoke of; just as
plainly, they favor the "economic royalists" whose hatred Roosevelt said he welcomed. He was
talking about the Trump base demographic of his time. And yet Trump's base abides.
To be sure, Trump's supporters are not the smartest kids on the block. But it is not just
ignorance and stupidity that keeps them on board. It is also economic reality.
The ways presidents and their administrations affect the economy, and therefore the economic
wellbeing of individuals affected by the economy they preside over, are complicated.
Even so, our overripe capitalist economy, some ten years after Obama et. al . saved
it from going under as the world financial system that sustained it was melting down, should be
delivering Trumpism its deathblow – partly thanks to the self-serving machinations of the
Donald and his minions, and partly for reasons beyond Trump's or anyone else's control.
That deathblow is surely coming – probably sooner than later. When it does, thanks to
the "deconstruction" of the regulatory state along with nearly all other mitigating factors,
the outcome won't be pretty.
For now, though, the gods or God, always on the lookout for ways to do us mortals harm have
been working overtime to keep the economic indicators looking good.
The sad fact of the matter, though, is that there are times when the indicators mislead.
Thus Trump's tax cuts for the rich caused them to improve for a while. But this was because
Trump gave the economy the statistical equivalent of a sugar high.
To his supporters, this was viewed as evidence of the adroitness of their man's stewardship
of the economy. Rightwing media hosts, abetted by a few academics and journalists who ought to
know better, encouraged their delusion.
They even seem to have convinced, or at least neutralized, some of Trumpism's earliest
victims. Being unable not to notice how the wrong-headedness and general incoherence of
Trumpian kakistocratic rule made them worse off, they nevertheless remained loyal -- taking one
for the team.
Some of them may only be "values voters" with piss poor values. Most of them, though, are
victims of a well-executed con. Their seemingly limitless willingness to be deluded by a venal
and sadistic egotist and the kakistocrats who serve him is truly awe-inspiring.
[In a "kakistocracy," the worst, the least qualified, the most unscrupulous and corrupt
rule. The Trump administration is a full-blown kakistocracy.]
***
Trump or no Trump, capitalist economies go through cycles of boom and bust. On this, all
major economic theorists – from Karl Marx to Milton Friedman – agree.
The Obama era 'fixes' to the Great Recession, consisting mostly of bailouts to banksters
awash in "get out of jail free" cards, restored a semblance of the old regime's economic order.
And so, the rich continue to get richer in ways that generate economic data that suggest that a
recovery is underway.
In truth, though, the most that most people can say is that they are doing about as well as
their counterparts a generation or two back did, and that their share of the nation's wealth is
at least not deteriorating more than it already has.
With recoveries like that, our later-day economic royalists hardly even need recessions to
keep workers feeling and being insecure!
Thus Trump has been benefiting from what got going, partly with government help but also in
the normal course of events in capitalist economies, when Obama was starting out. The resulting
statistical rise, such as it is, has been going on for roughly ten years. Unless capitalism has
fundamentally changed – which, of course, it has not -- it cannot go on for much longer.
As such things, go, ten years is already a long time.
When Trump's luck runs out, nearly everyone will find him or herself worse off than they
currently are, and worse off than need be. The most ardent Trump supporters will be among the
hardest hit.
In the Obama era, there were no soft landings, but there were no catastrophic downturns
either. But now, thanks to Trump, the guardrails are mostly gone. When the Donald's lucky
streak ends, the "collateral damage" will therefore be worse than a decade ago.
On the one hand, though, it will be glorious to watch him, his children, and his close
associates fall. On the other, they will be taking a lot down with them.
The suffering will affect nearly everybody to some extent – but pity, above all, the
true believers, the certifiable loonies, and the victims who just won't face up to the fact
that they have been snookered.
Trump will continue to menace until either his health fails – thanks God for
cholesterol! -- or Republicans rise up and desert him.
He knows no shame, and the mean-spiritedness and capacity for self-deception of his
supporters seem to know no bounds.
But there is always the economy, stupid. It has a way of concentrating the minds of even the
most obtuse among us.
As long as his supporters can convince themselves that the economy is fine, even if it is
not, and that Trump's "deals" offer hope for a better future – not for Muslims or Central
Americans, of course, but for people like them -- it won't matter that their president is a
laughing stock.
It just might matter, though, that he is leading them to ruination in ways that, try as they
might, they cannot deny.
If that won't be enough to cause at least some of them, enough to make a difference, at long
last finally to turn against Trump, then nothing will, and there will be nothing to do but,
like souls entering the Inferno, to "abandon all hope."
ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most
recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong
With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and
the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"People get into a lot of conversations about political strategies I might get in trouble
for saying this, but what does it matter if we beat Donald Trump, if we end up with someone
who will perpetuate the very same crony capitalist policies, corporate policies, and waging
more of these costly wars?"
And just to drive home this point, quote:
"This is not a joke. This is not about me. This about all of us. This is about our future.
About making sure we have one."
Tulsi did get in to trouble. A day after the video posted on Twitter, it had been deleted
by Twitter without explanation
The chaos all around us is what happens when the nation elects an incompetent, narcissistic,
impulsive and amoral man as president. This Christmas, heaven help us all.
Much of the government is shut down over symbolic funding for an
insignificant portion
of a useless border wall that President Trump said Mexico would pay for. The financial markets are having a nervous breakdown
that Trump and his aides are making worse.
... ... ...
It has become a cliche to quote William Butler Yeats's poem "
The
Second Coming
," written almost 100 years ago in the aftermath of World War I. But no one has said it better:
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; / Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . And what rough beast, its
hour come round at last, / Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"
... ... ...
It is difficult, at the moment, to fully assess the damage Trump is wreaking. We have never had a president like him, so history
is a poor guide...
So he's not just stupid, and crazy – he's also a coward. He refuses
to confront the War Party head on, despite his campaign trail rhetoric. Just the other day he
was telling crowds in Ohio how we were on the way out of Syria because "we have to take care
of our own country." The crowd cheered. Would he go back to that same audience and tell them
we need to intervene in a country that's been wracked by warfare for years, with no real hope
of a peaceful settlement? Of course not.
Coulter:
He is a shallow, lazy ignoramus who just wants Goldman Sachs to like him.
We get words; the neocon banker NY scum, running and ruining this world on the fast track
since 9-11, get action. They also own the congressional swamp with its amazingly high
approval rating of 15%. They own the former liberal left, now the Resistance, that can turn
out half a million bleeding hearts in pussy hats but the same oddly can't be bothered to
protest war.
Although I believe the timing of the raid on Trump's lawyer's office to be convenient to
help persuade him to ignore his base and appease his owners, at this point I won't be
troubled when they throw him away.
' doesn't this prove I was wrong about Trump and his movement all along?
I was very wrong to discount the role of character, personality, and intelligence: Trump
is simply not fit to be President '
Raimondo's reaction to Dump's incredible imbecility re the Syria 'chemical attacks
'
' A child could see through the fake "chemical attack" supposedly launched by Bashar
al-Assad just as his troops defeated the jihadists and Trump said he wanted out of Syria
'
Yes anyone watching that white helmets footage is immediately cringing for those poor kids
being abused as props in a macabre stage play
FP: Is there any way you can predict what Trump will do, say, or tweet?
GA: I will tell you the advice I gave [to Paris] about the tweets. He once criticized the
French president [Emmanuel Macron], and people called me from Paris to say, "What should we
do?" My answer was clear: "Nothing." Do nothing because he will always outbid you. Because he
can't accept appearing to lose. You have restraint on your side, and he has no restraint on his
side, so you lose. It is escalation dominance.
FP: As ambassador, you bridged two very different presidents, Obama and Trump. Talk about
what that was like.
GA: On one side, you had this ultimate bureaucrat, an introvert, basically a bit aloof, a
restrained president. A bit arrogant also but basically somebody who every night was going to
bed with 60-page briefings and the next day they were sent back annotated by the president. And
suddenly you have this president who is an extrovert, really a big mouth, who reads basically
nothing or nearly nothing, with the interagency process totally broken and decisions taken from
the hip basically. And also, for an ambassador, you had a normal working administration with
Obama. People in the executive branch offices were able to explain to you what the president
was thinking or what the president was going to do. And suddenly it's the opposite. A lot of
offices are still empty. It's amazing -- after 55 months, a lot of people are changing
overnight.
It's the fourth G-7 [emissary] we've had in the White house in two years! So the first
problem is we have nobody in the offices or if they are there, they're going to leave. But on
top of that, even if you have somebody in the offices, they don't know what the president is
going to say. And if the president has said something, they don't know what he means.
Trump betrayed anti-war republicans. As the result he lost any support of anti-war
Republicans. That can't be revered as he proved to be a marionette of Israel lobby. How that will
influence outcome of 2020 elections remains to be seen.
"The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars .
I agree with that," Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday's town hall meeting in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
Then, turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added: "Mister President, tonight
you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia
should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country."
Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement
in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of
our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.
Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of
the GOP led by Senators Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed
both houses of Congress.
But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and
National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a "dangerous attempt to weaken my
constitutional authorities."
With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump's veto, that should have
been the end of the matter.
It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders
emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the "no-more-wars"
theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and
civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.
Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president? Does he want to go into
2020 with Democrats denouncing "Trump's endless wars" in the Middle East? Because that is where
he is headed.
In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term
senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish
Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.
In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia,
lost.
Yet in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq war and
an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia's Vladimir Putin and get out of
these Middle East wars.
Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 -- Joe
Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O'Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker --
not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.
Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John
Kerry and re-imposed severe sanctions.
He declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which
Tehran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the
IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.
Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, closed the
consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized
Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi
Netanyahu's threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.
Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and
castigating the "right-wing" Netanyahu regime.
Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Yet the
troops are still there.
Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin
anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan's 1987 INF treaty that
outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.
When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Venezuela -- ostensibly to repair the
S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts -- Trump,
drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to "get out."
Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel,
and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the
left wing of his party and by Sanders, who voted "no" on the Iraq war that Biden supported.
The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting towards the Trump position of 2016. And
the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.
And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the
Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new
bipartisan majority.
Prediction: by the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the
Democratic Party will have captured the "no more wars" political high ground that candidate
Donald Trump occupied in 2016.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and
read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
"... Rep. Omar is playing around with assasination in taking on the Israeli Lobby and other powerful interests in Washington. I would be willing to bet that there are already contracts out on her life with the purpose of scaring anyone else from raising there head and stating the obvious. ..."
Good article. The problem is that no one in the USA gives a s**t about facts. The
Government is immune from public opinion. Of course the MSN is going to crucify her .
Rep.
Omar is playing around with assasination in taking on the Israeli Lobby and other powerful
interests in Washington. I would be willing to bet that there are already contracts out on
her life with the purpose of scaring anyone else from raising there head and stating the
obvious.
You're absolutely right. Americans are happy to believe the official narrative because it
doesn't threaten their comfy pathetic lives. What they don't seem to realize is that the rest
of the world doesn't share their blind gullibility.
Bigotry, violence, and extreme language – America, it all literally oozes from the
pores of your skin. You just look terrible anymore to outside observers.
Not only they lost all moral authority. UK MSM became openly neofascist in some areas exceeeding the press of Third Riech and the
USSR in distortions and falsifications. .
Notable quotes:
"... Corruption of government and media, is also exceedingly dangerous, for everyone's mental health. People begin to subconsciously know that they are being lied to, but they cannot accept it, because the lies conflict with their worldview, which quite naturally is based on trust for authority, and that nice man reading the news on TV. ..."
"... In 2004, Karl Rove in The Bush Government " Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do' ..."
Even if the Skripal affair WAS staged, you shouldn't get too excited about it. In fact, you should be rather pleased because
it would demonstrate that the tired, incompetent old UK is still capable of mounting an operation of which young, vigorous, competent
Russia would be proud.
The UK can fake events with the best of them! I would find that reassuring rather than deplorable because it's a nasty world
out there.
The Government and the media, have not been telling the whole truth for a long time. Sometimes they blatantly lie. Most people
still believe most of what they say, as there is an in-built trust of authority, for some very good historical reasons. The Skripal
story, made it obvious to a large number of people, that some of it could not be true. Most still believe it or din't take much
notice. The arrest of Julian Assange made it clearer, to an even larger number of people, that the government and the media, had
lost all moral authority. Still many people didn't take much notice, or were convinced by the lies in the media, that he was a
rapist and should be in jail.
The lies and corruption from government, is now increasingly out in the open. I believe that this is deliberate. I also think
that it is exceedingly dangerous for society for multiple reasons. We are conditioned to accept authority as our moral guide.
They act as an example of acceptable behaviour. If society as a whole, behaved like government, all trust would break down. Virtually
all functions of society are based on trust. Without such trust, nothing will work.
Corruption of government and media, is also exceedingly dangerous, for everyone's mental health. People begin to subconsciously
know that they are being lied to, but they cannot accept it, because the lies conflict with their worldview, which quite naturally
is based on trust for authority, and that nice man reading the news on TV.
I believe this has all been pre-planned, and it will result in a disastrous effect on all society, unless something happens
to bring the governments and media back to truth and sanity. I have no idea what that might be, but I expect it will not be pleasant.
The following was an early warning of the mass insanity affecting The US Government. It has spread like a highly infectious
disease.
In 2004, Karl Rove in The Bush Government " Guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined
as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' [ ] 'That's not the way the world
really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying
that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's
how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'
Relative to my @2, Prof Richard Wolff linked to this
AXIOS Newsletter via tweet with points 1,3 and 5 buttressing my point about the US Dollar
and its economic health due to Trump's Trade War. Prof Wolff's thoughts he tweeted:
"Trump/GOP's desperate pandering to political base incurs big long-term costs. Trade wars,
tariffs, etc. accelerate post-08 decline of USD as world currency. Its share of global
reserves has fallen in 9 of last 11 quarters. US capitalism self-destructs."
I always thought genuine conservatives were against incurring "big long-term costs."
"... I was pleasantly surprised to see that Team Trump not only had an intoxicating dream, but also a very logical and disciplined strategy to win the election. Trump kept up a cracking pace and worked tirelessly to the end of the campaign season. It's no wonder that his supporters are reluctant to desert such an inspirational candidate. ..."
I've suggested Trump has "elevated" Pompeo and Bolton and Pence because he was forced
to do so. It's even scarier if the old (soon-to-be-73) fart has drunk the kool-aid and wants
to be a prime mover in the End Times. From all I've read of late the man is gullible enough
to buy into such a scheme.
Opinions vary. I beg to differ about Trump being gullible.
I neither knew nor cared who "Donald Trump" was until he became a candidate for POTUS, and I
never watched The Apprentice for more than 3 seconds, and then only by accident.
But I liked his campaign antics right from the start. And I wasn't alone. To me, he came
across as the sharpest knife in the drawer, by a big margin. Putting himself forward as the
Drain the Swamp candidate was worthy of close attention for two reasons:
It took balls to stick his neck out so defiantly
Of far greater significance was the fact that here was an AmeriKKKan Presidential
candidate claiming to have an MLK-ish dream and a PLAN to achieve it.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that Team Trump not only had an intoxicating dream, but
also a very logical and disciplined strategy to win the election. Trump kept up a cracking
pace and worked tirelessly to the end of the campaign season. It's no wonder that his
supporters are reluctant to desert such an inspirational candidate.
Given that he entered the race with an undisclosed plan to win the election and won it,
it's quite likely that his undisclosed plan to Drain The Swamp has a good chance of being
equally successful.
-------
Talking about undisclosed plans, Trump is the only person in the Known Universe with a Drain
The Swamp plan so it's only sensible to assume that he's the best person to decide how to
achieve it. 3D Chess sounds cute but reverse psychology sounds far more practical. It's been
apparent for some time that the individuals who pop their heads above the parapet to promote
and justify the Swamp's insanely counter-intuitive plans, have scornfully rejected the Human
concepts of decency and morality. They also believe too much of their own bullshit.
Trump has already given them several opportunities to spout their drivel publicly and they've
enthusiastically grabbed each one with indecent haste, despite the obvious idiocy and
illegality.
John Bolton was interviewed on PBS Newshour on March 17. Look it up and watch it and ask
yourself "Is this creature sane or rational?"
So then you want Trump to win, because you can't honestly compare Trump to Sanders! It's
just not intellectually honest!
Hoarsewhisperer @73
Pure Trumpjuice swilling rubbish, as usual. I guess you sleep all day and miss the news
because after all the shet Trump has pulled, he couldn't be better for maintaining the Swamp
than he is. Reversse pyschology, my ass! You must think you have the power to make others see
what even you don't see. News flash, you sound more ridiculous every day. I ask myself why I
bother to engage such nonsense. I think it's because I know ONLY Zionists still support Trump
the way you do and I just can't let you push that kind of dishonest crap and let you dream
you're getting away with it. People whose perception I respect 100 times more than you are
now knocking that Trump excuse bullset you're peddling: like reverse psychology and
dimensional chess. Honestly? You think anyone but the Zionist West Bank choir you're
preaching to buys that kind of dishonest garbage?
He's turned out to be a ziocon and Bibi's bitch instead. He's surrounded himself with
neocons. And he's also Wall St's bitch as his primary concern is stock prices. He wants the Fed
to lower already low rates and grow its multi-trillion dollar "emergency" balance sheet even
more. The federal government will add a trillion dollars to the national debt each year of his
term. Isn't this exactly what the establishment of both parties want?
In any case, the hammer needs to come down hard on the putschists, so that law enforcement
& the intelligence agencies don't become an extra-constitutional 4th branch of government
accountable only to themselves. We'll see how far the Trump administration will go in holding
these seditionists to account?
The sanctions imposed in the wake of the Salisbury allegations are the harshest any US
administration has imposed on Russia since the end of the Cold War. There has also been a
ramping up in the past two years of US/NATO misslle installations and war games on Russia's
border, a vast increase in military aid to ferociously anti-Russian neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the
bombing of Russia's Syrian ally, the threatened regime change of Russia's Venezuelan ally,
and a unilateral tearing up of the INF treaty agreed between Reagan and Gorbachev.
Yet despite all that and despite the nothingburger of the Mueller report large parts of
the USUK political class, mass media and intelligentsia are persisting with the conspiracy
theory that Trump is somehow Putin's puppet.
Coincidentally they are also among the people most likely to accuse others of spreading
fake news and propaganda.
"Donald Trump reveals he considered making Ivanka head of World Bank because she's
'good with numbers'"
And there was a video of him bringing her to the microphone on the subject of 5G which
amazed me:
Trump Invites Ivanka To Talk About 5G Deployment In The U.S.
I think Trump truly believes Ivanka is presidential material!
Speaking seriously, I see no reason why Ivanka would be less qualified for any of these
organized crime positions than anyone who previously has held them, other than from the point
of view of supporters of the system who want it to be as well-run as possible. Of course
enemies of the system want the opposite.
If she's really stupid, that's much better from the point of view of anyone other than a
supporter of the system. As we see again, most who criticize the system still are supporters
of it, a kind of "loyal opposition".
The past few days two religious electoralists, assuming I also was a member of their cult,
asked "who I liked". I think I'll just start responding, Ivanka! Though Kim Kardasian also is
a worthy contender.
If Daddy can't get Ivanka slotted at the World Bank, maybe he can use his influence and
get her a job with
this bank , where he has been a conspicuous customer over the decades and just as
conspicuously a repository for hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate investment by
hundreds of anonymous foreign shell companies.
Over two decades, Trump borrowed more than $2bn from Deutsche. In 2008, he defaulted on
a $45m loan repayment and sued the bank. Its private wealth division in New York
subsequently loaned Trump a further $300m – a move that bemused insiders and which
has yet to be fully explained.
In recent years, the bank has had a series of bruising encounters with international
regulators. Between 2011 and 2018, it paid $14.5bn in fines, with exposure to dubious
Russian money a regular theme.
Germany's troubled Deutsche Bank faces fines, legal action and the possible prosecution of
"senior management" because of its role in a $20bn Russian money-laundering scheme, a
confidential internal report seen by the Guardian says.
The bank is under investigation for its role in Europe's biggest banking scandal, involving
Denmark's Danske Bank. Danske laundered €200bn (£178bn) of Russian money via its
branch in Estonia. Deutsche provided correspondent banking services via its US subsidiary.
Aren't these class-based, rigged games of globalist Monopoly played exclusively by the
.01% at the expense of the po fokes back home (in all countries) hilarious, Russ-kie? Maybe,
in exchange for your ongoing support, Trump will arrange a loan for your very own luxury
fallout shelter, a place to call home where you will ride out the storm in comfort during the
coming armageddon?
Do some research it becomes clear quickly what the real story is. Hillary and her bunch
stink to high heaven and have or YEARS. Started with her and husband. They sold this country
o or personal gain.Just search a little and make sure to use factual information. It is there
for anyone to find.
British propaganda is clearly as close to neofascist propaganda as one can get... British neocons are even closer to neofascists then the US neocons. And British security services are closer to
the Third Reich security services then any other.
Skripals is a such a grandiose false flag operation that Gellen (of operation Gladio fame) probably would be amazed and humbled.
Notable quotes:
"... The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story.... ..."
"... If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written previously. ..."
"... Oh dear oh dear.. It appears the UK may be denying there were any poor ducks involved... https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1118409471754153984 ..."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any remaining
truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be concluded to be
a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything said by UK's
Tory government.
"The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and
every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case
contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially
rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story....
"If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks
volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim
in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written
previously."
"Difficult to verify your version of events given it involves nameless officials. Knowing
you're often used by security services to peddle propaganda seemed a reasonable assumption
they'd urged you to backtrack your earlier advocacy as story detonates official #Skripal
narrative."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any
remaining truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be
concluded to be a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything
said by UK's Tory government.
I'm not quite sure why I loathe Assange. I've never actually met the man. I just have this
weird, amorphous feeling that he's a horrible, disgusting, extremist person who is working for
the Russians and is probably a Nazi. It feels kind of like that feeling I had, back in the
Winter of 2003, that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, which he was going to give to those Al
Qaeda terrorists who were bayonetting little babies in their incubators, or the feeling I still
have, despite all evidence to the contrary, that Trump is a Russian intelligence asset who peed
on Barack Obama's bed, and who is going to set fire to the Capitol building, declare himself
American Hitler, and start rounding up and murdering the Jews.
I don't know where these feelings come from. If you challenged me, I probably couldn't
really support them with any, like, actual facts or anything, at least not in any kind of
rational way. Being an introspective sort of person, I do sometimes wonder if maybe my feelings
are the result of all the propaganda and relentless psychological and emotional conditioning
that the ruling classes and the corporate media have subjected me to since the day I was born,
and that influential people in my social circle have repeated, over and over again, in such a
manner as to make it clear that contradicting their views would be extremely unwelcome, and
might negatively impact my social status, and my prospects for professional advancement.
Take my loathing of Assange, for example. I feel like I can't even write a column condemning
his arrest and extradition without gratuitously mocking or insulting the man. When I try to, I
feel this sudden fear of being denounced as a "Trump-loving Putin-Nazi," and a
"Kremlin-sponsored rape apologist," and unfriended by all my Facebook friends. Worse, I get
this sickening feeling that unless I qualify my unqualified support for freedom of press, and
transparency, and so on, with some sort of vicious, vindictive remark about the state of
Assange's body odor, and how he's probably got cooties, or has pooped his pants, or some other
childish and sadistic taunt, I can kiss any chance I might have had of getting published in a
respectable publication goodbye.
But I'm probably just being paranoid, right? Distinguished, highbrow newspapers and
magazines like
The Atlantic ,
The Guardian ,
The Washington Post , The
New York Times , Vox ,
Vice ,
Daily Mail , and others of that caliber, are not just propaganda organs whose primary
purpose is to reinforce the official narratives of the ruling classes. No, they publish a broad
range of opposing views. The Guardian, for example, just got Owen Jones to write
a full-throated defense of Assange on that grounds that he's probably a Nazi rapist who
should be locked up in a Swedish prison, not in an American prison! The Guardian,
remember, is the same publication that printed
a completely fabricated story accusing Assange of secretly meeting with Paul Manafort and
some alleged "Russians," among a deluge of other such Russiagate nonsense, and that has been
demonizing Jeremy
Corbyn as an anti-Semite for several years.
Plus, according to NPR's Bob Garfield (who is
lustfully "looking forward to Assange's day in court"), and other liberal lexicologists, Julian
Assange is not even a real journalist, so we have no choice but to mock and humiliate him, and
accuse him of rape and espionage oh, and speaking of which, did you hear the one about how
his
cat was spying on the Ecuadorean diplomats ?
But seriously now, all joking aside, it's always instructive (if a bit sickening) to watch
as the mandarins of the corporate media disseminate an official narrative and millions of
people robotically repeat it as if it were their own opinions. This process is particularly
nauseating to watch when the narrative involves the stigmatization, delegitimization, and
humiliation of an official enemy of the ruling classes. Typically, this enemy is a foreign
enemy, like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Milošević, Osama bin Laden, Putin, or whoever.
But sometimes the enemy is one of "us" a traitor, a Judas, a quisling, a snitch, like Trump,
Corbyn, or Julian Assange.
Logic, facts, and actual evidence have little to nothing to do with this process. The goal
of the media and other propagandists is not to deceive or mislead the masses. Their goal is to
evoke the pent-up rage and hatred simmering within the masses and channel it toward the
official enemy. It is not necessary for the demonization of the official enemy to be remotely
believable, or stand up to any kind of serious scrutiny. No one sincerely believes that Donald
Trump is a Russian Intelligence asset, or that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite, or that Julian
Assange has been arrested for jumping bail, or raping anyone, or for helping Chelsea Manning
"hack" a password.
The demonization of the empire's enemies is not a deception it is a loyalty test. It is a
ritual in which the masses (who, let's face it, are de facto slaves) are ordered to display
their fealty to their masters, and their hatred of their masters' enemies....
... ... ...
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it
up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.
Haspel oversaw the
torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director
at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's
new head.
Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were
waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer
John Kiriakousay : "We did
call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because
they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."
It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted
by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that
Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine
what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.
Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship
certainly could.
I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal
records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The
man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government
verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with
one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.
Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what
really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting
pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and
needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking
gesture.
The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy
U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they
neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of
his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar
ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.
It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability
to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation
with faint signs of metal grooves.
Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.
As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue.
New information
and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was
actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture
of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel
actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are
the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.
Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.
Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed
an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents
on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.
Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil
on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose
of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.
To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told
were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace,"
claims one of
her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well,"
said Michael Hayden,
who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.
Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review
Haspel's nomination,
said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical
agencies."
"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person,"
offered Senator
Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
defended Haspel's
actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.
His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance,
saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has
been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins
added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of
torture during the Vietnam War,
mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.
Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will
oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will
likely also vote no.
Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them
into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing
them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against
them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.
Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf:
unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed
us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.
Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation
desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts
as war crimes.
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does
it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"
To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those
orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential
professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation.
Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems
to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand.
Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to
believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate
and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of
Power.
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were
called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the
Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers.
Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority
of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use
to be part of an American have come to define us.
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always
virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military
governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs.
When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human.
Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in
the neighborhood of following international law.
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit
those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself
and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have
the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing
of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against
Trump:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America
will triumph over you."
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:
"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little
mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how
much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.
The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the
Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more
granularly.
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment
of terrorists.
But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many
of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?
The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried
to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are
you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques
(sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating
the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall
for a false equivalency.
Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to
Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force
against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the
United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.
And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient
to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying
a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades
later.
If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth
that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"
We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice
whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged,
then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held
in cages? WE saw off their heads?
Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(S.E.R.E.) training programs.
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.
There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime,
no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not
too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there
is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction
of this story and an apology.
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School
of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know
better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.
Personally,
I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction (
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there
not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding
at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.
Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion,
Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when
used by our adversaries?
furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals,
pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states "
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of
the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to
do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be
punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter
and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be
considered in the contexts of these words.
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.
But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able
to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the
injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the
Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.
"... This is a humiliation for the US in that it demonstrates the waning power and influence of the US in the region and most especially of Donald Trump who has demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the Arabs in repeated slavish support of Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. pl ..."
It surprises me that Egypt has rather brazenly walked away from the Boltonesque fantasy of
an "Arab NATO." I would have thought that the paychecks Egypt receives every year from the
American taxpayer and the Saudis would have kept Sisi in line, but apparently the prospect of
other sources of funding affected the decision to defy the Amiirkaan.
With the exception of Jordan's small but competent armed forces, Egypt is the only country
among the members that possesses significant military power, The armed forces of the other
countries are mere playthings for princes. Egypt's withdrawal from this alliance makes the
farcical nature of the plan quite clear.
This is a humiliation for the US in that it
demonstrates the waning power and influence of the US in the region and most especially of
Donald Trump who has demonstrated his indifference to the interests of the Arabs in repeated
slavish support of Israel against the Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians. pl
This sheds a whole new light on the death of those two poor little hamsters, or was it
guinea pigs, said to be starved while the police was investigating the premises of
Skripal.
With Haspel around they might have succombed to her nasty ways of torturing.
Concerning who is pulling the strings, please forgive a repost of an interview with one
who knows. On 31 May 2017 Putin gave an interview with Le Figaro where he said:
"I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the
same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is
elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing
dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones.
These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is
what happens with every administration."
A long list of people with briefcases so far ends with Gina.
"... The Steele dossier is British, Orbis intelligence = British, Institute for statecraft / Integrity Initiative =
British, Skripal defection. Location, evidence, statements = British, the list goes on and on. ..."
"... The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. ..."
The Steele dossier is British, Orbis intelligence = British, Institute for statecraft / Integrity Initiative = British,
Skripal defection. Location, evidence, statements = British, the list goes on and on.
You'd think someone might have noticed something of a trend by now.
They just don't bother anymore, the level of double black psy-ops and gaslighting is a mine field of disinformation. That's what
you get when Washington - Obama, gives the green light to propagandizing their people. It's escalated, like we haven't noticed,
under Trump despite his pathetic attempts at assuring folks it's fake news.
The UK's propaganda machine rivals and even surpasses Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. I watched about 10 minutes of a
documentary about Easter Island, as an example, and it was revisionist to the nth degree. Just absolute rubbish insinuating that
white European travelers destroyed the Island. This is what British kids are now being marinated in, "He who controls the past"
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
"... The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said: "The middle class is increasingly only a dream for many. This bedrock of our democracies and economic growth is not as stable as in the past." ..."
"... Only incomes in the top 25% were able to outpace this rate on an annual basis, according to the Atlanta Fed. For everyone else, a greater share of income must be allocated to property taxes, leaving less to spend on everything else. ..."
"... Equity ownership in companies, both public and private, is also sliding for the upper middle class. The share of equity ownership for citizens in the 50th to 90th percentile of net worth has fallen and the top 1% of Americans still own the majority of shares. ..."
"... By the end of 2018, net worth as a share of the U.S. total had shrunk considerably for the upper middle class. During the course of just one generation, U.S. wealth held by households from the 50th to the 90th percentile fell from 35.2% of the total to 29.1%. Most of this wealth has been transferred to the top 1% of U.S. households. ..."
"... Stefano Scarpetta, OECD director of employment, labor and social affairs said: "There is a risk of a spiral to the extent that the middle class is the one main sources of political and economic stability." ..."
New data from the Federal Reserve detailing citizens' net worth shows that the issue of being "left behind" has now spread to
all Americans aside from the top 10%, according to
Bloomberg . This means that even the upper middle class is starting to feel the pain of income stagnation. The growth of upper
middle class income continues to lag behind that of those both lower and higher than them on the socioeconomic ladder, according
to the data.
The cost of many items purchased by the upper middle class, including things like college education and cars, is outpacing inflation.
That is causing upper middle class households to tap into more expensive forms of debt. The debt these households is taking on is
shifting from mortgages to credit with higher financing costs.
In addition, the overall middle class' share of total income is
falling while home prices have increased faster than median incomes.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said: "The middle class is increasingly only a dream for many. This
bedrock of our democracies and economic growth is not as stable as in the past."
Credit card rates recently hit a "generational high" despite the low prime rate. The spread between the prime rate and credit
card interest rates is at its highest point in almost 10 years.
2018 property taxes rose by 4% annually, on average, according to an analysis of more than 87 million U.S. single family homes
by ATTOM Data Solutions.
Todd Teta, chief product officer for ATTOM Data Solutions
said
: "Property taxes levied on homeowners rose again in 2018 across most of the country. While many states across the country have imposed
caps on how much taxes can go up, which probably contributed to a slower increase in 2018 versus 2017. There are still many factors
at play that can contribute to local property tax hikes, and without major changes in the way a community runs public services, tax
rates must rise to pay for them."
Only incomes in the top 25% were able to outpace this rate on an annual basis, according to the Atlanta Fed. For everyone
else, a greater share of income must be allocated to property taxes, leaving less to spend on everything else.
Equity ownership in companies, both public and private, is also sliding for the upper middle class. The share of equity ownership
for citizens in the 50th to 90th percentile of net worth has fallen and the top 1% of Americans still own the majority of shares.
By the end of 2018, net worth as a share of the U.S. total had shrunk considerably for the upper middle class. During the
course of just one generation, U.S. wealth held by households from the 50th to the 90th percentile fell from 35.2% of the total to
29.1%. Most of this wealth has been transferred to the top 1% of U.S. households.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has said that the middle class is "essential" for growth and countries
where it thrives are healthier, more stable, better educated and have lower crime rates while boasting higher life satisfaction.
The OECD defines middle class as households with incomes between 75% and and 200% of the national median. Over the last 3 decades,
incomes have increased 33% less than the average of the richest 10%, according to the OECD. Real income of the middle class has grown
only 0.3% a year since the financial crisis.
Stefano Scarpetta, OECD director of employment, labor and social affairs said: "There is a risk of a spiral to the extent
that the middle class is the one main sources of political and economic stability."
Rising to the middle class is also getting tougher. More skills are needed, as more than 50% of middle income workers are
now in high skilled occupations, up from about 33% two decades ago.
"It's a wake up call. Overall there is a need to really focus on targeted policy intervention for those with specific problems.
General policies may not work very well," Scarpetta concluded.
Work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week: Jack Ma demands of his staff at Alibaba
Welcome to Globalism, you are now seeing managers from non-western countries bringing their values into the western organizations
as they climb the ladder. Not all countries share the same cultural values and work ethics.
7 Signs that you may have become a Corporate Slave
1. You sleep less than an average of 6 hours every night.
2. Part of your daily routine involves turning the floor lights on, when you arrive, and off, when you leave.
3. You have never attended your daughter's dance recital.
4. You can't remember the last time you had a day off, let alone a vacation with your family.
5. You are constantly anxious about your performance, or rather the way it is perceived by your manager.
6. You feel you cannot talk to your manager, your HR or your colleagues about your grievances.
Our political whores...******* us into poverty, day after day, year after year. I hope I am alive to see (and take part in)
the day people get fed up enough to actually reach critical mass and DO something about it.
It used to be easy to buy subservience with bread & circuses, but now even those things are growing out of reach. Hopefully
we reach critical mass breaking point and the political whores' minions (the boys in blue, etc..) don't have the capacity to stop
what transpires. Nothing less than a cathartic release of blood will do for me personally speaking.
What is mind boggling is that one sees how Republicans and Democrats caused this by deregulating (finance, trade, immigration,
etc) and allowing multinationals free reign and yet...you have Trump supporting assholes blaming "communist democrats" when this
is all a result of the private sector running wild.
Trump also hoped the Sisi meeting would re-invigorate his idea of an "Arab NATO", the
proposed Middle East Security Alliance (MESA), raised at the beginning of his Presidency. MESA
would, U.S. planners believed, align the Gulf Arab states -- particularly Saudi Arabia -- with
Jordan and Egypt to strategically balance and oppose Iran. Cairo cannot realistically support
such a position in black and white terms (neither can Qatar or Jordan, at this stage).
Cairo is actually open to improved relations with Iran, particularly because the Egyptian
Government feels less than secure that the current Saudi regime is stable and reliable.
Trump, during the White House meeting, strenuously attempted to support Saudi Arabia and
MbS, but received strong pushback from al-Sisi on that account.
The measure of Egypt's rejection of the U.S. pressure was indicated when al-Sisi,
immediately upon returning to Cairo on April 10, 2019, formally withdrew Egypt from MESA. Egypt
had very deliberately not sent a delegation to the MESA summit in Riyadh on April 8, 2019.
...
The ongoing belief in the U.S. that Egypt's defenses are existentially dependent on
Washington is something which Cairo cannot comprehend. Washington policy thinking is that Cairo
would obey U.S. diktat because it needed spare parts for U.S.-supplied equipment, or because it
so needed the relatively small contribution offered by the Camp David Accord aid payments.
The author says very little about Egypts relations with Syria. I remember when the US
agent Morsi tried to push Egypt to fight against Assad. Genral Al Sisi stopped this because
it would have torn also Egypt apart, especially the Army which has very friendly ties with
the Syrian army.
General Al Sisi and President Assad have something very basic in common. Both want to
preserve the culture of their countries which are multi religious, representing the
developments in these areas over thousands of years. AL Sisi was acting swiftly to protect
the Copts which is a christian religion, maybe the true birthplace of christianity. The copts
have deep roots in the old Egyptian religion. In a speech Al Sisi said that the copts are an
essential part of Egypt and that they are the link to Egypts great past.
You sure as hell can't say trump isn't trying! He just vetoed the Senate bill to end all
aid to continue the war on Yemen! What did Yemen ever do to us? Not a damn thing! His true
colors are shining more every day. His followers will say it's a trick! It's 4d chess! It's
disgusting!
The area around Venezuela is actually now the richest "oil region" in the world.
You know... I often ponder how must simpler and peaceful the world could and SHOULD be
were the ziombie United States not such a belligerent force. Our Founding Fathers would be
outrageously appalled at their descendants to whom they bequeathed responsibility for
maintaining and championing their original philosophy.
The question now is who in the Washington bureaucracy will take the blame for pushing
Trump to insist on actions by al-Sisi which any fundamental analysis of the situation points
to being infeasible and against Egypt's view of its own strategic interests.
i think the question now is whether Trump is such an idiot Zionist that he takes his
orders from Sheldon Adelson Bolt-on, and Pompous. MIGA.
Already answered,and the ***-whipping when he takes on Iran will be well deserved,no way
to
win short of using nukes. Iran is far too important to Russia and China for that to be
allowed. Logistics and demographics are not on the US's side, even the Pentagram wants
nothing to do with an actual war with Iran.
Victory in Yemen! Victory in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and everywhere else! Our $trillon military, led by genius generals, will bring home slaves and loot to
replenish our bankrupt treasury. We shall crush our enemies and hear the lamentations of their women.
ClickNLook, 44 minutes ago
MAKE YEMEN SHITHOLE AGAIN!
warsev
I guess we now know fully where President Trump stands on reining in executive warmongering.
TRNN Documentary: Steve Bannon was fired from the White House on Friday, August 18th, 2017,
but most of the media is missing the story of Robert Mercer, the billionaire that brought
Bannon to the White House, who has now reappointed him as chairman of Breitbart News - TRNN
replay
Steve Bannon, David Bossie, KellyAnne Conway, Andrew Breitbart, Peter Schweizer, ALL
MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FOR NATIONAL POLICY. Robert Mercer is a financier of the CNP. Why will
nobody do an indepth look at the CNP ? That is the key.
Never forget who gave you Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, Abrams.... It is puppet masters hiding in
the shadow like Adelson, Mercer and the rest of the Zio-Con Cartel... The True Deep
State....
Billionaire Robert Mercer now owns the United States Presidency & he ain't gonna play
fair to keep it. For the 2016 (s)election, Billionaire Robert Mercer sought a disruptive
figure who could upend both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. He used
psychographics, a combination of behavior science & big data, to manipulate the genuine
anger toward the corrupt system to influence voter's thoughts, opinions and desires to elect
Trump. Deciding? No manipulating Hilary and the DCCC made it easier by being obvious bankster
owned neo-con war hawks.
Wall Street's billionaire monsters breed monstrous governments that spread chaos and
suffering over the entire planet. And instead of fighting them, the Democrat™ party
leaders invent ludicrous spy-novel narratives to shift the blame.
Bannon's ideology is such a muddled mess. He cites Evola, who was a far-right
self-proclaimed elitest who wanted a caste system (you stay where you're born becuase
spiritually you were destined for that spot, social mobility is bad, etc etc), and he also
promotes ethno-nationalist populism and capitalism, the latter of which Evola saw as gross
and materialistic. I realize he probably wants a spiritual justification for the people he
promotes, but he's just kinda acts, like Olly from Philosophy Tube said, as an arsonist
instead.
Certainly Brietbart appealed to the republican working class wing of the party and
unleashed racist forces in society. And the racist forces became the one hope for a dejected
rural working class. Got nowhere for the workers in 2019. Bannon is off in some eastern
European country organizing a nationalist anti-immigrant campaign that will purportedly shake
the western world down to its knees. Nationalism is working out in America because it can
afford to be nationalistic. It can afford to be socialistic too. This is the blessing of
having such a high productivity. You have choices. But what this team of billionaires do not
have is control of the price of choice. The faces of the far right do not have control over
the forces of nature and control over the oscillations of price on the world market. The
billionaires do not know how to operate in clear terms for the world to trust in what they
do. They are ambiguous on foreign policy and isolationist on domestic policy retreating from
social responsibility of any of the negative effects of their policies. Situation has
completely changed in 2019. Rural working class voters are listening to democrats. It took an
act of nature for them to listen to the big government green new deal people. Subsidies to
keep afloat farmers from the negative impact of tariffs are no substitute for selling
products on the world market. Farmers get paid at the sale of their yield an amount that
covers their annual cost of living plus a profit. Subsidies come monthly and changes the
dynamic of the farmer family's consumption lifestyle. The straw that breaks the camel's back
might be this historic flood swinging the pendulum leftward in the farm belt. Leftward
because food prices will rise in cities and markets generally not because of a shortage of
food due to the rivers swelling and levies breaking and plains flooding and livestock and
grain contaminated. This country can feed the nation times over with its surplus produce.
Prices rise because wages for the working class has not risen, the consumers of food need
money in their pocket or the vast abundance of food produced will rot on the shelves while
people lay hungry is a nightmare for the American farmer and worker that can happen in
America. Food growers raise prices in a rush to profit above the cost of their lifestyle is
an act totally avoidable if wages were increased. Urban workers and rural farmers have a
natural basis to be allies to fight any kind of force that breaks the food chain even if it
means going against a government that refuses to raise wages.
Look on the bright side, Trump's overt pandering to Israel has disgusted the Europeans so
much that Macron is at the lowest point in his popularity as Rothschild's puppet, and there
is rising support for the AfD in Germany.
The NYT reported that 40% of Germans now think it's right to blame Jews for Israel's
policy in the Mideast, German youth couldn't care less about the holocaust, and Merkel is
pivoting to Russia.
It is now (America + Israel) vs. (the rest of the world led by Russia, China, Iran, Syria,
with increasing pivot from Germany and India)
Even the rest of the Five Eyes a.k.a. America's lap dogs are casting a wary eye towards
this unholy alliance, and avoid outright support for Israel. Netanyahu has let his new found
power, i.e. America's muscles, gone to his head. He's digging a grave for himself, turning
Israel more and more into a pariah state with each passing day.
I'm guessing chess is not Trump's strong suit, nor any of the Israel Firsters (incl. Pence
& Pompeo) hanging around him. They're all letting their new found power go to their
collective heads. Things are going to backfire on them sooner or later.
@wayfarer
"Trump panders to his base at the Republican Jewish Coalition."
The trouble is, the Republican Jewish Coalition was never his base. These people were the
biggest Trump haters until he got elected. Now they're just holding their noses to buy power
through him.
Meanwhile, the real Trump's base could care less about Israel, and are frankly disgusted
with his foreign policy and complete failure on immigration.
So newly reelected Israeli monster-in-chief Benjamin Netanyahu
has boasted , with a grin, that America's President Donald J. Trump followed through on his
proposal to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist group. Bibi was
smiling because the timing of the move, one day before the Israeli election, strongly suggests
it was done to assist him against what had become a very strong opposition challenge. That
Trump likely colluded with Netanyahu to blatantly interfere in the election has apparently
bothered no one in Israel or in the tame American media.
The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute
Israel for war crimes, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, removing the word "occupation"
from the State Department's assessments of human rights infringements on the West Bank,
eliminating relief funding for Palestinian refugees, leaving the U.N. Human Rights Council
because it was too critical of Israel, and looking the other way as Israel declared itself a
state only for Jews. Washington also ignored the bombing of hospitals, schools and water
treatment infrastructure in Gaza while Israeli army snipers were shooting unarmed demonstrators
demanding their freedom.
The labeling of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group is particularly disturbing as
it means that the United States military by virtue of the Authorization to Use Military Force
(AUMF) now has a mandate to attack the IRGC wherever it appears, including in Syria or even in
the waterway the Straits of Hormuz, where the guard has regular patrols in small boats. It is a
de facto declaration of war and it comes on top of a number of deliberate provocations
directed against Iran starting with the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement Joint
Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) one year ago, which led to the unilateral imposition of
harsh sanctions directed against the Iranian economy to bring about a popular uprising as well
as regularly repeated false claims that Iran is the leading "state sponsor of terrorism." Next
month, the U.S. will begin enforcing a unilaterally declared worldwide sanction on any and all
Iranian oil sales.
Netanyahu pledged to annex Israeli settlements on the largely Palestinian West Bank if
elected, which is undoubtedly a move cleared in advance with the Trump team of foreign policy
sociopaths as it de facto puts an end to any delusional speculation over a possible
two-state negotiated solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict. It will also lead to a massive
upsurge in violence as the Palestinians object, which is neither a concern for the White House
or Netanyahu, as they are assuming that it can be suppressed by overwhelming force directed
against an almost completely unarmed civilian population.
And Trump will no doubt expect Bibi to return the favor when he is running for reelection in
2020 by encouraging American Jews who care about Israel to support the Republicans. Trump is
focused on his own electability and is absolutely shameless about his betrayal of actual
American interests in the Middle East, possibly because he has no inkling of the actual damage
that he is doing.
His speech last week before the casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson-hosted Jewish
Republican Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas was a disgusting pander to a group
that includes many key players who have little or no concern for what happens to the United
States as long as Israel flourishes. The only good news that came out of the meeting was that
Adelson himself appears to be "gravely ill."
Trump at times appeared to be speaking to what he thought was a group of Israelis,
referring to "your prime minister" when mentioning Benjamin Netanyahu and several times
describing Israel as "yours," suggesting that deep down he understands that many American Jews
are more loyal to Israel than to the United States. At another point, Trump declared that "The
Democrats have even allowed the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root
in their party and their country," apparently part of a White House plan to keep playing that
card to turn American Jews and their political donations in a Republican direction before
elections in 2020.
Trump also told the Republican Coalition audience how he came to a decision on recognizing
Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. He described how
"he'd been speaking to his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, as well as U.S.
ambassador to Israel David Friedman and his Israel adviser, Jason Greenblatt, over the phone
about an unrelated issue when he suddenly brought up the Golan Heights." Trump shared how "I
said, 'Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a lot of
things I'm working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie.' After the advisers filled him
in, Trump said he asked Friedman: 'David, what do you think about me recognizing Israel and the
Golan Heights?' Friedman, apparently surprised by the suggestion, reacted like a 'wonderful,
beautiful baby,' Trump said, and asked if he would 'really do that.' 'Yeah, I think I'm doing
it right now. Let's write something up,' Trump said he responded, prompting applause and cheers
from his audience in Las Vegas. 'We make fast decisions and we make good decisions.'"
Putting the Trump story about the Golan Heights in some kind of context is not really
that difficult. He wanted an answer to please Netanyahu and he went to three Orthodox Jews who
support the illegal Israeli settlements and have also individually contributed financially to
their growth so he was expecting the response that he got. That he was establishing a
precedent by his moves on Jerusalem and the Golan apparently did not occur to him as his
administration prides itself on having a foreign policy vision that extends no longer than the
beginning of next week, which is why he hired Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams. And
then there is always the doleful Stephen Miller lurking in the background as well as the three
musketeers of Kushner, Greenblatt and Friedman for really serious questions relating to why
acceding to the wishes of parasite state Israel should continue to be the apparent number one
priority of the government of the United States.
Donald Trump neither poses nor answers the question why he feels compelled to fulfill all
of the campaign pledges he made to the Jewish community, which by and large did not vote for
him, while failing to carry out the promises made to those who actually did support him .
The absurd Jewish Republican Coalition narrative about how Trump gave Israel the Golan Heights
should have resulted in a flood of opprobrium in the U.S. media about his profound ignorance
and fundamental hypocrisy, but there was largely silence.
The nonsense going on in Las Vegas in front of a lot of fat cats who regard the United
States as little more than a cash cow that they control as well as in the White House itself
unfortunately has real world consequences. America is being led by the nose by a
well-entrenched and powerful group of Israeli loyalists and this will not end well. The
U.S. doesn't even have a Middle Eastern foreign policy anymore – it has a "to do" list
handed by Netanyahu to whomever is president. The fact that the current man in charge in
Washington is either so ignorant or so deluded as to allow the process to escalate until the
U.S. is drawn into yet more catastrophic wars is beyond regrettable. U.S. foreign policy should
not depend on the perceptions of Kushner and company. It should be based on real, tangible
American interests, not those of Israel. Someone should explain that to the president.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based
U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address
is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].
The gift from Washington came on top of recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, threatening members of the International Criminal Court if they try to prosecute
Israel for war crimes
It reminds me of the following agreements concluded during the Bush era:
US Bilateral Exemption Agreements
"The Bush Administration is actively opposed to the International Criminal Court. Its
insistence on placing all Americans above international law risks undermining the ICC in its
earliest and most fragile years. Currently, the State Department is pushing individual
countries to conclude bilateral agreements with the US, exempting all Americans (and even
some non-nationals) from accountability for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war
crimes . These proposed agreements, in the form requested by the US government, are
illegal under the Rome Statute and are not required by US law.
· The European Union has concluded that "Entering into US agreements – as
presently drafted would be inconsistent with ICC States Parties' obligations with regard to
the ICC Statute and may be inconsistent with other international agreements."
To bring the US proposal back within the legal scope of Article 98(2), the EU would
require four modifications:
· No impunity: A guarantee that the US would investigate and potentially prosecute
the accused in its domestic courts.
· No reciprocity: Nationals of ICC States Parties must be excluded from
coverage.
· No universal scope: These agreements can only cover persons officially sent on
government business by a State.
· Ratification: The agreement must be approved according to the constitutional
procedures of each individual state.
Soon after WWII, U.S. statesman Dean Acheson warned that creating Israel on land already
inhabited by Palestinians would "imperil" both American and all Western interests in the
region. Despite warnings such as this one, President Truman supported establishing a Jewish
state on land primarily inhabited by Muslims and Christians.
Few Americans today are aware that U.S. support enabled the creation of modern Israel.
Even fewer know that U.S. politicians pushed this policy over the forceful objections of top
diplomatic and military experts.
As this work demonstrates, these politicians were bombarded by a massive pro-Israel
lobbying effort that ranged from well-funded and very public Zionist organizations to an
"elitist secret society" whose members included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
Against Our Better Judgment brings together meticulously sourced evidence to illuminate a
reality that differs starkly from the prevailing narrative. It provides a clear view of the
history that is key to understanding one of the most critically important political issues of
our day.
Interview with Scholar and Journalist, Mark Bruzonsky. Mark Bruzonsky, a Jewish, American
Scholar and Journalist, has been a key member behind the scenes of the Israeli Palestinian
peace initiative in the 1980s, meeting with Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and with
Palestinian officials. In this exclusive interview with Press TV's Autograph, Mr. Bruzonsky
talks about the challenges and missed opportunities he witnessed first-hand, and how Zionist
groups infiltrated American politics, US institutions and organizations. He goes further to
explain the specific time and day Obama sold out to the AIPAC lobby, and how President Obama
would never dare oppose the stronghold of the Zionist, Israeli Lobby in the US.
"... Great description of the kind of panic I'm sure the network heads were feeling. Would love to hear the anxious chatter in the board rooms of how to disseminate it, how to selectively cut and edit clips for their own narrative, how to twist his words to tarnish him, etc (hope the Bernie folks only agreed under the direction that they'd get the whole video also). ..."
"... The campaign website, Pete for America, doesn't feature a policy section, something that has caught the attention of critics who say Buttigieg is an empty suit ..."
"... From the New York Times today: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum ..."
Fox News Crowd CHEERING LOUDLY at Bernie's Town Hall, For Gov't-Run Healthcare, Taxing
the Rich, Protecting SS, etc.
Mark from Queens on Mon, 04/15/2019 - 8:11pm I ain't got much to say here.
Just perusing Twitter and #BernieTownHall is trending, though obviously being overshadowed by
the Notre Dame fire.
And while I don't believe much in electoral politics the message here, the
evidence that the divide and conquer bullshit isn't as effective as we've been led to
believe, the fact that when asked people on the Right do want many of the same
things we want - are all something to behold.
We all know that here. But to actually witness that is always a good reminder, and goes a
long way to dissolving the manufactured divisions that the corporate media manipulates.
Here's some clips and commentary about Bernie's Fox town hall tonight:
Should we raise the minimum wage to a living wage? Yes!
Should we rebuild our crumbling infrastructure? Yes!
Should we ensure veterans get health care they earned? Yes!
Should we protect Social Security and Medicare? Yes!
If you think Bernie isn't doing WORK converting some right leaning fence sitters watching
this Fox News town hall you're delusional. Even if it's just 5% of the audience at home it's
worth it. This is why you engage instead of shame! #BernieTownHall
When propaganda spectacularly blows up in the face of the propagandists it is something
hopeful, at the very least.
Imagine being the CEO of United Healthcare or BlueCross and watching all the money you
spent trying to scare people away from Medicare for All blow up this spectacularly
#BernieTownHall
. pic.twitter.com/gOmmKAXzt0
. . . who emphasize Bernie has less than 30% of the votes in polls (less than the 50% + 1
delegate required to get the nomination) that delegates are awarded by states via primaries
(different formulas), not by total US % vote. So, he can possibly even pull it off on the
first ballot, before the superdelegates' votes kick in.
There really is a chance to pull it off this time! Especially if Bernie does well in the
early primaries and on the newly early Super Tuesday, March 3, 2020.
And for those emphasizing that it's still early. . . the debates start in June, only about
two months away.
When propaganda spectacularly blows up in the face of the propagandists it is
something hopeful, at the very least.
Imagine being the CEO of United Healthcare or BlueCross and watching all the money
you spent trying to scare people away from Medicare for All blow up this spectacularly
#BernieTownHall
. pic.twitter.com/gOmmKAXzt0
I enjoyed these snippets, and particularly how Bret constantly looked like he was debating
pulling a fire alarm to break up this cheerfest or to just run and leave the cohost to deal
with it.
Great description of the kind of panic I'm sure the network heads were feeling. Would love to
hear the anxious chatter in the board rooms of how to disseminate it, how to selectively cut
and edit clips for their own narrative, how to twist his words to tarnish him, etc (hope the
Bernie folks only agreed under the direction that they'd get the whole video also).
This kind of thing blows their whole Us vs. Them cover. They'll probably not be doing this
again.
@Le Frog
"Someone interrupt the cheering, for Gawd Sakes! Change the subject! Cut to commercial!
Anything!"
The UnitedHealth employee who leaked The Post this video says: "I felt Americans needed
to know exactly who it is that's fighting against the idea that healthcare is a right, not
a privilege." https://t.co/fQAXmVTmdf
The campaign website, Pete for America, doesn't feature a policy section, something that
has caught the attention of critics who say Buttigieg is an empty suit -- or, in his case,
empty dress pants plus a white or blue shirt with the sleeves rolled up (tie, but no
blazer). Buttigieg talks in specifics about the Electoral College (he wants to get rid of
it) and the Supreme Court (he imagines an extreme reconfiguration, with 15 judges instead
of nine, five of them confirmed by unanimous vote of the other ten, a way of ensuring
nonpartisanship, he says). On other matters, he is less detailed. "I'm very specific on
policy. I just think that we need to talk about values first. You can't just expect people
to be able to derive your values by looking at the minutiae of your policy proposals," he
told me.
So what are Pete Buttigieg's proposed policies? I gather he's trying to get a toehold on
the "surprise me" vote. Oh, and policy is "minutiae," not the life-or-death matter for
millions which it in fact is.
@Mark from Queens
It's too bad Bernie will probably never get live time on Fox again, and that the DNC idiots
refused to have a debate on Fox. We all had stories of Republicans who liked Bernie in 2016,
even those who would have voted for him over Trump. Democrats just cannot bring themselves to
admit that the reason 2016 played out the way it did wasn't Vladimir Putin's fault, it was
Hillary Clinton's.
Moron Beltway gasbags think that winning over Republican votes requires a conservative or
a racist. No, it requires somebody with authenticity who wants to help average voters.
Trump's scam has been played, and a lot of his 2016 voters won't fall for it again. As in
2016, Dems will lose if they run a milquetoast corporate poser. And as in 2016, they'll try
their damnedest to do just that.
There is no question that Fox News hates Bernie Sanders. Without a doubt Fox News hates the
idea of Medicare For All. So when Bernie has a Town Hall on Fox, you can bet that they wanted
to make him look bad. If you read
Fox's review of the Town Hall that is exactly what happened.
Except that isn't what happened.
What actually happened is that Fox moderator Bret Baier made the unforgivable mistake of
asking the audience - a Fox News audience - what they thought of Medicare For All, and
the reaction
was poetry.
Medicare for All May Be Cheaper For Employers, But They Still Don't Like It
This is HUUUGE!
Medicare For All wouldn't just be great for the working class, it would probably be great for
small businesses. Why haven't I heard more about this? It would immediately bump the approval
rating for MFA by 10%-15%-20% in red states.
which
you can find here , I learned that the crowd was booing the Fox News host for some of
their questions, one being a slimy insinuation that Bernie wanted to let felons vote
because it would help him . They also chanted Bernie's name after his closing remarks
(reminiscent of the NY debate).
I hope FOX seizes the opportunity to, at least in part, reinvent itself under the radar
and appeal to a broader demographic. FOX could carve out a new market niche occupying
pro-Bernie populist territory, where other networks fear to tread.
A lot of FOX viewers are probably economically hard-pressed. It ain't a Bloomberg or CNBC
audience we're talking about here.
#8
Boy, all those centrist assholes were right, it was totally a bad move for Sanders to go
on Fox News for a townhall. What an embarrassing look for him, right?
having Bernie do that town hall. Meanwhile, things at CNN are disgusting. The blatant
anti-Bernie agenda is burning like a thousand suns over there. The bias is so obvious but
it's so strange to watch unfold. I just watched FOX host Bernie Sanders, with a FOX-curated
audience chanting BERNIE! BERNIE! while CNN trashes him. I'm not saying CNN is a bastion of
fair coverage and a beacon of the left, but this is madness in real time.
Last night I was writing about this huge swathe of people across the nation -- the
unrepresented and silenced Left -- who are stepping out into the light once more to show
their strength and support for humane and intelligent national policies that benefit all of
the people equally. They are out there and they know what they want.
Outrageous criminal greed among the ruling class is what is fueling the rise of the
American Left. The Intelligence Cartel thinks an intense round of anti-communist fear and
propaganda blasted across the general population will shut the Left down. The think the
brainwashed centrists and corporate media will chase them back into their marginalized
existence. It's always worked before.
The Democrat leaders, standing the ruins of their shattered Hoax, are not so sure this
time. That's why they pushed a crowd of Democratic contenders into the race to dilute the
focus on inconvenient issues. Fifteen years ago, these new candidates would have all looked
promising -- but the betrayal of the neoliberals who screwed and exploited and abandoned the
working class changed all that. Now, people want their share of government protection against
the terrible economic downturns that the corruption of Wall Street and War Street have dumped
on them -- and their families. They want their human right to a safe and healthy life, for
starters. They want food for their hungry children and a roof over their heads, no matter
what.
@Pluto's Republic but in a lot of ways protection from government. The conservatives
have built their creds on the horror of "I'm from the government, I'm here to help" but in
the end no matter who's in control the real horror has been "I'm from the government". It's
why most people see no difference between the r's and d's. Neither will do them any good and
both misread the support from their "base". The r's and d's serve their masters and it's why
elections have devolved into the farce it is.
@gulfgal98 his potential cross appeal. And it was in his favor that he didn't go
after Biden on the progressive question. Bernie is better off running an issues-only campaign
in his competition with the other Ds; let the people decide who is truly progressive by their
policies and their record.
He also did well in not running from the socialism tag, not that he has much choice. He
will need to continue doing this as this country has been conditioned for decades to
associate it with the hammer and sickle. Continued de-conditioning will be needed.
Also a positive was his feisty, fighting spirit in calling out some of the low-blow
questions, esp the cheap shot from the female moderator about Bernie wanting rapists and
murderers to be able to vote for him. My sense is this sort of tough, punch-back approach is
going to resonate better with voters than the soft, polite, confrontation-averse types which
the DP has so many of.
So overall a very good showing by the Bernmeister, a needed small victory for the D side,
and for the moment that other issue, which didn't come up last night, is on the back
burner.
@gulfgal98 but people were once FDR Democrats. They strongly support social security
and decent wages. They are damned mad that their jobs have been shipped out of the country,
and that their children's prospects are worse than theirs. They will never be corporate
friendly. The Democratic Party left them, but they are not corporate Republicans.
There is the Bernie that I love.
I did not realize how much I needed to see that until I was watching it with tears running
down my face.
I will admit that I was having serious doubts because of how he jumped in the Russiagate boat
and how he seemed to be on the wrong side of the Venezuela issue.
I don't have those doubts anymore.
When talking about the MIC, more than once he said "we have to have a strong defense". I
totally agree, but that's it - just defense. Cut that budget in half (or more) and there's
still plenty for defense - just not enough to set up a base in every country that they are
able to so.
When he mentioned the 12 year deadline is when the tears really started to flow. Have any of
the other candidates even acknowledged that deadline?
I have never voted in my life. If Bernie is not cheated again and he gets on the ballot, I
will register and I will cast my first vote ever. I bet I'm not the only one.
"There's a growing realization that Sanders could end up winning this thing, or
certainly that he stays in so long that he damages the actual winner," said David Brock,
the liberal organizer,
From the New York Times today: 'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are Agonizing Over His
Momentum
@MrWebster
That is what I was thinking. Fox certainly knows how to stack an event like this. How could
they possibly have failed to vet the audience members? On the other hand we saw an interview
a couple of weeks ago with an "average Joe" in a greasy spoon somewhere in the rust belt who
was all on board for (I think it was) Medicare for All.
Maybe their screens are faulty. They are making the mistake of screening for labels (are you
a Republican? are you a conservative? did you vote for Trump?) and are themselves so
ideologically blinded that they don't realize that even people who self-describe with all
those labels still want New Deal policies?
Maybe they have an agenda. Visibly TRY but clearly FAIL to discredit Sanders, to set Sanders
up as the Democratic candidate with the idea that Trump will easily beat him.
Stupid or evil? That's always the question.
In this case I'm coming up with "stupid or stupid".
One of my biggest concerns about the 2016 Sanders campaign was that, at least at the
beginning, it was too easily forced to apologize for attacks on supposed "allies of
progressives" in the Democratic ecosystem -- because "unity."
The prime example of that occurred when Sanders accused the Planned Parenthood Action Fund
-- not Planned Parenthood the health care organization, Planned Parenthood AF, the highly
Clintonist political action committee, which had early-endorsed Clinton despite Sanders'
excellent record on women's issues -- of being "part of the establishment."
He was immediately accused by the rest of the establishment, falsely, of attacking Planned
Parenthood clinics. And he backed down, unwisely in my view. (For more on that episode, read
the first few
paragraphs of this piece .)
Well, the highly Clintonist, highly corporate establishment is at it again, in the form of
the corrupt
Center for American Progress (CAP) and its online publication ThinkProgress . (For more
on their corruption, see also
here and here .)
ThinkProgress published a video critical of Sanders, as Lee Fang (who also delves into
their corruption) explains here:
In response to that video Sanders sent CAP a letter
, saying in part:
Center for American Progress leader Neera Tanden repeatedly calls for unity while
simultaneously maligning my staff and supporters and belittling progressive ideas. I worry
that the corporate money CAP is receiving is inordinately and inappropriately influencing the
role it is playing in the progressive movement . (emphasis mine)
Team Sanders then went a whole lot further than that in a public fundraising letter, parts
of which are reproduced below. Note the expansion of the "corporate money" point from the CAP
letter, and also the directness (emphasis mine throughout):
"We are under attack"
Sisters, Brothers, and Friends –
Just like that, our campaign is under attack from the corporate establishment .
This week, an organization that is the epitome of the political establishment --
the Center for American Progress (CAP) -- unleashed and promoted an online attack video
against Bernie.
And behind the scenes on the day Bernie introduced his Medicare for All bill, they held a
conference call with reporters attacking the bill.
That is the Center for American Progress' real goal. Trying to stop Medicare for All
and our progressive agenda .
CAP's leadership has been pretty upfront about their disdain for Bernie -- and for all of
us. They see our political revolution as a threat to their privilege and influence
.
The Center for American Progress is an organization whose massive annual budget is
bankrolled by billionaires and corporate executives that profit from finance,
pharmaceutical companies, fossil fuels, and sending American jobs overseas.
Last year alone, they took funding from financial giants like Bank of America and
Blackstone, whose CEO was chair of Trump's business council and is a leading
Republican donor.
Before that, they cashed checks from companies like BlueCross Blue Shield, Pfizer,
WalMart , and defense contractors like General Dynamics and BAE Systems .
They also took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the fossil fuel pumping United
Arab Emirates while the country was bombing innocent civilians in Yemen – a war
Bernie has led the fight to end.
The Center for American Progress has deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families in every zip code. And what we
must do today is send a message that we are prepared to fight back against those who are
working day and night to defeat our movement .
In solidarity,
Team Bernie
That's powerful stuff, no-holds-barred truth-telling. Note the many bells it
rings:
"corporate establishment" "epitome of the political establishment" "real goal stop
Medicare for All and our progressive agenda" "threat to their privilege and influence" "massive
annual budget is bankrolled by billionaires" "deep connections to the economic and political
elites who have done so much damage to working families" "working day and night to defeat our
movement"
The letter also names a few of the companies and countries that bankroll CAP -- Walmart,
Bank of America, Blue Cross, Blackstone, the UAE. He could have listed a great many more. There
are countless stories emerging from former ThinkProgress writers about CAP leadership
squelching aggressive reporting because their reports were negatively affecting CAP
fundraising. Read this twitter thread by former
ThinkProgress reporter Zaid Jilani to see some of those. There are others as well
.
Bernie Sanders is not backing down this time. Unlike 2016, this will be a battle with the
enemy named out loud and its deeds detailed. Looks like the fight, the one our country has been
avoiding for years, is finally on.
I commented about this on another thread to the effect that this is the beginning of a
"Night of the Long Knives" quality power struggle in the Democrat Party.
Glad to see the Sanders campaign being proactive about the dirty dealing that is being used to
try and stop them.
Now for Sanders to start framing the struggle as being between "Their" Democrat Party and "Our"
Democrat Party. Sanders really needs to pull off what Trump managed to do in the Republican
Party; a hostile takeover.
Exactly right. Unlike Trump, however, Bernie will have to do it with the entire corporate
and political establishments against him. And not even a "left" Fox News in his corner. It will
truly be us against (all of) them.
If any democrat wants to be real, they have to attack other democrats, because the democrats
suck.
As a political party, they are so pathetic, they lost to donald trump.
The republicans are vile , and mornic.that is how they appeal to their base ..
So if anything is to be done to try and break the stalemate, it must be the debate of ideas.
Not the battle of personalities , we have now.
The republicans have no real ideas, just worn out tropes. The democratic leadership, go around
"saying", they are progressives ( pelosi interview),but really they are as tired in their way
of thinking as the republicans .
Both groups are not worth a thing.
when pelosi pointed out AOC had a group of five she was being dismissive saying she was
steering a bigger ship democrats of all stripes. even the republicans who won seats as
democrats . but really her and her band of good for nothing democrats, doesn't count for
anything near the five new democrats who are out spoken, and have the good character to be on
the right side of history..
I for one, would vote for anyone who battles the democratic blob of a machine. and anyone who
doesn't have a problem with the democratic party, is un-electable.
Pelosi needs to go.
So sanders should fight the democratic corporatists in the senate, if he is trying to be real.
It is about time he needs that "audacity of hope" thingy.
Bernie is definitely in it to win this time. Last night he crushed it on Fox News. He had
the Fox Town Hall audience cheering and applauding. Yes, Fox News.
It's exactly what both sides of the broken political duopoly feared. Trump's tweet on the
subject bears testament to the latter . The pre #BernieFoxTownHall agita from
pearl-clutching Dem cultists online serves as evidence of the former .
Sanders is staying away from some issues, such as Assange arrest and Venezuela, which has
caused some complaints from the Left. Personally, I think he is being tactical and smart in
that he is attempting to reach the largest portion of the electorate. I doubt that he or his
staff is ignorant on these type issues, but he is set on a goal and does not want to let issues
that might divert his direction toward that goal. Or am I being unduly naïve? I am pretty
skeptical of all politicians, but his consistent history gives me some confidence that he will
be straight on these issues if elected/.
Saying something about two radically different people doesn't logically lead to the same
thing. Obama was great at giving speeches, was a historic candidate and did try to (in a vague
way) make it sound as if he wanted to change the system. He didn't. He pretended to want to
re-negotiate NAFTA, but when the Canadians freaked a bit, his campaign assured them that it was
just talk, cause it was. It was obvious before he took office, to anyone paying attention, that
Obama was a neoliberal that wouldn't change much of anything. But Obama in 2008 is not Bernie
then or now. Obama in 2008 is Beto or mayor Pete now. Empty platitudes, totally cut off from
the struggles of working people, paid to not structurally change what needs to structurally
change by people that benefit from the system as is. Obama was just much better at being that
empty slate than the 2020 version of him. I can almost smell the mayor Pete book deal though,
and I am sure he can too.
Thanks for this comment. I tried to read yesterday's New York piece
on the Democrats' Folksiest Heartland Hope, but between that
mcPhoto at the top, and the conversational, we're-all-in-this
together tone of the writer, stopped after a couple of paras.
The #resistance are all so tired; do they not realize that?
Regarding Mister Obama's speeches, to me they reeked of
hollowness. He had the gestures and cadences down, though.
I think you are not being unduly naive. Watch some of Bernie's videos from the 80ies. He is
very clear eyed about what he's dealing with – and has always said the same thing. He is
being realistic, tactical and smart – raising powerful issues where there is clear daily
pain for the common person that can bring a powerful response – is anyone really
surprised about the Fox audience reaction? (Im only surprised they didnt stack the room with
fakes who would boo him ).
The foreign policy issues are not so clear cut for the common working class person (please
understand that!) and would muddle the message. He finally sees an opening and he is going for
it. He knows what he's doing.
The other thing about Fox is that the owner Murdochs are amoral and apolitical. They go
where the money is. Totally neoliberal. That is all they care about. They know the money train
is coming to a very complex junction and are setting up to go with the money, whether corporate
or little people's.
I think this touches on what could be the most important aspect of a Sanders presidency
– it's not so much the policies (they are important), but the people that would be
brought into government. This letter is an indication that the usual suspects will not be
running the show. In that regard, it could be similar to Reagan's time in office, except way,
way better.
Just got another email from Bernie's campaign. Here it is:
Subject: A serious threat to our campaign
The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats
Are Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't
like me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution
four years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything
our political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up
big banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will
send an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
[Link to donation site] Make a $27 contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency
48-hour fundraising drive to fight back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by
the financial elite of this country. [End link]
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
Well, just moments after reading the NYT article in question, which is quite a doozy, this
popped up in my in box:
"The New York Times has an article today with the headline "'Stop Sanders' Democrats Are
Agonizing Over His Momentum."
"From canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington,
mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried " the article begins.
"The Bernie question comes up in every fundraising meeting I do," said one fundraiser.
"It has gone from being a low hum to a rumble," said an operative.
"He did us a disservice in the last election," said another.
"You can see him reading the headlines now," Mr. [David] Brock mused: "'Rich people don't like
me.'"
Mr. Brock -- who smeared Anita Hill and who led an effort to stop our political revolution four
years ago -- is almost correct. They don't just hate Bernie Sanders. They hate everything our
political revolution embodies. They hate Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, breaking up big
banks, free public college for all.
That is why, in the next 48 hours, we are launching a fundraising drive that I hope will send
an unmistakable message to the political establishment about the strength of our political
revolution.
That's why I'm asking you today:
Make a contribution to our campaign as part of our emergency 48-hour fundraising drive to fight
back against the "anti-Sanders" campaign being hatched by the financial elite of this
country.
They may have "canapé-filled fundraisers." We have each other.
In solidarity,
Faiz Shakir
Campaign Manager
Forgetting nothing, learning nothing. One of the true, primal joys of Bernie's 2016 campaign
was hitting the donate button every time the dollar dems dumped on him.
Likewise. I'm giving every time they dump on him, and again every time he hits back. At this
pace, $27 may get to be too expensive. A good problem to have I'd say.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
We had been inflicted with "Russogate" ad nauseam for the better part of two years and
nothing, absolutely nothing, came of it. But no mention of the Zio-gate where the dog and its
tail reciprocally meddle in each others' election(s) overwhelmingly in favor of Zio-tail
interests. The silence of this issue in the MSM is deafening.
Actually smart Northern European men enabled the very Internet you are using to spread
kosher propaganda.
1. Gottfried Leibniz/German – binary number system.
2. George Boole/English – Boolean logic.
3. Konrad Kuze/German – electronic computer.
4. Donald Davies/Welsh – packet switching.
5. Clifford Cocks/English – public key encryption years before Rivest , Shamir, and
Adleman.
6. Edsger Dijkstra/Dutch – Dijkstra's algorithm and programming.
7. Tim Berners-Lee/English – HTML and http.
8. Håkon Wium Lie/Norwegian – Cascading Style Sheets (CSS).
9. Linus Torvalds/Finn – Linux on which many web servers run. Klaus Knopper/German
– Knoppix Linux variant.
10. Frank Codd/English – relational database model.
11. Michael Widenius/Swede – MySQL on which many web applications run.
12. Kristen Nygaard & Ole-Johan Dahl/Norwegians – object-oriented programming and
Simula programming language.
13. Guido van Rossum/Dutch – Python programming language.
14. Lennart Augustsson/Swede – Haskell programming language.
15. Bjarne Stroustrup/Dane – C++ programming language.
17 Geoffrey Hinton/English – artificial intelligence.
18. Jürgen Dethloff and Helmut Göttrup/Germans – chip card used in mobile
phones plus credit and debit cards.
19. Karlheinz Brandenburg/German – MP3 format.
"... "Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster," Carlson said. "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families isn't worth having." Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve. ..."
"... To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people ..."
"... I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man -- and not the other way around. ..."
"... Free markets can be corrosive of other values or priorities that are important to authentic conservatives: family, faith, and community. We see major corporations promoting social and cultural liberalism, social media monopolies -- all privately owned -- de-platforming conservatives and suppressing their ideas, big business and big government working hand in hand against religion and tradition. ..."
"... "In states such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, countless children are growing up with parents in jail, incapacitated, or underground," writes J.D. Vance in Meyer's publication. "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago, and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years ago?" ..."
"... The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question: what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime. ..."
Capitalist Tool Electoral successes have caused conservatives to lose sight of an important question: what is it that
we are trying to conserve? By TAC Staff
• April 16, 2019
Credit:
Gage Skidmore | Flickr Editor's Note: This editorial was published in the March/April issue of the magazine.
Bernie Sanders. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Tucker Carlson. If one of those names on a list of examples of ascendant socialism strikes
you as out of place, you may have missed weeks of debate on the Right over a reasonable comment made by the popular Fox News host.
"Market capitalism is not a religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster," Carlson said. "Any economic
system that weakens and destroys families isn't worth having." Does this observation make Tucker a socialist? Hardly. As is often
the case, TAC founding editor Patrick J. Buchanan was more than a decade ahead of the curve.
"To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people," Buchanan said in a 1998 speech to the Chicago
Council on Foreign Relations. "I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the
market that must be harnessed to work for man -- and not the other way around."
In practice, conservatives often have worshiped free markets. As John Zmirak argued in these pages in 2003, the need to come up
with a universal ideology that could compete with Marxism led some Cold War conservatives to lose the plot. The early neoconservatives
and their forebears, he writes, "brought with them vast talents, literary learning, and serious moral concern for universal issues
of human rights. But they also carried a strong tendency towards pure abstraction, towards viewing national questions purely in ideological
terms."
The end result was they often "defended America bravely during the Cold War -- but they did so not as our homeland, as the particular
place where a people and their treasured institutions took root, but rather as the (almost accidental) spot where certain ideas had
taken hold."
Similarly, the "fusionist" conception of conservatism propounded by National Review senior editor Frank Meyer sought to
use libertarian means to achieve traditionalist ends. Some conservatives have misconstrued that as a decree that libertarian means
will necessarily achieve traditionalist ends.
We know that to not be the case. Free markets can be corrosive of other values or priorities that are important to authentic conservatives:
family, faith, and community. We see major corporations promoting social and cultural liberalism, social media monopolies -- all
privately owned -- de-platforming conservatives and suppressing their ideas, big business and big government working hand in hand
against religion and tradition.
"In states such as Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, countless children are growing up with parents in jail, incapacitated,
or underground," writes J.D. Vance in Meyer's publication. "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago?"
Among conservatives, there has been a course correction. Since the election of Donald Trump, a Republican president who divides
conservatives, more people on the Right speak of the United States as a homeland rather than a mere abstraction. The global economy
and mass immigration are being subjected to cost-benefit analysis, as champions of the marketplace should have it. There is more
of a willingness to contest the idea that what's good for General Motors is good for conservatives -- or America.
Maybe conservatives will overcorrect, putting too much faith in government, even at the local level, at the expense of free markets.
But fusionists once understood that liberty and virtue, individualism and tradition, are to some extent in tension. Efforts to manage
that balance are necessary but will not always produce a perfect synthesis, a straight line from low marginal tax rates to intact
families.
The periodic electoral successes conservatives have enjoyed since the 1980s have caused us to lose sight of an important question:
what is it that we are trying to conserve? The search for answers is finally ready for primetime.
@The
Alarmist Trump doesn't strike me as someone with principles or opinions of his own. He
will say and do whatever his base of "deplorables" likes to hear and whatever helps him get
what he wants.
To understand how such total control is done, one has to look at the role of banking serfdom,
led by the FED and the central bankers, and media brainwash, run by Hollywood and mainstream
media.
In terms of banking, here is a great explanation, including The City of London that owns
UK:
Prof. Werner brilliantly explains how the banking system and financial sector really
work.
402,668 views
The workings of the monetary system have been a mystery throughout globalisation, which is
why we have had so many financial crises.
The central banks were charged with bringing financial stability, but they didn't
understand it either, so they didn't stand a chance.
The BIS is just as bad and Richard Werner points out the Basel regulations are based on
the assumption that banks are financial intermediaries, but they are not.
The central banks know a bit, but obviously not enough.
Financial stability is a lot easier than it looks when you know what you are doing.
Richard Werner was in Japan in the 1980s when it went from a very stable economy and
turned into a debt fuelled monster. He worked out what happened and had all the clues
necessary to point him in the right direction.
The three types of bank lending:
1) Into business and industry – gives a good return in GDP and doesn't lead to
inflation
2) To consumers – leads to consumer price inflation
3) Into real estate and financial speculation – leads to asset price inflation and
gives a poor return in GDP and shows up in the graph of debt-to-GDP
Bank credit has been used for all the wrong things during globalisation and the bankers
have just been inflating asset prices, not creating real wealth as measured by GDP and this
has caused nearly all the financial crises.
1929 and 2008 stick out like sore thumbs when you know where to look, but the FED
didn't.
i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the
combined Western World, able to control everything?
If you're so smart, then what makes you think it has much to do with smarts? Violence may
trump intelligence in the likely event you haven't figured that out.
@jacques
sheete Please do not try to teach dishonest person about honesty. Dishonest person know
about honesty. He only did figure out that being dishonest is more rewarding than being
honest.
@Thomm Posing
a question without giving it a thought first will backfire. The same question could be asked
of Whites in the Western world: if they are so smart, why are >99% of them totally
controlled by <1%? It is that <1% that is the dog wagged by the Zio-tail.
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for
Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly
considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and
whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is
minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr
Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3)
to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or
for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They
also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they
vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi
Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military
defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to
imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi
friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he
is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks
on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does
not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia.
There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not
need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US
Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side
of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct
Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign?
Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead,
he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of
Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of
Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian
administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the
contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very
high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on
the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may
annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for
anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century
of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors.
Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible
solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
With a nearly 90% approval rating among Republicans, President
Trump's dominance of the party is beyond question. But that doesn't mean some of the lingering
#NeverTrumpers who tried, and failed, to stop him in 2016 won't give their Quixotic quest one
last go.
John Kasich, long considered the most likely candidate to challenge Trump for the 2020
nomination, has already admitted that "I can't beat him", and Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan,
another credible challenger from what's left of the party's moderate wing, has ruled out a
run.
But apparently Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, best known nationally for being Libertarian
Party candidate Gary Johnson's running mate in 2016, thinks he has a shot to bet Trump in the
Republican primary.
The former governor announced on Monday that he plans to challenge Trump, whose campaign has
already raised $30 million for his reelection run, dwarfing the sums raised by even the most
popular Democratic challengers, for the 2020 nomination.
Please note that unz.com used be forum of stalwart Trump supporters. Times change.
Notable quotes:
"... This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the world, invade the world. ..."
"... One doesn't have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions. ..."
"... You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it. ..."
"... Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option? ..."
"... Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good option. That's still true today. ..."
This will at least wake up those morons at places like Breitbart that Trump is nothing more
than a neocon swine. I mean how much more evidence do they need to see that he is invite the
world, invade the world.
On top of that mass censorship being unleashed under Trump, how can anyone still be conned
into supporting him.
@Colin
Wright For one, its not reposing any confidence, faith, and trust in DJT. He is a
charlatan who appeals to low IQ whites.
Why do so many intelligent people delude themselves into rationalizing their support and
vote for Trump upon the basis of the lesser of two evils loser mindset?
Look at the labor participation numbers. Worse under Trump than under the Kenyan
mulatto.
Look at the rate the debt is increasing. Look at the total increase in the debt since the
serial adulterer took office.
Look at the surge in immigration under this congenital prevaricator.
One doesn't
have to be stupid to support Trump but it helps. The same can be said for his prominent
enemies though. To unconditionally and faithfully support Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Nancy
Pelosi, one would have to be stupid or totally controlled by one's emotions.
That being said, a smart person could still support Trump. A smart person could recognize
Trump finishing his term as the least bad option. In 2020, this same smart person might
recognize that, amazingly, a Trump second term had become the least bad option. People can
scream and throw around insults or they can present an alternative to Trump.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that Stalin's maxim, "its not who votes that counts, its
who counts the votes" controls?
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
@Liberty MikeWouldn't
a smart person recognize that his vote does not matter?
You and I are voting right now just by publicly engaging in politics. Voting on election
day is worth it in the same way posting comments online is worth it.
Wouldn't a smart person recognize that falling for a grifter who cares not about Heritage
America and who dances to Bibi's tune is never a good option?
Yes. But during the election, Trump was the least bad option who sometimes seemed like a good
option. That's still true today.
US neocons motto as expressed by Ledeen, who was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende : "Every ten years or so, the United States
needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". ..."
The US foreign policy is defined by interests of neoliberals and neocons, or to be exact by interests of multinational corporations,
who are not necessary led by Jews ;-). The whole discussion of the US foreign policy via the lens of Jew/non-Jew dichotomy is far from
the best approach to this problem.
While it is true that a large number of neocons end even some "economic nationalists" like Steve Bannon identify with Israel. But
the real allegiance of neocons is not to Israel. It is to many from American MIC. In this sense, neither chickenhawk Michael
Ledeen (a second rate figure at best, without much political influence), no chickenhawk Bill Kristol (third rate figure, with little
or no political influence at all), but Senator McCain and Dick Cheney are proper examples of really dangerous neocons.
Yes, neocons has a large, sometimes decisive influence on the US foreign policy. But this is because they are neoliberals with the
gun, political prostitutes serving MIC interests, not so much because some of them are "Israel-firsters"
(this term is not without problems,
although it denotes Jewish nationalists pretty well, see an interesting discussion in
The Volokh Conspiracy )
Notable quotes:
"... Netanyahu is making an alliance with even the anti-Semitic Western alt-right, with the instinct to show all other Jews that Israel is their only home & safe haven ..."
"... I suppose Ledeen still believes what he said fifteen years ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still young and dewy-fresh: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business". ..."
"... This even became known as "The Ledeen Doctrine"; I am sure he is very proud. ..."
"... Perhaps today he thinks Iran is a suitable "small crappy little country". If so, he is very badly mistaken. Ledeen was involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende, I believe. I refer you to Louis Wolfe's "Counterspy," the magazine of the 1970′s. ..."
"... Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. ..."
"... Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout. ..."
"... The Jewish individuals named by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy Jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed and which promoted. ..."
"... I think solidarity and internationalism are the best weapons against militarism and imperialism. ..."
"... You'd be on the right track if you started paying attention to the central American goal since 1945 of keeping Middle Eastern oil in the hands of obedient governments within the American orbit, so it can serve as a non-Russian/non-Soviet, American-controlled source of energy for American allies (and economic competitors) in Europe and Japan. ..."
"... Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or maimed - not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir. Politicians continually rely on that undercurrent of nationalist chuavinism, and it never lets them down. ..."
"... A courageous article and spot on. Once again I'm thankful for Ron Unz and the Unz Review. You would never read such an article in the MSM. ..."
"... So now US troops are suddenly bombing "ISIS" in Syria while supplying "rebels" with arms, even though by the CIA's own admission most of the arms supplied have fallen into the hands of ISIS since the rebels joined forces with them. ..."
"... Nikki Haley might as well be renamed Israel's ambassador to the UN. Every time that daft woman opens her mouth the US is in danger of going to war with somebody, usually on behalf of Israel. ..."
"... There's a place for using the term "Zionist" and a place for using the term "Jew" (the two are most certainly not interchangeable). The wider Zionist Israel Lobby in the US is certainly a big problem, but there is also the problem of Jewish nationalists being disproportionately represented in the US foreign policy, media and political elites, while their likely nationalist ulterior motives are not mentioned and are largely unnoticed because of the prevailing taboo against mentioning it.. ..."
"... Bill Kristol appearing on c-span to push, agitate for the 2nd Iraq war was asked by a caller if he had served in the (U.S.) military. Kristol said he had not served but had a friend(s) who had and that he served in other ways. When a country drafts into the military, can one get out of service by saying, "My friend served"? ..."
"... I supported and voted for Trump as well. I don't like his neocon turn now, but which candidate in that election (save for Rand Paul and possibly Jill Stein) wouldn't have declared a non-fly zone in Syria and actively supported the overthrow of Assad? ..."
"... Bernie Sanders (a scary Jew!) wasn't nearly as anti-imperialist as I would have liked him to be, but I doubt he would have attacked Assad regime forces 6 times like Trump has by this point, and certainly not without Congressional approval (which he probably wouldn't have gotten, even if he had wanted it). ..."
"... Even under Hillary, the Iran deal would have stood a better chance, since she was at least verbally committed to it (unlike even Rand Paul), and there would have been Obama loyalists within the Clinton administration who would have been desperate to preserve Obama's signature foreign policy achievement (and one of the only worthwhile ones, in my opinion, along with restoration of diplomatic ties with Cuba). ..."
"... How is the article's factual content fundamentally different from the similar content of the Haaretz article linked by Greg Bacon in post 21 above? Is the Haaretz piece "unhinged and bigoted"? ..."
"... "The USA is a colony of Israel". Fake News Story. Now, let us assume that to be true. What are personally doing about this situation? What active measures are you taking to free yourself from the shackles of your oppressor? Or, are simply impotent while taking it good and hard? ..."
@Brabantian
Yet, in a classic, paradox-tinged pro-Israel loop-back, the 'alt-Right' and 'white nationalist' movement, is increasing positive
links with security-fence-building, also-ethnic-nationalist Israel:
US alt-right leader, Richard Spencer, appeared on Israeli TV last month to call himself a "white Zionist"
The above from an interesting
article by British activist and Nazareth, Palestine resident Jonathan Cook , speaking of how Israel's Netanyahu is making
an alliance with even the anti-Semitic Western alt-right, with the instinct to show all other Jews that Israel is their only home
& safe haven ... and hence the 'progressive' Jews should abandon any support for boycott of Israel or for Palestinian rights:
The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly called on all Jews to come to Israel, claiming it as the only safe haven from an
immutable global anti-semitism. And yet, Mr Netanyahu is also introducing a political test before he opens the door.
Jews supporting a boycott of Israel are already barred. Now, liberal Jews and critics of the occupation like Mr Soros are
increasingly not welcome either. Israel is rapidly redefining the extent of the sanctuary it offers – for Jewish supremacists
only.
For Mr Netanyahu may believe he has much to gain by abandoning liberal Jews to their fate, as the alt-right asserts its
power in western capitals.
The "white Zionists" are committed to making life ever harder for minorities in the West in a bid to be rid of them. Sooner
or later, on Mr Netanyahu's logic, liberal Jews will face a reckoning. They will have to accept that Israel's ultra-nationalists
were right all along, and that Israel is their only sanctuary.
Guided by this cynical convergence of interests, Jewish and white supremacists are counting on a revival of anti-Semitism
that will benefit them both.
Yet, in a classic, paradox-tinged pro-Israel loop-back, the 'alt-Right' and 'white nationalist' movement, is increasing
positive links with security-fence-building, also-ethnic-nationalist Israel
Steve Bannon and his supposed alt-right rag Breitbart are incredibly pro-Israel. I supposed it has something to do with its
founder Andrew Breitbart being a Jew. Every time Trump or Nikki Haley says something nasty about Iran, you'll get plenty of Breitbart
commenters echoing their sentiment egging them on, you can tell by their inane comments many have no idea why they should hate
Iran, other than Breitbart told them to.
They've fully bought into the Breitbart narrative that Iran is evil and must be destroyed. The Trump fan boys/girls who continue
to blindly support him despite all his betrayals are every bit as stupid as the libtards they claim to hate.
@Tom Welsh
"And I would add a few more names, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen and Reuel Marc Gerecht..."
I suppose Ledeen still believes what he said fifteen years ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were still young
and dewy-fresh: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show the world we mean business".
This even became known as "The Ledeen Doctrine"; I am sure he is very proud.
Perhaps today he thinks Iran is a suitable "small crappy little country". If so, he is very badly mistaken. Ledeen was
involved with CIA & overthrow of Allende, I believe. I refer you to Louis Wolfe's "Counterspy," the magazine of the 1970′s.
I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including
Trump himself.
Which certainly doesn't mean there isn't a particular problem, exactly as Giraldi describes it with plenty of sound supporting
examples, of dual loyalty jews pushing wars that favour Israel.
In fact, the reality is that Giraldi might be guilty of, at most, overstatement, but since a large part of the problem is precisely
that any reference at all to the problem is suppressed, one might expect an honest opponent of the US's military interventionism
to temper his criticism of Giraldi's piece appropriately. For whatever reason, instead, you seem to feel the need to hysterically
accuse it as though it contains no truth whatsoever.
What gives?
Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which
isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews.
Of course, the Israel Lobby
is much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas
about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.
That's another problem, but it doesn't make the problem highlighted by Giraldi not a problem. The Jewish individuals named
by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy
Jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed
and which promoted.
"What gives" is that I think lunatic screeds about "America's Jews" (like Noam Chomsky?) manipulating foreign policy do damage
to the anti-war cause. I think solidarity and internationalism are the best weapons against militarism and imperialism.
Of course, the Israel Lobby is much bigger than just Jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders
into believing fatuous ideas about Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot
of its political clout.
That's slightly better than the 1-dimensional Joo-paranoia, but it doesn't begin to describe the problem.
You'd be on the right track if you started paying attention to the central American goal since 1945 of keeping Middle Eastern
oil in the hands of obedient governments within the American orbit, so it can serve as a non-Russian/non-Soviet, American-controlled
source of energy for American allies (and economic competitors) in Europe and Japan.
I am glad you think Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. Yet it doesn't square with your earlier statement which reads " I'm glad
they have the capability, if need be, to destroy the hostile military bases that encircle them ". There are no scenarios in
which Iran could destroy US bases without changing the meaning of the word "suicidal", is there?
Before you decide to label as sociopath, anyone who proposes a worldview grounded in reality, you might think long and hard
about the multitude of paths this world can take under the scenario of a wholesale withdrawal of U.S. presence in the Gulf. Most
one hears on this forum, including your own, reduce to precious nothing over virtue signaling.
Like it or not the world is never going to assume the shape of a collection of nations equal in power, interests and endowments.
Hoping for that is to live in a state of delusion.
U.S. does not wish to go on an offensive mission against Iran . Far from it; yet facilitating her allies' aspirations
to join the American vision isn't one we are about to walk away from. That is not chest beating. It is eminently in evidence from
the number of nations wishing to join the Western economic and cultural model. I am keenly aware of the lunatics on this forum
who believe they'd be perfectly happy to embrace other cultures, I can only invite them to make haste.
Spare me the rest of your sanctimony.
"I'm glad they have the capability, if need be, to destroy the hostile military bases that encircle them". There are no
scenarios in which Iran could destroy US bases without changing the meaning of the word "suicidal", is there?
In the case of a defensive war with United States, there sure would be. At that point Iran would not have much hope but to
inflict as much damage as possible on the aggressor. Although Iran does not nearly have the ability to fully reciprocate the harm
the US can inflict on it, it hopefully has the capability to inflict enough damage so that an offensive war against it would be
intolerable to the US. That's how deterrence works.
U.S. does not wish to go on an offensive mission against Iran.
If that's true, and I sincerely hope it is, it's because Iran has sufficient deterrent capacity, which includes not only the
anti-ship missiles in the Gulf, but also Hezbollah's arsenal of ~130,000 short, medium and long-range rockets capable of reaching
every square inch of Israeli territory.
Believe me, I'm a realist. You don't have to lecture me on the reality of aggressive rogue nations.
@Tom Welsh
Nope. As far as I know, he was being perfectly serious.
And that is exactly the way the power elite think - although they are usually much more cautious about speaking their mind
in public.
Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed
or maimed - not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling
of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir. Politicians continually rely on that
undercurrent of nationalist chuavinism, and it never lets them down.
Anyway, the American public has shown many times that it really doesn't give a rat's ass about foreigners being killed or
maimed – not three of them, not three million of them. Foreigners might as well be bugs. What really matters is that feeling
of power and superiority: their country is Top Nation and can whip anyone else, yes sir.
True words sir!
The evil empire sustains itself primarily through this attitude of its people. It does not matter how the Jews connive to shape
it. Only thing that matters is that they buy into it without exercising their conscience.
Americans, remember, such glory has a cost. You will find soon enough that a cancerous soul is too high a price to be "Top
Nation," for essentially a blink in cosmic time.
A courageous article and spot on. Once again I'm thankful for Ron Unz and the Unz Review. You would never read such an
article in the MSM.
The late Samuel Huntington said in his amazing book Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order that Saudi
Arabia and Iran are fighting for supremacy in the Islamic world. Syria is a proxy war between the two countries. Now Israel has
become BFF with Saudi Arabia because they too want a piece of Syria, for the oil reserve in the Golan Heights. So now US troops
are suddenly bombing "ISIS" in Syria while supplying "rebels" with arms, even though by the CIA's own admission most of the arms
supplied have fallen into the hands of ISIS since the rebels joined forces with them.
Make no mistake Jews and Arabs run this country. That is why Trump went to Israel and SA for his first foreign trip, he knows
who America's daddy is, even if most Americans are still in the dark.
His entire administration is crawling with Israel loving Jews, starting with his son-in-law the most loyal son of Israel. Even
Steve Bannon and Breitbart are crazy gung ho pro-Israel. Nikki Haley might as well be renamed Israel's ambassador to the UN.
Every time that daft woman opens her mouth the US is in danger of going to war with somebody, usually on behalf of Israel.
When was the last time Iran conducted a jihad against the west? All the Muslim terrorists now attacking the west are Sunnis,
funded by Saudi Arabia. The only time Iran had direct armed conflict with the US was when they kicked us out of Tehran, for trying
to steal their oil. All their beef is with Israel, not with the US. Why are we taking up Israel's cause? Trump is a moron of the
first order and has no understanding of what really goes on in the mideast. He surrounds himself with pro-Israel neocons and Jews
and is easily manipulated. He's stupid and dangerous. I voted for him because he presented himself as someone completely different,
someone anti-war and anti-immigration, now he's a neocon globalist libtard, the worst of all worlds. Someone needs to primary
him out in 2020.
Speaking of unhinged I'd say the sentiment that America has the right to threaten and/or attack other countries to maintain
its "economic interests" is sociopathic. What would you call it? And I didn't say that he personally was in charge of US/Israeli/Saudi
policy towards Iran, if that's what you thought I meant. That would be unhinged. I just said that sociopaths like him
are.
@KBRO [In
comments, allcaps is shouting. Stop shouting or your comments will be trashed.]
RE:
BUSH-CHENEY-CLINTON-TRUMP--MCMASTER--KELLY---AND THE LOT OF THEM ALL AIN'T JEWS:
WELL PUT. GIRALDI IS A MIXED BAG, WRITES SOME GOOD STUFF, BUT IT MISIDENTIFIES THE PROBLEM--THE ENEMY-- BY LABELING IT AS "THE
JEWS". THE NEO-CONS--AND NEO-LIBERALS--WHO DRIVE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND THROUGHOUT THE WORLD COME IN MANY
FLAVORS.
I'M AN ANTI-ZIONIST, AND IT'S CRUCIAL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND I DON'T QUITE GET WHY GIRALDI DOESN'T USE THE TERM ZIONIST.
IT'S CRUCIAL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND I DON'T QUITE GET WHY GIRALDI DOESN'T USE THE TERM ZIONIST
There's a place for using the term "Zionist" and a place for using the term "Jew" (the two are most certainly not interchangeable).
The wider Zionist Israel Lobby in the US is certainly a big problem, but there is also the problem of Jewish nationalists being
disproportionately represented in the US foreign policy, media and political elites, while their likely nationalist ulterior motives
are not mentioned and are largely unnoticed because of the prevailing taboo against mentioning it..
Giraldi is discussing the latter and not the former, and doing a service to the American nation by his taboo-busting.
I wonder where Mr. Giraldi would put David Horowitz on the list? Although Horowitz is not a public policy maker, but rather
an author and blogger, but definitely is a known Jewish voice. I respect Horowitz tremendously because of his background as an
ex-Communist and his dead-on criticism of the American Left, both historically and currently. Although rather knee-jerk in his
defense of Israel, I would not doubt his loyalty to this country one iota.
I do not know if David Horowitz is a dual Israeli-American citizen, but he is not a legislator nor a government policy maker,
so as far as I am concerned, the issue is moot. If one questions the loyalty to America, of Jews or any other group for that matter,
the issue of holding dual citizenship while holding certain government offices should be something of concern. Once out of public
office or service, then they can resume their dual citizenship. It makes the issue of loyalty less questionable.
Bill Kristol appearing on c-span to push, agitate for the 2nd Iraq war was asked by a caller if he had served in the (U.S.)
military. Kristol said he had not served but had a friend(s) who had and that he served in other ways. When a country drafts into
the military, can one get out of service by saying, "My friend served"?
reckon his serving in other ways was/is lying and pushing for wars for his real country israel. Truth hurts, America.
Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed during the Vietnam War, 270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent or less
than a half of one-percent.
Guess they were too busy partying in college, while pursuing their law degrees.
During the Vietnam war the U.S. selective service system gave deferments to those attending college, which delayed their eligibility
for conscription.
"Among partners of the top law firms in New York, I estimate that at least 25% are Jews."
@matt I
didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too, including
Trump himself. Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment
(which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews. It's
not just bigoted, it's a cartoonishly stupid "explanation".
I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews pushing for one too,
including Trump himself.
Which certainly doesn't mean there isn't a particular problem, exactly as Giraldi describes it with plenty of sound supporting
examples, of dual loyalty jews pushing wars that favour Israel.
In fact, the reality is that Giraldi might be guilty of, at most, overstatement, but since a large part of the problem is precisely
that any reference at all to the problem is suppressed, one might expect an honest opponent of the US's military interventionism
to temper his criticism of Giraldi's piece appropriately. For whatever reason, instead, you seem to feel the need to hysterically
accuse it as though it contains no truth whatsoever.
What gives?
Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American foreign policy establishment (which isn't
close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated by clever Jews.
Of course, the Israel Lobby is
much bigger than just jews, and stupid American Christians manipulated by their church leaders into believing fatuous ideas about
Israel based upon dubiously interpreted biblical nonsense has historically provided a lot of its political clout.
That's another problem, but it doesn't make the problem highlighted by Giraldi not a problem. The jewish individuals named
by Giraldi still massively disproportionately dominate the foreign policy media and political debate on ME wars, and the wealthy
jewish Israel supporters mentioned by him still massively disproportionately influence who gets heard and which opinions are suppressed
and which promoted.
@matt I'm
strongly against any war with Iran, but this comes of as an unhinged and bigoted rant. Not nearly everyone who is pushing for
war with Iran is Jewish, and this narrative perpetuates the myth, beloved by alt-right types and paleocons, of a well-intentioned
but naive Trump administration that was hijacked by Jewish neocons. In reality, despite differences within the administration,
Iran was always something they could all agree on. H.R. McMaster and James Mattis are well known Iran hawks, and neither are Jewish.
Nikki Haley isn't Jewish, nor is Rex Tillerson. Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn wouldn't have stopped Trump from going to war if
they hadn't been forced out of the administration, as both, especially the latter, were absolute lunatics when it came to Iran.
On that subject, they were worse than neocons. And of course there's Trump himself, whose bloodlust regarding Iran has always
been on full display from the beginning, if you were paying attention. Hostility toward Iran might in fact be the most consistent
theme of the Trump administration and of Trump himself, who has been known to vacillate on virtually every issue, except this
one.
If you supported Trump because you thought he might be some sort of isolationist dove, you have only yourself to blame. Evil
Jewish neocons didn't force you to ignore the massive evidence that was always right in front of your face. The fact that there
are so many who profess to the Christian faith, who are as evil as those Joo neocons, such as those you mentioned, simply cannot
be denied. Even if hypothetically speaking the Joos were to vanish overnight, the wars of aggression by the Evil Empire will continue
unabated.
The Evil Empire and its Evil b!tch both share the same satanic vision of world domination. Two evil nations, made for each
other, in a match made in Hell.
Btw, the orange scumbag was hilariously evil at the UN.
Both N.Korea and Iran should simply call this bastard's bluff, by literally giving him the finger. I say, let the chips fall
where they may. Let's see how the American, Japanese, S.Korean, Israeli & "Royal" pussies like the consequences.
To you N.Koreans, its been written that you will target the thousands of American Terrorists stationed in the south. I am counting
on that, so don't you miss chaps.
They should. If Raimondo starts blaming the Jews, he can avoid taking responsibility for his idiotic and embarrassing cheerleading
for the current warmonger-in-chief.
I supported and voted for Trump as well. I don't like his neocon turn now, but which candidate in that election (save for
Rand Paul and possibly Jill Stein) wouldn't have declared a non-fly zone in Syria and actively supported the overthrow of Assad?
And started plans for attacking Iran? Who? Hillary? Hahahaha. Ted Cruz? Hahahaha. Etc.
Bernie Sanders (a scary Jew!) wasn't nearly as anti-imperialist as I would have liked him to be, but I doubt he would have
attacked Assad regime forces 6 times like Trump has by this point, and certainly not without Congressional approval (which he
probably wouldn't have gotten, even if he had wanted it).
Even under Hillary, the Iran deal would have stood a better chance, since she was at least verbally committed to it (unlike
even Rand Paul), and there would have been Obama loyalists within the Clinton administration who would have been desperate to
preserve Obama's signature foreign policy achievement (and one of the only worthwhile ones, in my opinion, along with restoration
of diplomatic ties with Cuba).
If an article titled "America's Jews are Behind America's Wars" isn't unhinged and bigoted, I'd like you to tell me what
is.
How is the article's factual content fundamentally different from the similar content of the Haaretz article linked by Greg
Bacon in post 21 above? Is the Haaretz piece "unhinged and bigoted"?
Or is it not the statement of the facts that you are outraged by, but merely the proposed solutions? If so, then what solutions
to the problem identified by Giraldi and by Haaretz would you propose?
If Trump's insane rhetoric on Iran and push for war isn't an example of bloodlust, why don't you tell me what it is?
Good examples might be the desperate attempts to prevent the deal with Iran that hopefully will prove to have cauterised the longstanding
efforts to use the spurious nuclear weapons issue to push the US towards confrontation and war with Iran:
Or when Israel's primary agents of political influence in the US went "all out" to try to get the US to attack Syria and hand
yet another country to (even more) jihadist-ridden chaos:
But hey, I suppose for you those are just more examples of "unhingedness" and "bigotedness".
It must be strange living in the world you inhabit, so far removed from basic reality by a desperate need to avoid being seen
as any kind of badwhite. I didn't say there weren't any Jews pushing for a war with Iran, I said there are plenty of non-Jews
pushing for one too, including Trump himself. Hostility toward Iran (and imperialism generally) is deeply rooted in the American
foreign policy establishment (which isn't close to being all or mostly Jewish), and can't be explained by naive WASPs being manipulated
by clever Jews. It's not just bigoted, it's a cartoonishly stupid "explanation".
@Sam Shama
They can certainly try, and, I suppose you'd require the U.S. to stay her hand as a matter of fair principle while watching said
bases destroyed. Nice idea, but I'd stick to reality. U.S. has vast interests, including economic ones; those which benefit every
U.S. citizen, and, to be practical, all her allies. Iran isn't stupid or suicidal. Its anti-ship missiles are for deterrence,
which Iran has plenty of need for, as sociopaths like you populate the American, Israeli, and Saudi governments and are itching
to attack.
@WJ Outside
of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?
I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed that there would be No Fly Zone over
Syria which would certainly have allowed the head chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?
You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime
or allied forces an additional five times. (
one
,
two ,
three , four ,
five ).
Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian Arab Republic or its allies (so far),
which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure,
either; it's the 9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite pleased with his progress,
as they should be.
In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.
Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial
gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border
at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about).
After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG)
basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically,
a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares or could do anything about it even
if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title=""
https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
; https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/"
;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've also been pressuring the rebel groups
they formerly supported to join the SDF.
I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them when they were under direct assault
from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the
US is playing, which could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In fact, just a few
days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia
(which has in the past at least had
good
relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to American special forces.
US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.
Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army for that matter, or any other country,
put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic" gesture.
Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the Saudis, past the levels under even Obama,
which was already shameful.
And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act, Trump might be thinking about
ending the Iran deal in October.
@Thomm Jews
are white. Ashkenazi Jews, and those are the ones we are mainly dealing with, are an endogamous caste of bankers, progressive
journalists, lawyers, and social scientists (including, now, education), that have migrated all over Europe, but never identifying
as European, with exceptions that prove the rule.
As a tribe, once can read Kevin MacDonald's work to see how they work in remarkable ethnic cohesion–not necessarily as an "organized
conspiracy" (though that certainly happens), but as an ethnic drive.
Being neither European as such, nor Christian, and although their skin is white, they are not White.
Dual loyalty is an avoided and career-ending subject for a couple reasons. One must never, ever, criticize Jews (a third rail
at complete odds with) and one may not criticize immigrants' behavior.
The obvious problem is Treason. Just how much Treason is the result of so-called "dual loyalty"? And isn't Treason subject
to some rather serious legal sanctions?
I just want to point out, being a (fake) "news" consumer, I hear about Israel all the time, all while not hearing a lot of
follow-up detail about Israel and its interests. Isn't that a clever sleight of hand? According to the pro-Israel (by extension
jews) propaganda I'm required to care about, despite it having nothing to do with my life, my family's life, my neighbors' lives,
and my community's lives Israel is that big of a deal. Actually, I hear more about Israel in the media than I hear about my home
state of Michigan. Michigan is probably a lot more important to the US economy, US security, US tourism industry, Midwestern industrial
technology industry, US engineering industry, and the Midwestern Farming economy, than Israel is. Then there are the people who
live here, who are Americans. Israel first, then Americans? Okay, got it.
If the public were exposed to as much emotionally captivating propaganda about Michigan as they were about Israel, I'd posit
the public would see a far better investment in Michigan than they would in Israel. That includes an emotional investment.
I don't know what can be politely said or how it would shape up, but Midwesterners desperately need to understand the Israel
(by extension jewish) problem. They're bleeding us and getting away with it, all while getting away with incessantly calling us
racists and anti-semites. Because again, caring about Michigan and its people first is just morally irreprehensible. Israel first,
then Israel second, etc Got it bigot? That sleight of hand, it's just always there. I don't fully grasp how this large scale agit-prop
psychology works. I do understand jewish solidarity. I'll hand it to jews, they have the strongest ethnic/religious/cultural solidarity
I've ever seen. If Midwesterners realized the value of this level of solidarity, they wouldn't enlist their sons in the military
to serve jewish interests overseas.
From Money Manipulation And Social Order (Dublin: Browne and Nolan, 1944) by Fr. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., Professor of
Philosophy and Church History, Holy Ghost Missionary College, Dublin:
When the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, created in 1913 by Mr. Paul Warburg, a German Jew belonging to the
Banking Firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, had been a few years in existence, in 1916 to be precise, President Woodrow Wilson
thus summed up the situation in U.S.A.: "A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit
is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. . .
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized
world!no longer a Government by conviction and the free vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of
small groups of dominant men." From the similar testimonies quoted by Christopher Hollis in The Two Nations, let us take one.
"Behind the ostensible government," ran Roosevelt's policy, " sits enthroned an invisible government owning no allegiance and
acknowledging no responsibility to the people."
Anyone who reads knows that Israel (and its agents, where not dual citizens, the Jewish ones effectively all are, and the
goyim dupes and toadies, who are not, 'cept sometimes with marriage) have been the tail that wags the US dog for many years,
starting over a century ago, in finance, commerce, and law in NYC, in a small way the scope is ever wider and the effects more
and more blatant.
The USA is a colony of Israel, everybody is knowing it, but some lie and deny.
From my reading of history, I would placing the tipping point from 'excessive power' to 'colonial masters' at the 1967 war
of Israel and its neighbours.
Others may dating it to the end of the Third Reich, with all sorts of Jewish DPs and US Jews who had never seen combat running
around in US military and MP uniforms to persecuting and killing Germans, under the command of Eisenhauer, the Morgenthau plan,
etc.
Others may picking a different time.
It is funny that you are posting as Anonymous on this, can only mean that you are a more subtle pro-Israel troll with your
usual u-name. "So it is safe to say that much of the agitation to do something about Iran comes from Israel and from American
Jews."
Certainly SOME Israelis and American Jews are involved in developing policy designed to generate hostility to the point of
potential war.
But Dick Cheney and Erik Prince, among other prominent non-Jews, bear mentioning.
Regardless, the Jew fixation here is duly noted. Boo! Goes the Joo!
"The USA is a colony of Israel". Fake News Story. Now, let us assume that to be true. What are personally doing about this
situation? What active measures are you taking to free yourself from the shackles of your oppressor? Or, are simply impotent while
taking it good and hard?
Is this Dementia? Or arrogance? Or incompetence? Or all of them ?
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, 'Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a lot of things I'm working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie," Trump said to laughter from the Las Vegas crowd, Reuters reported. ..."
"... "I went - 'BING!' - it was done," Trump said on Saturday, describing the swiftness of his decision. "We make fast decisions. And we make good decisions." ..."
Speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition gathering in Las Vegas, Trump said he made the
snap decision during a discussion with his top Middle East peace advisers, including the US
ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, and son-in-law Jared Kushner.
"I said, 'Fellows, do me a favor. Give me a little history, quick. Want to go fast. I got a
lot of things I'm working on: China, North Korea. Give me a quickie," Trump said to laughter
from the Las Vegas crowd, Reuters reported.
"'How do you like the idea of me recognizing exactly what we're discussing?'" said Trump,
recounting the conversation.
Trump said Friedman was shocked, "like a wonderful, beautiful baby," and asked the president
if he would actually do it.
"I went - 'BING!' - it was done," Trump said on Saturday, describing the swiftness of his
decision. "We make fast decisions. And we make good decisions."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Trump last month. At their March 25
meeting, Trump signed a proclamation officially granting US recognition of the Golan as Israeli
territory.
Golan is a border area the Tel Aviv regime seized from Syria in 1967.
It will be interesting to see if Ocasio-Cortez-if elected–sticks to her principles
or succumbs to the shekel storm headed her way.
Radical Jews of the Hasidic type are also acting thuggish on American streets, like in
Brooklyn where they committed assault, battery and kidnapping on a bicyclist.
These kind of fanatics are growing in numbers all over the USA.
If you think Trump is spineless towards Israel, wait until Israel's next choice for
POTUS, Nutty Nikky Haley steals the WH.
"Bernie Sanders Accuses Liberal Think Tank of Smearing Progressive Candidates"
The "liberal" outfit under discussion is the Center For American Progress. This outfit is
against "single payer" health care. It was in favor of Obama's escalation in Afghanistan.
Funding comes from billionaires like Soros and corporations like Wal-Mart.
The blogger complaining about Sander's awful behavior is a Biden fan, I generally don't
link to stupid sites, and all the connected ones in this case qualify.
"... I like Trump's ambiguity. Acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" was a silly idea with no basis in law. But when they slipped into Full Spectrum Vampire mode and started slaughtering/ maiming Palestinians like there was no tomorrow, it became obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing, and why. ..."
I like Trump's ambiguity. Acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" was a silly idea
with no basis in law. But when they slipped into Full Spectrum Vampire mode and started
slaughtering/ maiming Palestinians like there was no tomorrow, it became obvious that he knew
exactly what he was doing, and why.
Now the whole world has been reminded, again, what a bunch of self-worshipping ratbags
they are. Passing an Only Jews Are People law in "The M.E's only democracy" merely added to
the farce.
It's 'interesting' that:
(a) they didn't thank him.
(b) he was too busy to attend the celebrations in "Israel".
Yes. I think Israel is rapidly losing support and that of Hezbollah is growing. I think
history will soon be on the side of the Palestinians and Syrian Golan.
I also see Russia as getting fed up with the Palestinian debacle. If Israel overreaches
and gets a Hezbollah response they may find themselves without friends.
The more things change, the more they stay the same. This article is read as if it was written yesterday. What is
interesting is the absence of US immune system, which would allow question the US relationship with Israel and the power of Zionist
lobby in the USA. Philip Giraldi was and remain a clear outliner who at least tries to analyze the phenomenon. But more
and deeper research is needed.
The level of subservience of Trump to Israel lobby is a couse of concerns.
Notable quotes:
"... Gus Savage was a black Member of Congress who was targeted by the Israel Lobby. And he had the foresight to use his position as an incumbent of the HofR to put his experience on the congressional record. ..."
"... Israel receives almost one-third of all the United States' foreign assistance, $3 billion in the foreign assistance bill, and usually $400 million or $500 million more tacked on here and there, roughly $3.5 billion a year. That is not the Government's money. That is your money, your tax dollars. ..."
"... We do not have enough money to maintain full funding for student grants and student loans for those in need to attend the colleges of their choice, for which they are qualified, not enough money to create jobs programs for those pockets of poverty in our Nation, not enough funds for long-term Medicare for our senior citizens in need, but $3 1/2 billion of your tax dollars to one little nation, Israel, a nation with only about 3 1/2 million citizens. That means then that you are giving $1,000 a year to every man, woman, and child citizen of Israel. Think about that. ..."
"... It's all about the money. As said in your excerpts, you can't run an effective campaign in the US w/o cash. The Israel Lobby's method is to "primary" non-compliant MOCs like McKinney and Savage by throwing money behind a similar candidate from the same Party – but one who has pledged support for Israel if elected. ..."
Spring in Washington would not be complete without the city's famous cherry blossoms and the annual
"Policy Conference" meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The 15,000 plus participants began arriving
on Sunday and will be here at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center until tomorrow morning, at which point many of them will
descend on Congress like a swarm of ravenous locusts to make sure that our Solons on the Potomac are doing what is right by Israel.
AIPAC is the most powerful foreign policy
lobby in Washington. Its annual budget exceeds $77 million plus it has an
endowment of $100 million . It has nearly
400 employees and also supports
local chapters and initiatives throughout the United States. What do all those employees do? They mostly lobby Congress and increasingly
state legislatures shamelessly on behalf of a foreign country that has little in the way of actual common interests with the United
States. When anything happens in the Middle East, AIPAC's drones get to work, drafting up position papers detailing the Israeli position
which are then placed by runners on the desks of every single congressman within a matter of hours. The congressmen, too lazy to
engage in any real inquiry into what is going on, rely on the AIPAC research. That is, lamentably, how our system works. And if the
congressman ignores the "expert" advice, AIPAC and its friends makes sure he or she has a strong, well-funded opponent in the next
election, someone who knows how to say "I love Israel" without moving his or her lips.
The current speakers' list for the 2017
conference includes many of the leading political parasites that have long made the nation's Capitol a "must miss" destination. I
will not attempt to summarize what Michael Pence, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Kevin McCarthy, Steny
Hoyer and others said on Sunday night and yesterday as it was all basically the same speech, declaring undying love for Israel and
the Jewish people and pledging that the United States will always have "Israel's back," whatever that is supposed to mean. Twenty-nine
congressmen were featured as attendees on the
AIPAC website but more than
two thirds of the entire Congress is expected to appear for a photo op while muttering something about that apparently vulnerable
"back." Or do they mean backside? Whatever. I won't name any more of the specific panderers as the reader probably already has a
good idea who they are.
And, of course, the redoubtable Professor
Alan Dershowitz was also a featured speaker, a wonderful human being who
recently told us goyim that Jewish power in this country is both deserved and granted by Jehovah. It is interesting how Jews
among themselves boast about their power
but if a gentile so much as suggests the same thing it is anti-Semitism.
There were also two certifiable loonies
among the speakers, apart from Dershowitz. They were Nikki Haley, America's stalwart U.N. Ambassador, and Stephen Harper, until recently
Prime Minister of Canada. Those who are following Haley's meteoric career are probably aware that while governor of South Carolina
she took the lead on making her state
the first in the nation to legislate against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) which supports peaceful pressure
on Israel to abandon its apartheid policies when dealing with its own Arab citizens as well as the Palestinians on the West Bank
and Gaza. Such legislation is an abrogation of First Amendment rights and will likely prove to be unconstitutional if it ever gets
to the Supreme Court, but Haley clearly believed then and believes now that nothing is too good when it comes to Israel. Since going
to the U.N., Haley has spoken more about Israel than about any possible American interests, pledging full support and protection
for Netanyahu and his government. She blocked the appointment of a well-qualified Palestinian to a senior U.N. position purely because
he was Palestinian. Ignorant of nearly everything that goes on in the world outside the U.S., it might be said that she is so horribly
inept that she actually makes her ghastly predecessor Samantha Power look good.
Stephen Harper is another certified knee
jerker when it comes to Israel. A fundamentalist Christian who believes the second coming of Christ is imminent, while Prime Minister
he led what was possibly the world's
most pro-Israeli government
. Harper described Israel as a light that " burns bright,
upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations – freedom, democracy justice." He has
also said "I will defend Israel whatever the cost" to Canada,
an interesting proposition for those who might have believed that his duty was to protect his own country and advance its interests.
Harper, who has received awards from both Canadian and
American Jewish organizations, personally endorsed Israel's bombing of Lebanon in 2006, calling it "measured" even when Canadian
peacekeepers
were killed in the bombardment.
Paul Kagame, President of the Republic
of Rwanda, also spoke at the conference. Why? I don't know but it probably has something to do with characteristically liberal American
Jews pulling their usual doublespeak trick, trying to pretend that fundamentally racist Israelis are not actually racist by inviting
a black man to speak at a pro-Israel conference. I'll bet he was paid handsomely to do so.
And former British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, perhaps suggesting that love for Israel is truly international, spoke and was also probably paid handsomely to do so as he
an incorporated brand. Between 2007 and 2015 Blair was the "special envoy" representing (and personally profiting from) the Quartet
seeking to bring about a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine. Marwan Bishara
explained in The
New York Times : "A natural panderer to power, Mr. Blair morphed his complicity with the United States over Iraq into a new
complicity with Israel. The assumption that operates is that schmoozing with the powerful is the only way to make a difference. So
while Mr. Blair worked to reform the Palestinian Authority's finances, security and governance, he turned a blind eye as Israel expanded
its illegal settlements and tightened its hold on the autonomous territories. In the process, Mr. Blair helped render the Palestinian
Authority more, not less, dependent on Israel. Instead of protecting the Palestinians from the Israeli settlers, Palestinian security
forces have since been protecting Israeli settlers from Palestinian resentment." Blair also attacked the Palestinian leadership's
decision to seek United Nations recognition of the Palestinian state, calling it "deeply confrontational." Bishara dismisses him
as "Israel's puppy." As I am extremely fond of dogs, I would modify that to read "Israel and now AIPAC's butt boy."
The avenging angel Benjamin Netanyahu also
addressed the conference by satellite link and yet again described the threat posed by Iran. The satellite visit was somewhat surprising,
as he usually likes to drop by in person so he can pick up his annual tribute money from the U.S. Treasury. This year's Danegeld
will be $3.8 billion thanks to President Barack Obama, guaranteed for ten years, and there will be, of course, various supplements
as the Israelis discover things that they just need to have to stave off Netanyahu's wily Persians and fight the rising tide of anti-Semitism.
A rising tide, which we have just learned,
was carried out by an Israeli Jew who also holds U.S. citizenship, which again leads to the question why so many Israelis are
allowed to have American passports even though they live in Israel and serve in the Israeli Army?
And, of course, Persia was an
integral part of the conference as it is tough to want to destroy the entire Muslim Middle East without having a really formidable
enemy to focus on. Iran fits the bill quite nicely, but speakers were also prone to skewer those terrible Ay-rabs who just do not
want peace. And the Israelis settlements are not a problem, nosiree! The theme of this year's gathering was, in fact, "Many voices,
one mission," the mission presumably being the expansion of Israel so it will stretch east to west from the Nile to the River Jordan
and north to the Turkish border. The indigenous inhabitants will have to be removed, but as they are mostly terrorists that should
be okay with the world community and Donald Trump.
And with the 15,000 AIPAC attendees. The
AIPAC gathering is really all about subverting Congress, so it is a good thing that a large majority of Congressmen were attending,
making the necessary bowing and scraping that much easier. And they will enjoy it even more when the 15,000 AIPAC loyalists descend
on Capitol Hill as the conference ends to make sure that Congress is listening. Democracy in action is great, isn't it?
Even though I jest about the absurdity
of thousands of Americans who appeared to be confused about what country they actually live in gathering to honor a foreign country
that has an army that acts like a terrorist group, does not believe in equal rights even for its own citizens and bans visitors who
do not accept its more questionable policies, the AIPAC people are not a joke. They are a deadly serious threat to our own democracy
and way of life as they have figured out how to use money and the power that money buys to leverage and corrupt the system in such
a way as to produce wars and turmoil that have blown back on the United States and made every American citizen both less safe and
poorer.
I have written and spoken before how AIPAC
is ultimately doomed as Israel and its basic policies towards Arabs and its neighbors are unsustainable both from a human rights
and practical point of view. But that does not mean that it is going away any time soon. The Israel Lobby has the U.S. Congress and
media by the throat and the Trump administration promises to be completely uncritical in its relationship with Netanyahu and whatever
homicidal kleptocrat might be in line to succeed him. Ms. Haley and her peers in state governments have successfully pushed legislation
in a majority of states that punishes anyone who tries to boycott Israeli institutions or products. On university campuses non-violent
criticism of Israel is being suppressed. There is also increasing pressure to define any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and
therefore a hate crime, modeled on similar legislation in Canada, Britain and France.
In a number of European countries it is
a crime to challenge the standard narrative on "the Holocaust." Why should that be? You can in much of Europe stand in a town square
and say horrible things about your own country but if you criticize the factual basis of one particular "event" that took place in
the 1940s you will go to jail.
So hang on to your hats, my fellow Americans.
AIPAC is not going away and it will be doing all it can to keep neighboring Syria a cauldron of death and destruction while also
calling for war on Iran. And AIPAC as well as the other bits and pieces of the Israel Lobby will have many Quislings in the Congress
and U.S. media who will echo whatever they propose, even if it does grave damage to American interests. Meanwhile the billions and
billions of dollars will continue to flow from an increasingly straitened United States to a wealthy Israel. At its conference
AIPAC announced the latest windfall from America, applauding " the U.S. House of Representatives for significantly bolstering
its support of U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperation in the FY 2017 defense appropriations bill. The House appropriated $600.7
million for U.S.-Israel missile defense programs." That is on top of everything else Israel gets. Will it ever end? I don't know.
It's revealing that Zionist support Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while those same Zionists demand massive
3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.
It's also revealing that we don't see Zionists criticizing Israel's very real WALL.
Fake News Versus No News
How Russia is pilloried while real news about Israel goes unreported
Israel interferes in our politics all the time, and it's never a scandal.
"The Israeli interference in our politics is the conspiracy in plain sight that no one in the media talks about because they're
too implicated themselves."
Israeli Mossad's motto: "By deception thou shalt do war"
Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned by the imported American Rabbis
of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free.
200 Words Very well said, Phil Giraldi. The power of the Israel Lobby in the US is almost absolute. Slowly but surely, they
get also a hold of the political elites in Great Britain, France, and Germany. None of these folks have the guts to criticize
the brutal Apartheid regime in Israel and the Palestinian Occupied Territories out of fear of being branded an "anti-Semite".
The US Congress doesn't serve the interest of the American people but only the Zionist regime and their expansionist lust for
territory and their aggression towards Iran. Not Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism such as the Zionist and their cheerleaders
in the US pretend but Israel with its terrorist military gang, the so-called IDF, which should be renamed in ITF (Israeli Terrorist
Forces).
Miko Peled, the author of "The General's Son" described this military gang as follows: "the IDF is the best trained, best equipped,
best fed terrorist organization in the world". And the US taxpayers are financing a terror organization that is against US law.
"Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's choice of neighborhood narrows the focus on Chabad":
The residence they have reportedly picked, on Tracy Place NW, is about half a mile from TheShul of the Nation's Capital, a synagogue
run by the active Orthodox Jewish organization Chabad .
ome of Washington's highest-profile observant Jews, including Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and longtime senator and 2000 vice presidential
candidate Joseph I. Lieberman, have sometimes attended services at TheShul as an alternative to Kesher Israel, where they more
frequently spent Shabbat. Numerous Jewish ambassadors from foreign countries have chosen to worship at TheShul "
@
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/01/05/ivanka-trump-and-jared-kushners-choice-of-neighborhood-narrows-the-focus-on-chabad/?utm_term=.1bce47e39bc2
"Recently, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner visited the Ohel*, and every Jewish media outlet covered their visit. However Trump
and Kushner's visit was not publicized by Chabad".
@ http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/227102
*The Cambria Heights, Queens "Ohel" (literally 'tent' but used by Chabad hassidim to mean 'tomb') of the sixth and seventh
Chabad-Lubavitch Rebbes, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Scheerson and his son-in-law Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, has become a 24-hour
hub of activity with visitors stopping at all hours of day and night to pray and ask for blessings.
Thousands of Jews, from all backgrounds and ethnicities, as well as politicians, diplomats, and many others, visit the site every
day of the year.
Yes, the ones with silly hairstyles.
"Vice President Mike Pence on Sunday put the issue of moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem back on the
table, telling pro-Israel lobbying group that President Donald Trump was giving "serious consideration" to the issue.
@ http://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-trump-us-embassy-jerusalem-consideration-574576
These are the folks who put the Zio in Anglo/Zio Empire. If you are an Imperialist (Hillary supporter) you gotta love these
people. Nationalists not so much.
Spiridon ,
March 28, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT \n
100 Words You are wrong when it comes to explain Kagame presence ; it is not cosmetic at all, it is not to give some "antiracist"
acceptable face to AIPAC. But it has to do with many years of Israel lobbying in Africa, it's hidden role in managing access to
resources and manipulating powers in Africa. Besides, Kagame is himself this kind of terrorist, most probably at the very origin
of Rwanda massacre, blaming others for being terrorist and dressing himself in innocent pure white colour a fake victim. He received
officially last year Netanyahu in Rwanda. Israel has been secretly very active in Africa for the benefit of UK and USA, trying
to encroach on French turf. One famous journalist has written crystal clear book on this influences : "Carnages" by Pierre Pean.
Israel was eager to play a role in destabilizing Sudan, an Rwanda was a piece on the chessboard. The FPR (patriotic front of Rwanda)
led by Kagame was an important tool of this war.
Incitatus ,
April 1, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT \n
100 Words @iffen (deliberate)
attack on the USS Liberty '67
What do the parentheses mean? Why did you use deliberate? Of course it was deliberate. Are you trying to obscure the issue
of mis-identification by using deliberate?
LBJ's reaction was shameful.
Why was it shameful? Are you joining in with the warmonger, flag waving casket jumpers now? " (deliberate) attack on the
USS Liberty '67 "
"What do the parentheses mean?"
"Deliberate" was thus noted because I tried to make a larger point about Israel's possible motive (mistrust after Suez).
No question the attack was sustained and deliberate.
"Why was it [LBJ's reaction] shameful?"
The whole incident reeked cover up. LBJ planned to run for reelection. QED the clumsy obfuscation, willing acceptance (wink-wink)
of Israel's lame excuse, and turning the MOH into a consolation prize to keep survivors quiet. He even avoided personally awarding
it (customary). That's why LBJ's reaction was shameful.
"Are you joining in with the warmonger, flag waving casket jumpers now?"
Not at all. Truth – correcting the record – would satisfy me. And be healthier for Israel. It's too easy to drink koolaid and
believe one's own lies (e.g. GW Bush Iraq 2003).
Do yourself a favor? Spread your "wings" and ass cheeks, fly to Israel, and stay there.
U.S. Liberty Calling Sam The Sham: Cease meditations for a moment and show ''iffen-iffen the open door to Israel? Hey Chuck,
Yeah, I guess iffen-iffen, sam the sham and all these other hasbara assholes should indeed move to their beloved israel(Palestine).
Except, if all the diaspora zio slime moved there, it would only make the Palestinians' lives even more miserable. Then again,
they don't wanna go anyway
Read the following interview with the brave Jeffrey Blankfort(who is Jewish), a journalist and Middle-East analyst, well worth
it. He closes it with;
"Should Israel find a way to attack Iran, the repercussions from that might be sufficient to send Israel on the road to
what will ultimately be viewed as self-destruction. At the moment, thanks to the unconditional backing by the U.S. for all
it crimes, and given its arsenal of nuclear weapons, I consider Israel to be the most immediate threat to the future of the
planet."
BTW Chuck, and I only ask bc you already revealed even your home address, do you have any email address you'd be willing to
share? Perfectly alright if don't wish to, of course.
Maybe you can help me with this. (You seem to have a good filing system (-: )
When I mentioned to a friend (not a person who follows Israel/Palestine) that MOCs are "invited" to pledge loyalty to Israel,
she couldn't believe it, and asked for proof.
Is there hard evidence? Is there a written document, or is this an oral pledge? [I imagine an AIPAC delegation in every new
MOCs office.] Has any official - besides Cynthia McKinney - spoken about this?
Judging from my friend's reaction, this should go to the top of the LFTL list of essential information, (not to mention
prominent placement at If Americans Knew).
The only thing I know about (to send to my friend) is the video of Cynthia at a past WRMEA conference, telling her story. Also,
I think one of the other speakers, a former AIPAC employee, mentioned this.
Is there hard evidence? Is there a written document, or is this an oral pledge? [I imagine an AIPAC delegation in every
new MOCs office.] Has any official – besides Cynthia McKinney – spoken about this?
Hi, RobinG. I wasn't even aware of this allegation. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I did a Google search and the
only thing I could come up with was this article:
Cynthia McKinney Drops Bombshell: Candidates to sign pledges of support for "Israel"
by Richard Edmondson
In an interview which aired on Press TV on Saturday–one day before the AIPAC conference got under way in Washington–former
Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney revealed what amounts to some pretty startling news regarding the extent of the Israeli
lobby's influence over Congress.
During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were requested to sign pledges of
support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to the Zionist
state. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate's campaign.
"You make a commitment that you will vote to support the military superiority of Israel-the economic assistance that
Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that," McKinney, who served in Congress from 1993-2003 and again 2005-2007,
tells Press TV interviewer Marzieh Hashemi in the two-part video program below.
According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
" Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge, they were given a pledge to sign " she said. "If you
don't sign the pledge, you don't get money. For example, it was almost like water torture for me. My parents observed this.
I would get a call and the person on the other end of the phone would say 'I want to do a fundraiser for you.' And then we
would get into the planning. I would get really excited, because of course you have to have money in order to run a campaign.
And then two weeks, three weeks into the planning, they would say, 'Did you sign the pledge?' And then I would say, 'No,
I didn't sign the pledge.' And then my fundraiser would go kaput."
During her years in Congress, McKinney opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars, questioned the official version of the
events of 911, and introduced articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush. Her final term in Congress came
to an end after AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, funneled money into the campaign of her opponent, Hank
Johnson.
In the interview, Miss McKinny also references one of her predecessors, Gus Savage, who was targeted by the Lobby before she
was. Here's what she had to say:
Gus Savage was a black Member of Congress who was targeted by the Israel Lobby. And he had the foresight to use his position
as an incumbent of the HofR to put his experience on the congressional record.
Here's an excerpt from Gus Savage's excellent speech:
Now, let me say something about my position regarding Israel that may explain the concern, but certainly does not justify
a body with no legal right to do so whose primary concern is a foreign nation rather than the interests of America, trying
to determine the outcome of an American election for Congress. That, my friends, Mr. and Mrs. America, is dangerous, indeed.
Israel receives almost one-third of all the United States' foreign assistance, $3 billion in the foreign assistance bill,
and usually $400 million or $500 million more tacked on here and there, roughly $3.5 billion a year. That is not the Government's
money. That is your money, your tax dollars.
We do not have enough money to maintain full funding for student grants and student loans for those in need to attend the
colleges of their choice, for which they are qualified, not enough money to create jobs programs for those pockets of poverty
in our Nation, not enough funds for long-term Medicare for our senior citizens in need, but $3 1/2 billion of your tax dollars
to one little nation, Israel, a nation with only about 3 1/2 million citizens. That means then that you are giving $1,000 a
year to every man, woman, and child citizen of Israel. Think about that.
Is there hard evidence? Is there a written document, or is this an oral pledge? [I imagine an AIPAC delegation in every new
MOCs office.] Has any official – besides Cynthia McKinney – spoken about this?
Hi, RobinG. I wasn't even aware of this allegation. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I did a Google search and the only
thing I could come up with was this article:
Cynthia McKinney Drops Bombshell: Candidates to sign pledges of support for "Israel"
by Richard Edmondson
In an interview which aired on Press TV on Saturday–one day before the AIPAC conference got under way in Washington–former
Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney revealed what amounts to some pretty startling news regarding the extent of the Israeli
lobby's influence over Congress.
During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were requested to sign pledges of
support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to the Zionist
state. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate's campaign.
"You make a commitment that you will vote to support the military superiority of Israel-the economic assistance that
Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that," McKinney, who served in Congress from 1993-2003 and again 2005-2007,
tells Press TV interviewer Marzieh Hashemi in the two-part video program below.
According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
" Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge, they were given a pledge to sign " she said. "If you
don't sign the pledge, you don't get money. For example, it was almost like water torture for me. My parents observed this.
I would get a call and the person on the other end of the phone would say 'I want to do a fundraiser for you.' And then we
would get into the planning. I would get really excited, because of course you have to have money in order to run a campaign.
And then two weeks, three weeks into the planning, they would say, 'Did you sign the pledge?' And then I would say, 'No,
I didn't sign the pledge.' And then my fundraiser would go kaput."
During her years in Congress, McKinney opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars, questioned the official version of the
events of 911, and introduced articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush. Her final term in Congress came
to an end after AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, funneled money into the campaign of her opponent, Hank
Johnson.
Here's the video of CM's interview:
https://youtu.be/hXaCym8RjJU
In the interview, Miss McKinny also references one of her predecessors, Gus Savage, who was targeted by the Lobby before she was.
Here's what she had to say:
Gus Savage was a black Member of Congress who was targeted by the Israel Lobby. And he had the foresight to use his position
as an incumbent of the HofR to put his experience on the congressional record.
Here's an excerpt from Gus Savage's excellent speech:
Now, let me say something about my position regarding Israel that may explain the concern, but certainly does not justify a
body with no legal right to do so whose primary concern is a foreign nation rather than the interests of America, trying to
determine the outcome of an American election for Congress. That, my friends, Mr. and Mrs. America, is dangerous, indeed.
Israel receives almost one-third of all the United States' foreign assistance, $3 billion in the foreign assistance bill,
and usually $400 million or $500 million more tacked on here and there, roughly $3.5 billion a year. That is not the Government's
money. That is your money, your tax dollars.
We do not have enough money to maintain full funding for student grants and student loans for those in need to attend the
colleges of their choice, for which they are qualified, not enough money to create jobs programs for those pockets of poverty
in our Nation, not enough funds for long-term Medicare for our senior citizens in need, but $3 1/2 billion of your tax dollars
to one little nation, Israel, a nation with only about 3 1/2 million citizens. That means then that you are giving $1,000 a
year to every man, woman, and child citizen of Israel. Think about that.
The only revision I would make to Rep. Savage's great list of what the large annual tribute could be better spent on in the
US would be repairing broken down fire trucks for bankrupt cities like Detroit, MI (just south of the border from Canada, where
some suggest these fire trucks are said to be mfged).
The only revision I would make to Rep. Savage's great list of what the large annual tribute could be better spent on in the US
would be repairing broken down fire trucks for bankrupt cities like Detroit, MI (just south of the border from Canada, where some
suggest these fire trucks are said to be mfged). Hey Geo,
Don't forget support for the thousands of veterans and their families that are traumatized by their participation in the overseas
ME 'adventures' – these guys are committing suicide left and right and it should be made into headlines, but that would mean more
scrutiny on why the hell we went to war in the first place.
Is there hard evidence? Is there a written document, or is this an oral pledge? [I imagine an AIPAC delegation in every new
MOCs office.] Has any official – besides Cynthia McKinney – spoken about this?
Hi, RobinG. I wasn't even aware of this allegation. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I did a Google search and the only
thing I could come up with was this article:
Cynthia McKinney Drops Bombshell: Candidates to sign pledges of support for "Israel"
by Richard Edmondson
In an interview which aired on Press TV on Saturday–one day before the AIPAC conference got under way in Washington–former
Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney revealed what amounts to some pretty startling news regarding the extent of the Israeli
lobby's influence over Congress.
During her years in Congress, she stated, candidates for both the House and the Senate were requested to sign pledges of
support for Israel, documents in which the candidate promised to vote to provide consistent levels of economic aid to the Zionist
state. Refusal to sign the pledge meant no funding for the candidate's campaign.
"You make a commitment that you will vote to support the military superiority of Israel-the economic assistance that
Israel wants, that you would vote to provide that," McKinney, who served in Congress from 1993-2003 and again 2005-2007,
tells Press TV interviewer Marzieh Hashemi in the two-part video program below.
According to McKinney, the pledge also included a vow to support Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
" Every candidate for Congress at that time had a pledge, they were given a pledge to sign " she said. "If you
don't sign the pledge, you don't get money. For example, it was almost like water torture for me. My parents observed this.
I would get a call and the person on the other end of the phone would say 'I want to do a fundraiser for you.' And then we
would get into the planning. I would get really excited, because of course you have to have money in order to run a campaign.
And then two weeks, three weeks into the planning, they would say, 'Did you sign the pledge?' And then I would say, 'No,
I didn't sign the pledge.' And then my fundraiser would go kaput."
During her years in Congress, McKinney opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars, questioned the official version of the
events of 911, and introduced articles of impeachment against former President George W. Bush. Her final term in Congress came
to an end after AIPAC, or the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, funneled money into the campaign of her opponent, Hank
Johnson.
Here's the video of CM's interview:
https://youtu.be/hXaCym8RjJU
In the interview, Miss McKinny also references one of her predecessors, Gus Savage, who was targeted by the Lobby before she was.
Here's what she had to say:
Gus Savage was a black Member of Congress who was targeted by the Israel Lobby. And he had the foresight to use his position
as an incumbent of the HofR to put his experience on the congressional record.
Here's an excerpt from Gus Savage's excellent speech:
Now, let me say something about my position regarding Israel that may explain the concern, but certainly does not justify a
body with no legal right to do so whose primary concern is a foreign nation rather than the interests of America, trying to
determine the outcome of an American election for Congress. That, my friends, Mr. and Mrs. America, is dangerous, indeed.
Israel receives almost one-third of all the United States' foreign assistance, $3 billion in the foreign assistance bill,
and usually $400 million or $500 million more tacked on here and there, roughly $3.5 billion a year. That is not the Government's
money. That is your money, your tax dollars.
We do not have enough money to maintain full funding for student grants and student loans for those in need to attend the
colleges of their choice, for which they are qualified, not enough money to create jobs programs for those pockets of poverty
in our Nation, not enough funds for long-term Medicare for our senior citizens in need, but $3 1/2 billion of your tax dollars
to one little nation, Israel, a nation with only about 3 1/2 million citizens. That means then that you are giving $1,000 a
year to every man, woman, and child citizen of Israel. Think about that.
Hank Johnson , who still holds that seat, is a typical Dem., and CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) Member. While his obeisance
to Israel is less blatant than some others (CBC's Alcee Hastings touts his unwavering support of Israel, and his official site
now features photos of his recent AIPAC appearance), Rep. Johnson demonstrates his loyalty in only slightly more subtle ways.
His official site lists these accomplishments:
Co-authored legislation to impose sanctions on Iran's petroleum sector. It passed the House.
Cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which passed the House. It would sanction Iran for its failure to make good on
its international legal commitments with regard to its clandestine nuclear program.
It's all about the money. As said in your excerpts, you can't run an effective campaign in the US w/o cash. The Israel Lobby's
method is to "primary" non-compliant MOCs like McKinney and Savage by throwing money behind a similar candidate from the same
Party – but one who has pledged support for Israel if elected.
Oh please: this is just a more-elaborate replay of what the DNC did to Bernie in '16 and what
it does to anyone not espousing the idiocy of the party's corporately enshrined majority.
Hence, what's actually happening is the [over]flooding of the field with corporate centrist
neoliberals like Harris, Booker, Biden, Hickenlooper et al., enough of a deluge to draw
attention & support from the more-progressive candidates, including Bernie, Warren, and
Tulsi (particularly vehement for her open criticism of the war economy)
We're not talking about "Change for changes sake" here. We're talking about Elizabeth
Warren vs. Donald Trump. We're talking about a smart, educated woman and proven capable
leader and US senator, vs. a vulgar, lazy, Reality TV host and failed businessman. We're
talking a calm, rational human being vs. a bloviating jackass.
Not if you add up those things. USA is only ~ 60% white. Depending on how you define
middle class, I think more of the US is working class than middle class these days. Straight?
Maybe, but I think you could just as easily say "most of the US is *not* a straight white
male middle class, and frankly is fed up with the default identity being straight white, male
and middle class.
My guess is that you are well to do, and enjoying your tax cut. Most of the rest of us are
not. The economy is not synonymous with the stock market, which is up because of stock
buy-backs. Do you understand how this works? Do you know how many workers have been laid off
in the last 3 months? How many companies have moved out of the country, after receiving their
tRump bribes? How many more companies paid NO TAX last year--or how many more got REBATES
(out of my pocket?) You are soon to be horribly surprised.
-You blame her for being good at her job and for having married someone who is good at his
job, or for having policies that would distribute wealth? Rich people can be left wing. Find
me any politician who isn't loaded.
She didn't list herself as such when applying for jobs, she volunteered a recipe for a
cookbook. Everything else you're repeating is just Fox News propaganda.
"In 2012 she was criticized for having listed herself as a minority in a directory for
Harvard Law School. Some critics alleged that she falsified her heritage to advance her
career through minority quotas. Warren denied that, and several colleagues and employers
(including Harvard) have said her reported ethnic status played no role in her hiring. An
investigation by The Boston Globe in 2018 found "clear evidence, in documents and interviews,
that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty,
which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at
other law schools". PolitiFact noted: "Before this controversy arose in 2012, there is no
account that Warren spoke publicly of having Native American roots, although she called
herself Cherokee in a local Oklahoma cookbook in 1984."
And there is no Democrat who is going to take votes from Trump's base.
I've told this story before but I guess it still bears repeating:
In November of 2016, my wife won a seat in the New Hampshire State House as a Democrat. As
she campaigned, she knocked on hundreds and hundreds of doors, the doors of Democrat,
Republican, and "Undeclared" households. And many times, she spoke to Republicans who stated
that they could easily have seen themselves voting for Bernie Sanders over Trump but they'd
BE DAMNED if they were ever going to vote for Hillary Clinton.
My wife didn't argue this point with them. After all, it was her job to get herself
elected, not to get Hillary elected. In New Hampshire, the Democrats who DID
argue for Clinton (including two more women in our election ward) went down to defeat; my
wife won.*
Hillary was absolutely poison for the Democrats nationwide but Bernie would have 1) won
and 2) had yuuuuge coat-tails. When they did him in, the Democrats did themselves
in.
* Hillary narrowly won New Hampshire's Electoral votes and Democrats narrowly won our U.S.
Senate race and both Congressional districts but Democrats lost the Governor's race, three of
five Executive Council races, the State House, and the State Senate. That is, Democrats got
wiped out within New Hampshire just like they got wiped out nationally.
By electing Trump the American people were rejecting middle-of-the-road politics-as-usual.
Warren is the much needed change in the democratic party.
Instead, they're going to push Biden or Beto and try to serve the "safe" more of the same
crap that people don't want anymore. We're all fed up to death with the neo-liberal
corporate-owned politicians. We need real change for the everyday working people, who
have seen their quality of life decline and cost of living incline for decades now.
Elizabeth Warren has a tremendous academic background in economics, economic history, finance
and bankruptcy law; she also is an experienced bankruptcy lawyer.
She was in the forefront during the 2008 economic crisis and raising the alarm about the
corrupt banking practices of trillions of risky sub prime lending loans and credit default
swaps.
Her current campaign is floundering for many reasons. She is fuzzy on many issues and
other issues may be repulsive to most of the electorate such as reparations for the horrible
institution of slavery. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The only candidate that rings the bell and frames the hot button issues in a brilliant and
articulate manner is Mayor Pete. His only negative is the repulsion of many voters to gay
people who in reality are just people who happen to be different than the majority.
The right has moved sooo far right, that reasonable, popular positions may seem "radical."
After all, who in the world would vote for health care for themselves? Positively far left,
eh? I would like to know: HOW are we going to pay for a $1.9 TRILLION tax cut for the filthy
rich, or $730 BILLION for defense? WHERE will we get the money for those "basic needs?"
She didn't -- the bar application does not have a section for race. What she did was fill in
an optional area on race to indicate her interest in organizations or societies centered
around ethnicity. Not uncommon in academia
Her own argument, that she actually believed that she was far more Native American than
she was and was interested in meeting other women with a similar background, matches up well
with that. It was not in any way part of deciding to admit her to the bar. Think about it
– that would be illegal anyway.
The majority of Americans do not back packing the courts and reparations.They will be losing
issues for those candidates that give those issues strong support.
It's a shame she didn't run last time, instead of Hilary Clinton - things might have been
different. That was her chance, and it's gone now. She will be put in the same bracket as
Hilary now by too many voters, and it'll be the kiss of death for her chances. That silly
comment about her ancestry aside, she is a very smart woman who wuld have made a decent
POTUS, but she's missed her chance at it. Or the party missed its chance with her. Somehow it
was deemed to be Hilary's "turn" last time round. If there's anything positive to come out of
Trump's election, it might be to wake politicians up to the fact the the old way of doing
things must go, though unfortunately the Democrats don;t seem to have really grasped this.
The people have voted in some fresh faces, but the party is still stuck in the past....
Bernie Sanders, ffs. God help us.
Daubish--Don't hold your breath. Remember who, and what, is "leading" the party. It's an
"organization" I intend to quit immediately following next year's closed primary. Remember
the words of Mark Twain: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Warren and Sanders are the only clear thinkers in the group. I support Bernie, but I am also
sending money to Warren to keep her in the race. She represents the thinking of the majority
of Americans. She's right on the money! Backward, corporate,conservative Nancy Pelosi be
damned.
Although I live outside the US, it is important for the rest of the world to have a
competent, decent, ethical and honourable person to be elected as the next president,
especially after this disastrous term with Trump. I personally would love to see Elizabeth
Warren as the next president, having read a lot about her over the years and her performance
after the financial crises when she to the Wall street bankers to task was marvelous. She is
the sort of person that would be very beneficial for the US and the world, I think the rest
of the world would start to have respect for the US again, as it is definitely on the nose
now.
There is no doubt that Warren has smarts. Her competition policy around the tech giants is
actually quite nuanced and sensible, despite presenting some challenges.
But she is not a good presidential candidate. She has wrecked her chances with her
'Pocahontas' antics and - mystifyingly - doubled down on her alleged Indian ancestry before
the election. (This is despite the fact that Native American identity is generally not based
on DNA alone. Mystifying stuff.)
Meanwhile, ideas like scrapping the electoral college are just bizarre and naive. I had
not been aware that this was a 'policy' of Warren's. It does not show her in a good
light.
Even Donald Trump had experience running an international business empire.
Some would say international crime syndicate, but never mind that.
Running anything as an authoritarian CEO in a private institution of any kind, with no
shareholders and no accountability, is not a useful background in the context of a
presidency, as we have been finding out on a daily basis since that assrocket took
office.
Being a mayor of any kind of city is better preparation by far, because you have to fine ways
for people who are not natural allies to pull in the same direction.
They have decided they are more interested in fighting themselves than fighting Trump,
with different wings of the party saying they will boycott other wings' candidates if
they win the nomination instead
. I think that's bollocks. Present your evidence. Sure, it's going to be a hard
fought fight, but the chances that Dems supporting a candidate who does not win the primary
would boycott the election and put Trump back in the White House are vanishingly small
this time around.
Most of America is white, straight and struggling middle class, I'm afraid. A unity
candidate like Obama is needed to build bridges between different demographics, but what
did we hear from a prominent Democrat activist last week? An attack on Obama as being the
worst thing to happen to the Democrat Party in a generation.
Obama campaigned on the theme of progressive change, and won, twice, then once
in office governed as a milquetoast centrist trying to seek consensus with an adversary
committed to destroying both him and any remnants of the New Deal.
His lackluster performance in this regard and the Dem party establishment's commitment to
corporate fealty by thumbing the scale to ensure the confirmation of Clinton's focus-group
corporate windsockery so infuriated the traditional working class midwestern party roots that
we now have Trump.
The mewling of the remnants of that party establishment can be ignored. There's a new
energy now, unleashed by Sanders' remarkable insurgency in the 2016 cycle, and there's no
putting the cork back in that bottle.
Trump isn't smiling. Trump has never smiled in his life. He smirks a lot, but that's not
the same thing, and over the next year or so he's about to suffer the death of a thousand
cuts if the newly empowered House investigative committees do an even halfway competent job
of revealing what a corrupt and vindictive scumbag he really is.
Warren was my early favorite in the Dems primaries, but abolishing the Electoral College,
packing the Supreme Court, and paying reparations make her unacceptable to me.
I'd like her to win the nomination, but she won't.
That won't necessarily be a bad thing, however, because the chances of the Democrats
winning the election are looking pretty slim right now. They have decided they are more
interested in fighting themselves than fighting Trump, with different wings of the party
saying they will boycott other wings' candidates if they win the nomination instead.
Most of these activists are either New Yorkers or Californians or people who think like
New Yorkers and Californians. New York and California will vote Democrat whoever wins the
nomination. The next election, like the last, will be won or lost in Michigan, Pennsylvania
and Florida.
It will annoy people on the Guardian website to hear, but people in those states are
typically not as interested in what might be called 'identity politics' as people on the
seaboards. 2016 should have taught Democrats that. Instead they have doubled down on fighting
a little civil war between demographics who claim only their candidate should be
President.
Most of America is white, straight and struggling middle class, I'm afraid. A unity
candidate like Obama is needed to build bridges between different demographics, but what did
we hear from a prominent Democrat activist last week? An attack on Obama as being the worst
thing to happen to the Democrat Party in a generation.
The fact that she lied about her ethnicity in the past in hopes of gaining a leg up will
backfire spectacularly if she's the DNC nominee for POTUS. Conservatives will beat this point
over and over and over.
Is the Left secretly trying to put Trump in the WH for another term? It sure looks like
it.
the chances that Dems supporting a candidate who does not win the primary would boycott
the election and put Trump back in the White House are vanishingly small this time
around
They were warned that that would happen last time, and they still let it happen. The
"Bernie bros" are back out in force, and not only have they not learnt their lesson, they
feel validated by Clinton's defeat to the extent where they are even more determined that
their old man should be the candidate and nobody else. These are people who abandoned the
Democrats for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate who managed to make Sarah Palin look
intelligent. They will do it again because they are largely white, male and think just
because they read liberal newspapers that means they don't have a sense of entitlement.
Both Michigan and Pennsylvania would have gone to Clinton if only 20% of Green voters
hadn't lodged protest votes. These people don't want Elizabeth Warren, they don't want Kamala
Harris, they don't want Beto O'Rourke, they don't want Pete Buttigieg. They want Bernie. If
Bernie isn't the Democrat, they won't vote Democrat.
You can dismiss this as much as you like, but I placed a bet on Trump winning the
Republican nomination when he was the joke candidate and when he won the nomination I bet on
him winning the presidency. I think that would be an even safer bet this time round.
That's just funny. She's been behind some of the major legislation that enacted the things
that Bernie Sanders talks about. And Wall Street is scared crapless of her -- why do you
think they're going after her so hard?
This conjecture is entirely fiction at best but centrist neo libeberal bollocks as a
certainty. Warren was and is a republican. She is a corporate bootlicker, a thrall of Hillary
and has no serious attachment to truth. I regret to admit that I am a US citizen, 68 years of
age. I have wittnessed Warren's shameless plagirising of Bernie Sanders' arguments and am
sickened to see her lionized by people who, if honest, should know better.
The columnist is right about Warren's intellectual stature and influence, and anyone who's
looked at what she's accomplished for Massachusetts (or for that matter watched her takedown
of the sleazy head of Wells Fargo during the Senate hearings) knows she's tough. She also has
a *workable* vision of what the Democrats could offer Americans. From affordable childcare to
making college tuition affordable again to helping out working-class people like the
fisherman in Massachusetts, while reigning in the banks and making sure we don't have another
crash – it's the blueprint.
There's something hysterically funny about all the people who have signed in here, clearly
skipped the article, just to yell "squirrel!" – or in this case -- "oh no she filled
out the optional ethnicity box and it turns out her family stories were mistaken!"
What they're missing, what Warren is laying out and the article is pointing out, is what
the GOP will really be up against in the future.
I don't like this argument: she may not win the primary, but it's her ideas that will
dominate the conversation.
It worked for Bernie supporters to console themselves.
If we elect someone, it needs to be the person who will be passionate about that idea (as
opposed to lukewarm like Pelosi is on Green New Deal). We need someone who knows what it will
take to get it done. What will get in the way. How to get around it.
Warren not only had the idea for CFPB. She actually set it up. Then Obama lacked the moral
courage and political spine to have her lead the agency - just because Wall Street had
pressured the Democrats against it.
Warren is the right candidate for the right time. She has ideas to fix the country and
doesn't just rail against people. That's why even Steve Bannon is scared of her policy
positions that they could be theirs.
Democrats need to stop playing pundits and go with their heart. If they vote for someone
they like less but because he (why is it always a 'he' who is electable?) can win - we will
end up with a candidate no one really cares about and how is that a winning strategy?
Democrat primary voters need to recognise that defeating Trump is going to be very difficult.
Since WW II, only Jimmy Carter and George Bush Sr. have failed to win re-election, in both
cases to superb campaigners who captured the public's imagination and, critically, swing
voters.
Which of the potential Democrat challengers is a Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton? Or,
indeed, a Barack Obama?
For a dose of reality, Democrats could do worse than read Mike Bloomberg's piece on his
decision to stay out of the race:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/our-highest-office-my-deepest-obligation
Warren rules -- her policy ideas are creative, intelligent and moral, and the world would be
an indescribably better place if people like her were ever allowed into positions of
authority. That anyone on the planet would prefer to be represented by someone like Biden,
never mind Trump, is utterly depressing.
Sadly, FOX News has already issued their proscribed talking points on Sen.Warren. You will
find them listed and repeated anywhere Elizabeth's Warren's candidacy is discussed (including
here). Most of it will be lies or exaggerations, claims that she received jobs and promotions
based on her claims of Native American ancestry, claims that she received scholarships or
some kind of preferential treatment by calling herself an "Indian". They will insist that
this is an obvious character flaw, that she's a liar and some sort of cultural thief.
Sadly, too many American's still imagine FOX News and it's ilk are purveyors of fact. They
imagine the propaganda they are being fed about Elizabeth Warren is a truth the "mainstream
media" won't mention. We saw all of this with Hillary Clinton. 30% of Republican voters still
think Sec. Clinton ran a pedophile ring out of a DC pizza parlor.
If Sen.Warren, or any other rational candidate has a fair chance at running for President,
if all the lies and propaganda of the right-wing media establishment are to be countered, the
left and the center of US politics needs an effective counter to right-wing narrative.
A presidential campaign is not about specific, detailed policy proposals. It's about a vision
for the country. A vision that must be consistent with voters' feelings and expectations; and
must be communicated in a clear, energetic way by an effective messenger. That's the way
Reagan, Clinton, Obama and Trump won.
Does anybody remember Trump's healthcare policy?
People don't vote for policy manifestos. People vote for candidates that inspire and
convince.
If Warren is the 'intellectual powerhouse' of the Democratic party, then god help them. Not a
word about 1 trillion dollar budget deficits and rising (under Trump)-but remember Obama was
little better; in 15 years time the US state pension system will be bankrupt, various other
states' pension schemes are also effectively bankrupt (see Illinois, Tennessee) as are
various cities (Chicago), and all Warren and Trump can think of is more debt, and nor will
MMT help (we know this is just deficit spending on steroids). None of these people are
'progressive' - by not tacking the key problem of runaway debt it just robs everyone by
forcing a default - not an 'honest' one, but rather the route taken by all politicians,
namely rapid devaluation of the currency; something that robs all people, and destroys
savings. Instead all we get are jam today, and bankruptcy tomorrow.
She changed her ethnicity from white to Native American at the University of Pennsylvania Law
School. Also, a large majority of Americans have Native American DNA....and EW has less than
the average American (which is 5%)...she has 0.20. She abused a privilege and got called out.
She's too damn smart, is the problem. Along with all her qualifications she has also a lot of
very solid wins that she brought home for the people of Massachusetts as a senator, from
helping fisherman to low-income students suffering from college debt -- emphasizing that
she's actually helped working class people and people in student debt should be a no brainer.
And yet she seems not to have a savvy political operator advising her – she sure as
hell hasn't gotten out ahead of the Native American thing, and I don't know why no one is
doing that for her.
"Elizabeth Warren is the intellectual powerhouse of the Democratic party"
Then they really are in trouble.....
Just take 1 point....
"She has called for abolishing the electoral college, the unfair institution the US used
to elect executives "
Well that requires a constitutional amendment, that requires a two thirds majority in both
houses and then ratification by three quarters of the States. The ERA was proposed in 1923
didn't get through Congress until 1972 and is still short of the 38 State ratifications to
adopt it. That's an issue of direct concern to at least half the population. The idea that a
procedural change to the constitution for partisan benefit is getting through the process is
blatantly laughable. Particularly as there appear to be about 27 states that have enhanced
importance under the current system ( http://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-the-electoral-college-74280
) and only 13 are needed to kill it.
Warren has the same foreign policy as all the others, invade, sanction, destroy. Steal oil,
gold and assets. The US has become a deluded neurotic police state rife with addiction and so
addled it is no longer a force for good in any sphere.
In short it is now a part of the
problem and no longer a part of any workable solution. Who becomes POTUS is therefore
irrelevant.
Warren is flawed ideologically and personally, US citizens need to wake up and recognise that the POTUS is an irrelevant position with no authority and that until you
tackle the neocon ridden nature of US politics nothing will ever change.
There is no hope in
systems, only hope in people. Politics has become irrelevant in the face of our impending
extinction.
"... Posturing as a would-be American native and supporting racial retributions is as far from qualifying as an intellectual powerhouse as it gets. She would be better than Trump, obviously, but then anybody would. ..."
It may well not be Warren who wins the Democratic nomination, but whoever does will be
campaigning on her ideas
since her initial announcement in December, Warren's campaign has rolled out a series of
detailed policy proposals in quick succession, outlining structural changes to major
industries, government functions, and regulatory procedures that would facilitate more
equitable representation in the federal government and overhaul the economy in favor of the
working class. These policy proposals have made Warren the Democratic party's new intellectual
center of gravity, a formidable influence who is steadily pushing the presidential primary
field to the left and forcing all of her primary challengers to define their political
positions against hers.
Warren has become the Democratic party's new intellectual center of gravity
Warren herself is an anti-trust nerd, having come to the Senate from a career as an academic
studying corporate and banking law. On the stump, she's most detailed in the same areas where
she is most passionate, like when she talks about about breaking
up huge tech companies such as Amazon and Google, and implementing a 21st-century --
version of the Glass-Steagall act that would separate commercial and investment banking (she
has also called for prosecuting and
jailing bank executives who break the law). But her policy agenda is broader than that,
taking on pocketbook issues that have resonance with working families.
Warren outlined a huge overhaul of the childcare system that would revolutionize the
quality, cost and curriculum of early childhood education, with subsidies for families and a
living wage for caregivers. It's a proposal that she talks about in the context of her own
career when, as a young mother and fledgling legal mind, she almost had to give up a job as a
law professor because childcare for her young son was too expensive.
Warren has also proposed a housing plan
that would limit huge investors' abilities to buy up homes, give incentives for localities to
adopt renters' protections, and build new public housing. Crucially, and uniquely, her housing
plan would also provide home
ownership grants to buyers in minority communities that have historically been "redlined",
a term for the racist federal housing policies that denied federally backed mortgages to black
families. The provision, aimed to help black and brown families buy their first homes, is a
crucial step toward amending the racial wealth gap, and it has helped sparked a broader
conversation within the party about the need to
pay reparations to the descendants of slaves -- a concept that Warren has also
endorsed.
Taking her cues from pro-democracy and voting rights advocates such as Stacey Abrams, Warren
has also taken on anti-majoritarian constitutional provisions, aiming to make American
democracy more representative and less structurally hostile to a progressive agenda. She has
called for abolishing the
electoral college , the unfair institution the US uses to elect chief executives that makes
a vote in New York count less than a vote in Wyoming, and which has resulted in two disastrous
Republican presidencies in the past two decades. She has advocated eliminating the filibuster
, an archaic procedural quirk of the Senate that would keep the Democrats from ever passing
their agenda if they were to regain control of that body. And she has signaled a willingness to
pack the
courts , another move that will be necessary to implement leftist policies such as Medicare
for All -- because even if the next Democratic president can pass her agenda through Congress,
she will not be able to protect it from the malfeasance of a federal bench filled with
conservative Trump appointees eager to strike it down.
When other candidates campaign, Warren's strong policy positions force them to define
themselves against her
Warren has been the first to propose all of these policies, and it is not difficult to see
other candidates falling in line behind her, issuing belated and imitative policy proposals, or
being forced to position themselves to her right. Warren has promised not to go negative
against other Democrats , but her campaign's intellectual
project also serves a political purpose: when other candidates campaign, her strong policy
positions force them to define themselves against her.
After Warren announced her childcare overhaul, senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris
rolled out plans similarly designed to combat gendered economic injustice, calling for
guaranteed family leave and
better teacher
pay , respectively. After Warren rolled out her pro-democracy agenda of eliminating the
electoral college, abolishing the filibuster and packing the courts, her ideological rival
Bernie Sanders was forced to come out against
both eliminating the filibuster and
packing the courts , damaging his reputation with a party base who knew that without these
interventions, a progressive agenda will probably never be enacted. The pressure eventually
forced Sanders to cave to Warren's vision and concede that he would be open to eliminating the
filibuster in order to pass Medicare for All.
There's still a long time before the first contests, and it's possible that Warren will
succumb to the flaws that her critics see in her campaign. In particular, she might not be able
to raise enough money. She's decided not to take any Pac money and not to fundraise with
wealthy donors, a position that may be as much practical as it is principled: the super-rich
are not likely to donate to Warren anyway, since she has such a detailed plan, called the
Ultra Millionaire Tax , to redistribute their money. She may fall victim to the seemingly
unshakable controversy over her old claims of Native American ancestry, and she seems doomed to
be smeared and underestimated for her sex, called
cold and unlikable for her intellect and then, as with other female candidates, derided as
pandering when she tries to seem more relatable.
But it would be a mistake to write Warren off as a virtuous also-ran, the kind of candidate
whose intellectual and moral commitments doom her in a race dominated by the deep divisions in
the electorate and the craven demagoguery of the incumbent. Elizabeth Warren does not seem to
be running for president to make a point, or to position herself for a different job. Instead,
she is making bold interventions in the political imagination of the party. It may well not be
Warren who wins the Democratic nomination, but whoever does will be campaigning on her
ideas.
Thanks Ken and Thomas. I couldn't have said it better myself. Are we going to pare down the
list of Democratic candidates on the basis of one or two stupid missteps? Looking through the
Bible, I note that Jesus lost his temper at the money-changers and put down the hard-working
Martha. So, he's out too.
Not only the USA, with everyone becoming wealthier, the need for education has declined,
across the western world, being liberal or educated has become a swear word. Social media and
lazy journalists are doing the rest, its all propaganda now, and permanent contradictory
stories means only simple messages cut through the noise, hatred, immigrants, islamophobia,
anti-semitism, etc. are classic messages that get through and stir people's emotions.
Intellect doesn't win elections with a gullible electorate
It was a mistake and it was self-interested and it was unethical. And it was a different time
before tribal groups in the US developed and enforced laws regarding membership status. Had
Trump not shown disdain for her and all native Americans by calling her Pocahontas as though
it were a racial slur, few would have made a big deal from this mistake.
Warren did confess without need to do so that she had purchased distressed mortgages to turn
a profit as a young lawyer like so many of her ethically misguided law colleagues.
If you are
or intimately know more than two attorneys you know this was and in some towns and cities
still is common practice for building wealth among lawyers who have first notice when these
“deals” are posted at the local Court House. Find me a “clean” lawyer
anywhere if you can and I doubt you can — they write law and protect themselves and
wealthy constituents mightily in doing so.
If you can help remove most of them from political
office and replace them with people working professions of greater merit I stand with you.
Congress needs intellectual strength and diversity
of backgrounds.
Unfortunately she opposes wars of choice from the position of an impressive service record
in Iraq so she gets ignored in favour of the ridiculous Elizabeth Warren here and in other
places. Warren's window was last time anyway when she was coming off the back of viral public
speeches about inequality.
Posturing as a would-be American native and supporting racial retributions is as far from
qualifying as an intellectual powerhouse as it gets.
She would be better than Trump, obviously, but then anybody would.
While I'd prefer the genders reversed, I think she would be an ideal running mate for the
front-runner among the declared candidates.
Sanders has much more assiduously defined the moral center that any candidate for
president must have: unapologetic confrontation with the oligarchy. Warren is the
intellectual weapon such an administration could deploy on the specifics of banking and
anti-trust.
This is all the more practical given that Warren has failed to tie race, social justice
and criminal justice issues all together in her values-based worldview -- certainly not to
the extent that Sanders has, his being well beyond any other candidate's efforts.
Because Obama was a canny corporate move to place someone that offered such qualities as
intelligence and grammar in sharp relief to GW Bush while remaining closely controlled by the
oligarchy.
Do you include her fraudulent and offensive claims to Native American heritage in that?
As CNN has reported, as far back as 1986 she was falsely claiming "American Indian" heritage
on official documents.
Despite repeated calls by the leaders of the Tribal Nations, she has still failed to
apologise. That's some intellectual powerhouse..
That was Neo-McCarthyim hysteria plain and simple; and it still is continuing as "FullOfSchiff" fqrse.
Notable quotes:
"... Can you think of a more vulgar and disgraceful manifestation of Trump-Russia media malfeasance than Rachel Maddow? Her deluded nightly conspiratorial rants may have been lucrative for MSNBC, but she fed viewers a complete fraud for three years. Now her show is undergoing a genuine existential crisis after Robert Mueller's exoneration of Trump . ..."
"... The harm Maddow inflicted is unforgivable and she should obviously resign, go into exile, and take up some other line of work: perhaps gardening. That said, she has also become something of a scapegoat. ..."
"... As contemptible as Rachel undoubtedly is, dwelling on her absolves the rest of the industry from acknowledging what really happened: a structural calamity of epic proportions, implicating almost all of them, which has utterly destroyed the reputation of the media writ large. And for good reason. ..."
"... (Brennan infamously declared Trump guilty of treason on Twitter following the Helsinki summit). ..."
"... Last week, Wheeler finally admitted her suspicion that the FBI may have just decided she is 'crazy.' Yes, sounds plausible. ..."
"... Sadly, all the media figures who might have been assigned to legitimate evidence-based inquiries were wrapped up in the never-ending Russia melodrama, based on the hunch that it would result in the revelation of treasonous collusion, followed by the arrest of Trump's family and his swift impeachment. None of this happened. So what was the point? ..."
"... Most disturbing of all is how otherwise-smart journalists and commentators lost their minds and integrity throughout the debacle. It was all a joke, a scam, and I've barely even scratched the surface here. It will take years to fully sift through the wreckage ..."
'Boom!': an autopsy of the
media after the Mueller bombshellDunking on Rachel Maddow may be fun, but she's far
from the sole perpetratorMichael
Tracey Rachel Maddow
Can you think of a more vulgar and disgraceful manifestation of Trump-Russia media
malfeasance than Rachel Maddow? Her deluded nightly conspiratorial rants may have been
lucrative for MSNBC, but she fed viewers a complete fraud for three years. Now her show is
undergoing a genuine existential crisis after Robert Mueller's exoneration of Trump .
The harm Maddow inflicted is unforgivable and she should obviously resign, go into exile,
and take up some other line of work: perhaps gardening. That said, she has also become
something of a scapegoat. It's convenient to disavow Maddow's excesses if you're a journalist
who wants to pretend that the media failures which gave rise to Trump-Russia weren't a
full-scale indictment of their entire profession. To act as though the misconduct was somehow
confined to one unhinged cable news personality would be a gross distortion.
As contemptible as Rachel undoubtedly is, dwelling on her absolves the rest of the industry
from acknowledging what really happened: a structural calamity of epic proportions, implicating
almost all of them, which has utterly destroyed the reputation of the media writ large. And for
good reason.
Easy as it might be to pooh-pooh Maddow as some zany outlier, the undeniable reality is that
the sick conspiratorial mindset she embodied was thoroughly mainstream: it infected virtually
every sector of elite American culture, from journalism, to entertainment, to the professional
political class. Rachel is just the tip of the rotten iceberg.
Take, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Keith was the most influential host on MSNBC during the
George W. Bush years, when audiences ate up his furious denunciations of the Iraq War, which
scratched a genuine itch because of the prevailing pro-war media conformity of the time.
Olbermann gave voice to frustrated liberals who felt that their well-founded grievances were
not being represented in the popular media, and his style came to be emulated across the
industry (including by the host he recruited for a top spot on the network, Rachel Maddow.)
Then came the Trump era, when Olbermann's brain appeared to explode. He began recording
short video rants for GQ magazine, which rank among the most mind-bendingly deranged
content produced throughout the entire Russiagate ordeal. Please, just watch this unbelievable
screed from December 2016:
'We are at war with Russia,' Olbermann gravely proclaims. The inauguration of Donald Trump,
he prophesies, will mark 'the end of the United States as an independent country.' Anyone who
rejects this analysis is a 'traitor' says Olbermann, and in league with 'Russian scum.' His
recommendation is to thwart Trump via some harebrained Electoral College scheme where electors
are intimidated into violating their duty to vote according to the election outcome in their
respective states and districts.
I covered this attempted coup at the time, which failed, but was
supported by leading Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton campaign communications
director Jennifer Palmieri to Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe; as well as Michael Moore,
Lawrence Lessig, Peter Beinart, DeRay McKesson, Paul Krugman, and Neera Tanden. Prominent
liberals had been melodramatically whinging for months about how appalled they were by Trump's
alleged propensity to violate 'norms,' but the next minute they turned around and demanded that
all norms governing the centuries-old Electoral College process be thrown out the window. The
wild propaganda promoted by Olbermann had become the standard, mainstream view among American
liberals: fundamentally corrupting their capacity to view subsequent political events with any
semblance of rationality.
Despite their truly insane offerings, focusing solely on demented opinionators like
Olbermann and Maddow still lets ostensibly 'neutral' journalists off the hook. The amount of
journalistic resources squandered on the Trump-Russia boondoggle, for instance by the New
York Times and the Washington Post , will never be fully quantified. Both newspapers
were lavished with Pulitzer Prizes and every other pointless accolade for their supposedly
intrepid journalism. Their constant 'bombshell scoops' routinely ricocheted across Twitter
before they were injected into the rest of the turbocharged media ecosystem, each one
breathlessly touted on cable news for hours at a time. The harsh truth is that most all of
these 'scoops' were predicated on a fiction. There was supposed to be a core conspiracy, which
was meant to explain why Trump associates kept getting caught in lies – why their
communications were extrajudicially intercepted, why they were surveilled on dubious pretenses.
But no underlying conspiracy was ever revealed. The whole thing was based on a fairytale.
Shouldn't the Times and WaPo therefore apologize and give back their Pulitzers?
Or at very least toss them in the dumpster.
Benjamin Wittes, the LawFare website guru and arguably the most lauded Twitter authority on
the Trump-Russia scam, became well-known for his fun slogan, 'BOOM!,' which he would gleefully
tweet every time a supposed bombshell article burst on the scene. Here's a Washington
Post
story from October 21 last year headlined 'Special counsel examines conflicting accounts as
scrutiny of Roger Stone and WikiLeaks deepens,' which got the Wittes 'boom'
treatment. Wow, very dramatic! Sounds a lot like Mueller and his squad were closing in on Stone
as the evil mastermind behind some grand Trump-Russia conspiracy plot, given his suspicious
ties to WikiLeaks, right? The only problem is, when Stone was indicted three months later,
Mueller not only brought zero charges alleging Stone as party to any conspiracy, he
dispelled such notions.
All the correspondence cited in Mueller's indictment showed that
Stone had no
advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases or any privileged access to its operations. Roger
Stone was just doing what Roger Stone does best: bullshitting.
Stone was eventually charged by Mueller for making false statements, but again: none of
those statements pertained to a conspiracy cover-up. They pertained to the dirty trickster
being who he's been for decades: a fabulist who frequently misrepresents himself and gets in
stupid feuds with fellow political hucksters. The October 2018 story about which Wittes tweeted
'boom' ultimately had no real significance. Like so many other stories touted at the time as an
incredible BOMBSHELL, everyone got amped up over a total fantasy. The story had no serious
value, other than to temporarily scintillate now-discredited obsessives like Wittes.
Special scorn should be reserved for those in prominent media positions who ought to have
known better, but indulged day after day in conspiratorial nonsense anyway. Take Chris Hayes,
the popular 8pm MSNBC host, who unlike Maddow has a journalistic background (he was formerly
the Washington Editor of The Nation magazine). Theoretically, Hayes should have been imbued
with a greater sense of ingrained skepticism regarding CIA and FBI claims, which are what drove
the entire Trump-Russia investigation to begin with. He is also a genuinely intelligent person,
having (ironically) written the excellent Twilight of
the Elites (2012), a book which examined the propensity for upper-crust society to
engage in self-defeating groupthink.
But Hayes too ended up witlessly amplifying the most
obscene Russiagate antics – no doubt influenced by the pressure of having to turn in big
ratings every night. His shows were always brimming with security state spooks like John Brennan
, the former CIA Director and proven
fantasist . Brennan was eventually hired by NBC, becoming one of Hayes's colleagues
despite having played a central role in instigating the original Trump-Russia investigation in 2016 and inflaming its most
incendiary elements (Brennan infamously declared Trump guilty of treason on Twitter following
the Helsinki summit).
For further insight on the subject, Hayes generally turned to pseudo-journalistic figures
like Natasha Bertrand of The Atlantic , whose frenetically conspiratorial Russia
coverage has also proven to have been total bunk – as well as former prosecutors and
FBI
officials like Chuck Rosenberg, disreputable security state apparatchiks like former NSA
lawyer Susan Hennessey, and outright charlatans like purported 'intelligence expert' Malcolm
Nance. (Here's an example from 2016 of the esteemed Nance getting tricked by a Twitter
troll.)
Hayes even went so far as to promote the theory that Trump had been colluding with
Russia since 1987, a story somehow featured on the cover of New
York magazine despite drawing on source material that literally originated with the
recently deceased, notorious madman Lyndon LaRouche. Hayes's descent into fact-free mania
culminated with his
declaration to Stephen Colbert on March 8 last year that Trump and his associates were
'super guilty' of collusion. Whoops!
While many once-respectable media figures like Hayes have seen their reputations inserted
directly into the toilet, maybe the most bizarre case of all is Marcy Wheeler, the independent
journalist known as @emptywheel .
Wheeler appeared on Hayes's first show after Mueller decisively cleared Trump of collusion
– you know, the central tenet of the Special Counsel's mandate. The fact that Hayes would
have Wheeler on at that moment – after the entire Trump-Russia drama was definitively
exposed as a ludicrous fantasy – showed that Hayes was committed to perpetuating the
deceit even in the face of all countervailing evidence, whether unconsciously or consciously.
That's because Marcy Wheeler is almost certainly a deluded basket case.
The most obvious evidence for this is Wheeler's sensational admission in July 2018 that she
burned a source to the FBI, voluntarily and proactively, thereby committing one of
journalism's mortal sins. Wheeler justified her demented action on numerous fronts. First, she
claimed that she possessed bombshell, smoking gun info that proved a Trump-Russia conspiracy,
and felt a patriotic duty to hand this over to the FBI – in retribution for what she
called Russia's 'attack' on the United States. Let's remember, shall we, that said attack at
most amounted to some Twitter bots, goofy Facebook memes, and spear-phished Gmail accounts:
John Podesta famously clicked on a phony link, which led to his emails being swiped. Hardly
9/11 or Pearl Harbor, wouldn't you say? However, those comparisons have been seriously made by
various prominent elected officials, including Rep.
Jerrold Nadler of New York, who would have presided over impeachment proceedings had things
panned out differently.
When pressed – even after the Mueller clearly asserted that no such Trump-Russia
conspiracy ever existed – Wheeler still refuses to divulge any details about the
extraordinary dispositive evidence she mysteriously claims to possess. Second, Wheeler further
justified her insane conduct by insisting she could literally be killed by some unknown
sinister alliance of Russians and Trump-backed mafia figures, or something ( I'm not making this up .).
Shamefully, Wheeler's outlandish assertions were treated as gospel by members of the media who
failed to apply even a modicum of critical scrutiny; Margaret Sullivan of the Washington
Post
heralded Wheeler as following her conscience and wrote this about the supposed Russian hit
squad out to get her: 'Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for
disposing of people they find threatening.' Utter lunacy. Since the Mueller finding, Wheeler
has strangely not revealed any additional information about the nature of these would-be
assassins.
Think about it. For months, Wheeler dangled cryptic hints about the explosive info that she
alone supposedly knew about, enthralling blog readers and Twitter followers – and earning
her major platforms not just on MSNBC but even the New York Times , where she
contributed columns
that contained blatant falsehoods. In the pages of the world's most influential newspaper, she
claimed that Mueller had been 'hiding' evidence showing Trump's participation in a Russia
conspiracy, and it would all come out once Mueller issued his final verdict. No dice.
Last week, Wheeler finally admitted her suspicion that the FBI may have just decided
she is 'crazy.' Yes, sounds plausible.
So much journalistic energy was wasted chronicling the ins-and-outs of the Russiagate
non-story. Imagine if instead that time was devoted to reporting in the public interest: like,
say, I don't know – investigating the militaristic think tanks which attempted to
undermine Trump's key diplomatic initiatives (such as North Korea), or how Trump was co-opted
by the Republican donor class, or his various actual corruptions that didn't happen to involve
any international espionage conspiracy.
Sadly, all the media figures who might have been
assigned to legitimate evidence-based inquiries were wrapped up in the never-ending Russia
melodrama, based on the hunch that it would result in the revelation of treasonous collusion,
followed by the arrest of Trump's family and his swift impeachment. None of this happened. So
what was the point?
Most disturbing of all is how otherwise-smart journalists and commentators lost their minds
and integrity throughout the debacle. It was all a joke, a scam, and I've barely even scratched
the surface here. It will take years to fully sift through the wreckage.
Yeah, I remember Trump's healthcare "policy". It was a great, really, really great. The best
healthcare ever. Repeal and replace. Obamacare is failing, it has failed, it's a huge
failure, but Trump will do better. We were going to have the best healthcare in the world...
I guess he's just to distracted by building that wall he's not building. Or, golf.
"... Jared Kushner is 36 and he had already stepped up to a senior position in his family's real estate business Kushner Companies. This was in part because daddy Charles Kushner was in jail. But now that he has taken on a job as White House advisor to President Trump, Jared Kushner has been forced to step aside from Kushner Companies and his father Charles Kushner is stepping back in. ..."
"... So Charles Kushner, father of current Presidential advisor Jared Kushner and son in law to the President has been convicted on federal election fraud charges and witness tampering. ..."
"... Well Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on election laws, put it best when he told Bloomberg , "It can't hurt to be doing business with Jared Kushner's family. It's a road to the administration. At the very least they're going to have an inside track." ..."
Jared Kushner's father , Charles Kushner, who also just
so happens to be a convicted felon, has gotten back to work. He has also hired some of the people who he did time with.
In 2004 , after already paying a $508,900
fine to the Federal Election Commission for improperly contributing money to political candidates, Charles Kushner was forced to
agree to a plea bargain with Federal prosecutors and was sentenced to 14 months in a federal prison in Montgomery, Alabama. The charges
against Kushner revolved around illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering. Charles Kushner had arranged for a prostitute
to sleep with his brother in law William Schulder, who had agreed to testify against him. The encounter was filmed and Kushner used
it to try and blackmail Schulder. Gross!
The federal prosecutor who handled the case was none other than future New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie later worked
side by side on Donald Trump's presidential campaign with Jared Kushner, the son in law of the President Trump who just so happens
to also be the son of Charles Kushner.
Jared Kushner is 36 and he had already stepped up to a senior position in his family's real estate business Kushner Companies.
This was in part because daddy Charles Kushner was in jail. But now that he has taken on a job as White House advisor to President
Trump, Jared Kushner has been forced to step aside from Kushner Companies and his father Charles Kushner is stepping back in.
Did you follow all of that?
At the time Chris Christie stated about the charges, "There is nothing, nothing more sacrosanct than the integrity of the grand
jury system."
Apparently prison is a good place to make business connections.
Avram Lebor and Richard Goettlich are two former convicts who served prison time with Charles Kushner who are now working for
Kushner Companies. Bloomberg reports that the two men were convicted in separate fraud schemes. Lebor, 68, served seven years
in prison and is now the firm's director of acquisitions. Goettlich served ten years in jail for his part in a ponzi scheme.
The two men were hired as part of the Kushner Companies' second-chance program. Charles Kushner is board member of Getting Out
& Staying Out, which mentors young inmates at Rikers Island.
So Charles Kushner, father of current Presidential advisor Jared Kushner and son in law to the President has been convicted
on federal election fraud charges and witness tampering.
The big question now that everyone is still asking about his son Jared is whether or not he will be able to separate his new job
working for the people of the United States from his business interests, or if there will be conflicts of interest. And will doing
business with Kushner Companies make it easier for you to get access to the White House?
Well Larry Noble, general counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization focused on election laws, put
it best when he told Bloomberg , "It can't hurt to be doing business with Jared Kushner's family. It's a road to the administration.
At the very least they're going to have an inside track."
So what is Charles Kushner doing these days?
The
Real Deal reports that Charles Kushner just spent $12 million on three units in
212 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. Encompassing
an area of 4,614 square feet, the three apartments are each on a different floor, the seventh, eighth and ninth floors.
"... These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people. ..."
2) Trucklers – (LBJ) lower class White Americans who gain wealth and power by championing
non White, minority causes just because it's a path to power, pleasing the elites who would otherwise
dismiss them as hicks.
3) Pussyfooters (Bush Sr. Country Club Conservatives) White Americans who prefer their
own safe life, don't hate their own people but rarely defend them – they don't like trouble, they're
pussies. Alt Right has given them a new word "Cuckservatives".
4) Old Believers (Ron Paul, Pat Robertson) Sincere old guys who wish things could go back
to the way things used to be when some systems supposedly worked for us when we were 90% White European
American, before the Great Society, New Deal, feminism, etc
5) Proditors – (John Brown, Jane Fonda, SDS)
These are the forms of White traditional British oriented American traitors, not racial or ethnic
groups with historic envy, hatreds of our people.
Do you have links to other Wilmot Robertson sites?
I really can't emphasize #2 strongly enough. The term "fog of war" is an apt one.
People in a war generally don't know much at all about what's going on, at the time. They're lucky
if they ever do. But in every single orthodox eye-witness account I've ever read, the storytellers
know exactly what was going on, and why . Even when they shouldn't. They set off
my skeptic alarms left and right.
Read some of the accounts critically, and see for yourself. They're mostly "everybody knows,"
"it is known," type stuff. Not credible at all. These are the bricks the orthodox narrative is
made of.
Interesting but very controversial. Jewish people do possess business acumen and are more oriented toward money success. Just
look what happened in the USSR after its dissolution and Yeltsin privatization. Most "oligarchs" turned to be Jewish ;-)
Also the achievement of Jewish people in science should be be underestimated. This nation gave world a lot of top
physicists mathematicians and philosophers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. ..."
"... It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius. ..."
"... A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion. ..."
"... All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. ..."
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or
groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast,
when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they
dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and
devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European
colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese
imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic
hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the
Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of
the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine
and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable
power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries;
Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews',
for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and
attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater
social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings
and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism
of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric
ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism,
which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of
Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from
engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City
of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular
pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited
from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular
Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats'
by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism
in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the
US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European
regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for
its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno
centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized
'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions
to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to
threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence
of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American
man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions
and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding
of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man
used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite
his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager
with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages'
news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines
for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in
the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents,
etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel
and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel
as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government
to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who
carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered
the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the
culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded
that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia'
– clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic
threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured
Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed
the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale
of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever.
In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled.
In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate
tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these
fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country
account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565,
China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net
worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration
of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls
US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg
with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey
Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews.
Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less
rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews'
represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both
Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested
in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel
or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously
or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the
US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'.
Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers
are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis
of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification
of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice
and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who
claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic
to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific
rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration
or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding
Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled
as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited
from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews
became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities
away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of
their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their
'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe?
It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with
major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated
in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical
and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture
and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were
educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and
non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great
scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign
of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural
heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification
with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian
converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised
non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't
until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations
for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous
as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and
indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some
'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage,
no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and
brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish
Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel
was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological
international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized
and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of
Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned
in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of
the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar
perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples
of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work
on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation
and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile,
bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew)
or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but
they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple
and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires'
are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric
ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars
to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'.
His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty
Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party
pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals,
dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and
power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews.
A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews'
do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority
but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and
represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric
political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize
winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger
more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view
themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge
from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by
the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections.
Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity
from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative
fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is
despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading
denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street
or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons
for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization
and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate
number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive
impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the
country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic
shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion
of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order
to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial
– most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who
are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass
media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Conclusion
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional
intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and
later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations
by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing
inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the
Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent
Jews of principle are abandoning
Blackstone Intelligence Network,
Published on Mar 14, 2019
Donald Trump has a decades-long history of doing business with mobsters from both the
Italian and Jewish mafias. Trump was 1 of only 2 real estate moguls in all of New York City who
allowed organized crime families to purchase hundreds of millions of dollars in Trump
properties using anonymous shell companies.
That happened often when a second rate provincial lawyer became the Secretary of State. At least Kerry knows French. Pompeo
knows absolution nothing and is capable only of repeating old cliché.
Today's special word is: Projection
Notable quotes:
"... Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!. ..."
"... Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture. ..."
Pompeo should go into advertising. Since the late '50's, we've torn Latin America to
shreds, but we're the good guys, eh?!.
I luv my country, but I hate my government.
beemasters
This must have been the most transparently crooked administration ever in the US history! Ain't that the pot calling the
kettle black!
2willies
Doesn't Pompeo also believe in the rapture.
Idaho potato head
At some point even the most deluded sheep has got to realize he is being lied to. Or is it just as in the Matrix, there is
an age limit as to when a mind can be awoken.
After reading CYMS1 below I retract that question.
Money quote (from comments): This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with
Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling
pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel.
Notable quotes:
"... As usual, Trump made the announcement of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials: ..."
"... After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do. ..."
"... Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies ..."
"... There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors. ..."
"... Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders flatter and praise him. ..."
"... Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support. ..."
"... I wonder what Mr. Kagan has to say now about "authoritarian" regimes?! ..."
"... Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. ..."
"... The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it. ..."
"... I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain sight with Israel. ..."
"... To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off, a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye. ..."
"... Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism, and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation. ..."
"... All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either, because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the Middle East into. ..."
As usual, Trump
made the announcement
of recognizing Israel's claim to the Golan Heights without any consultation with any of the relevant administration officials:
President Donald Trump's tweet on Thursday recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory surprised members of his own
Middle East peace team, the State Department, and Israeli officials.
U.S. diplomats and White House aides had believed the Golan Heights issue would be front and center at next week's meetings
between Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. But they were unprepared for any presidential
announcement this week.
No formal U.S. process or executive committees were initiated to review the policy before Trump's decision, and the diplomats
responsible for implementing the policy were left in the dark.
Even the Israelis, who have advocated for this move for years, were stunned at the timing of Trump's message.
After more than two years of watching Trump's impulsive and reckless "governing" style, it doesn't come as a surprise to anyone
that he makes these decisions without advance warning. There is no evidence that Trump ever thinks anything through, and so he probably
sees no reason to tell anyone in advance what he is going to do.
Trump almost never bothers consulting with the people who will be responsible for carrying out his policies and dealing
with the international fallout, and that is probably why so many of his policy decisions end up being exceptionally poor ones. The
substance of most of Trump's foreign policy decisions was never likely to be good, but the lack of an organized policy process on
major decisions makes those decisions even more haphazard and chaotic than they would otherwise be.
There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical
political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at
shoring up Trump's support from Republican "pro-Israel" voters and donors.
Whatever short-term benefit Israel gains from it, the U.S. gains nothing and stands to lose quite a bit in terms of our international
standing.
There has been no consideration of the costs and problems this will create for the U.S. in its relations with other regional states
and beyond because Trump couldn't care less about the long-term effects that his decisions have on the country.
Once again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government ahead of the interests of the
United States. That seems to be the inevitable result of electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders
flatter and praise him.
Trump's bad decision can be traced back to Bolton's visit to Israel earlier this year:
Administration officials said that National Security Advisor John Bolton was instrumental to the decision, after visiting Israel
in January to assure officials there that the United States would not abandon them in Syria despite Trump's sudden withdrawal
of troops from the battlefield.
Nervous Israeli officials saw an opportunity. "It was an ask," one Israeli source said, "because of the timing -- it suddenly
became a relevant issue about Iran."
Bolton is usually the culprit responsible any destructive and foolish policy decision over the last year, and his baleful
influence continues to grow. We can also see the harmful effects of the administration's Iran obsession at work. In the end, the
Syria "withdrawal" hasn't happened and apparently isn't going to, but Trump nonetheless gives Israel whatever it wants in exchange
for nothing so that they will be "reassured" of our unthinking support.
Well, of course Trump puts America last. There is one and only one person he is interested in -- himself. As you say this is his
narcissistic personality at work.
My never ending question is always, "Why does any Republican with a conscience remain silent? Are they really all this shallow
and self absorbed? Is there nothing Trump does that will finally force them to put country before party and their own ambition?"
It's a really sad state of events that has put this country on the road to ruin.
Trump is making one hell of a mess for the next president to clean up. Straightening out all this stupidity will take
years. Here's hoping that Trump gets to watch his foreign policy decisions tossed out and reversed from federal prison.
The decision to leave the INF treaty was taken in a similar way and with a total disregard for the consequences. The leaders
of the European NATO countries have shown utter spinelessness in going along with it.
The administration says that a Russian missile violates the treaty but it will not tell us what the range of the missile is.
Nor will it allow its weapons inspectors to go and look at it.
The reason is clear: Fear that the weapons inspectors' findings would contradict the administration's claims.
I voted Republican ever since I started voting. I voted for Bush I, Dole, Dubya, and McCain. I couldn't vote for either Obama
or Romney, but I voted for Trump because of Hillary Clinton.
I am shocked and horrified by what I've seen under Trump. I am deeply disappointed that so few Republicans (or Democrats,
for that matter) have stood up to him on foreign policy, and I will never vote Republican again. This GOP/Israel connection stinks
to high heaven. Anyone who studied or remembers our problem with Communist spies back in the '50s has got to be hearing alarm
bells ringing in their ears. Worries about Soviet spying and Russian meddling pale in comparison to what's now going on in plain
sight with Israel.
To be fair, it ain't just Team R that has the sloppy crush on Israel. Team D is just as bad, even if they don't gush quite
so publicly. In fact, episodes such as this one are useful in a way, as they make it hard to pretend that this is just a one-off,
a misguided decision that we have to go along with to appease a powerful friend.
Europoliticians tell that last one a lot. "We really don't want to but the Americans twisted our arms ZOMG Special Relationship
so sorry ZOMG!" Only with a lot more Eurobureaucratese.
I agree with the article's premise, but not because of this move regarding Israel.
Personally, I believe this move will have little impact on the outcome of the crisis in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the
other Arab monarchies are too focused on containing Iran and Turkey to give a crap about what Israel does. The only Arab states
that I can see objecting to this move are Syria (obviously) and the others who were already allied with Iran and/or Turkey to
begin with.
Right now, the REAL center of attention in the region should be Northern Syria. THAT's where the next major war likely will
begin. In that area, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent Turkey and the United Arab Emirates are the ones doing the major escalations,
while Israel has virtually no role at all aside from sideline cheer-leading. And of course, Trump is doing nothing to stop what
could become the next July Crisis. What's "America First" about that?
Nevertheless, Israel should be very concerned about Northern Syria. If war breaks out and the US is forced to go to war
with its own NATO ally as a result, Israel should prepare to kiss its alliance with the US goodbye.
There is no way our international reputation will come out of this war unscathed, and odds are we'll be in a far worse position
diplomatically than we were at any point in our history, even during the Iraq war. When that happens, the American people will
be out to assign blame. Many (rightfully or not) will blame Israel due to its connections to neoconservatism and Saudi jingoism,
and consequently we may end up seeing BOTH parties becoming unfriendly to Israel over the subsequent generation.
All of this could be prevented if President Trump would just tell Saudi Arabia to STOP the nonsense. But no. He's too focused
on MIC profits. He's not America First. And quite frankly, I'm starting to think Benjamin Netanyahu is not Israel-first either,
because if he were he'd be warning Trump about the mess he's going to end up getting America, Israel, and much of Europe and the
Middle East into.
I don't think the issue is to end capitalism, but economic Zionism (all known as
capitalism changed into monopoism) is on its way out. Revolutionaries, all over the world, are
in place to revert monopolism back to capitalism and democracy back to human rights.**
She [Hillary] was the dream for Big Banking, the apartheid Jewish state, and probably a
lot more folks. That didn't happen, and some people became unhinged. by Zachary Smith @85 As
things have turned out.. we might have all been better off with Hillary than Trump.. Next time
around I am going to vote for the most obvious liar, and the candidate with the most stinking
capaign promises. looking back over the elections since Abe Lincolm was assassinated by the
city of London.. because Lincoln was moving to make USA its own bank and to issue its own
currency.. **
At http://representativepress.org/IsraelViolatesResolution.html
c/b found the pre conditions, all of which Israel agreed to,
for admission of Israel into the UN..
1. he status of jerusalem w/n/b altered
2. Palestinans w/b permitted to return
3. The partition agreement w/become the final borders.
Text of General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949 admitting Israel into the UN,
notes Israel agreed to comply with Resolution 194 : UNITED NATIONS General Assembly A/RES/273
(III) 11 May 1949
what is really interesting is to take a look at the low life supporting this UN action at
the press, in the white house and at the MIC. Many supporters there played at hugmongous part
in the rest of the rise of Economic Zionism which depends on leg breaker USA to get its
way..
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Instagram March 10, 2019:
"Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the Nation-State Law that we
passed, Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People -- and them alone."
It is a fascinating, though rather grim, story, spanning the First World War, the
creation of the states of Israel, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and taking in Lawrence of
Arabia, all the way to the fall of Gadaffi in Libya, the Syria Civil War and Rise of the
so-called Islamic State, among other things. It's a story of long-term manipulation,
insidious indoctrination, and secret, almost 'mythical' works of literature.
These two ideologies -- Wahhabism in Islam and Zionism which is linked primarily to the
Jewish religion -- may seem like unrelated entities on the surface of it
"Germany still owes Israel $19 billion for the Holocaust. The new estimate was calculated
by independent American economist Sidney Zabludoff, a former CIA, White House and U.S.
Treasury official."
@ Zachary Smith who wrote about Clinton II
"
She was the dream for Big Banking, the apartheid Jewish state, and probably a lot more
folks.
"
So that makes Trump a nightmare for Big Banking, the apartheid Jewish state, etc., right?
I encourage you to understand how much you are being played. If Big Banking has both of
them, whom is being played?
@ 92 * time for everyone to stand up for human rights promoter Assange?
The end of capitalism, in disguise. US pol structure does not allow for such, as the US
(and other West, the US is just a stellar ex.) are ruled by rapacious coproratist (typo)
oligarchs. Won't happen.
April 2, 2019 The CIA Takeover of America in the 1960s Is the Story of Our Times. The Killing of the Kennedys and Today's
New Cold War
'We're all puppets,' the suspect [Sirhan Sirhan] replied, with more truth than he could have understood at that moment."
– Lisa Pease, quoting from the LAPD questioning of Sirhan
March 19, 2017 The CIA's 60-Year History of Fake News How the Deep State Corrupted Many American Writers
Whitney's new book, "Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers," explores how the CIA influenced acclaimed
writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly anti-communist material.
During the interview, Scheer and Whitney
discuss these manipulations and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as the
Paris Review).
"... Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985, for instance. ..."
"... Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view, but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.) ..."
"... Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board of his National Council for the American Worker (which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders in its job postings. ..."
"... There are more former Goldman Sachs employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined. ..."
"... It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives ..."
"... As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish. The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon. " ..."
"... Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the passing of a bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional $550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation. ..."
"... Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better. ..."
"... We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more" ..."
"Unlike other presidents, I keep my promises," Trump boasted in a
speech delivered on Saturday to the Republican Jewish Congress
at a luxury hotel in Las Vegas. Many in the audience wore red yarmulkes emblazoned with his name. In his speech, Trump condemned
Democrats for allowing "the terrible scourge of anti-Semitism to take root in their party" and emphasized his loyalty to Israel.
Trump has kept some of his promises. So far, he has kept every promise that he made to the Jewish community. Yet he has reneged
on his promises to white America – the promises that got him elected in the first place. It is a betrayal of the highest order: millions
of white Americans placed their hopes in Trump and wholeheartedly believed that he would be the one to make America great again.
They were willing to endure social ostracism and imperil their livelihoods by supporting him. In return, Trump has turned his back
on them and rendered his promises void.
The most recent example of this is Trump's failure to keep his promise to close the border. On March 29, Trump threatened to close
the border if Mexico did not stop all illegal immigration into the US. This would likely have been a highly effective measure given
Mexico's dependence on cross-border trade. Five days later, he suddenly retracted this threat and said that he would give Mexico
a " one-year warning
" before taking drastic action. He further claimed that closing the border would not be necessary and that he planned to establish
a twenty-five percent
tariff on cars
entering the US instead.
Trump's failure here is his alone. Closing the border could be accomplished with a simple executive order. It has happened
before: Reagan ordered the closing of the border when DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena was murdered on assignment in Mexico in 1985,
for instance.
Trump's empty threats over the past two years have had real-world consequences, prompting waves of migrants trying to sneak
into the country while they still have the chance. His recent move to cut all foreign aid to Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador
is another empty gesture that will probably have similar consequences. The funds directed to those countries were used for programs
that provided citizens with incentives not to migrate elsewhere. (The situation was not ideal from an isolationist point of view,
but a wiser man would have built the wall before cutting off the aid.)
The past two years have seen a surge in illegal immigration without precedent in the past decade. Since late December, the Department
of Homeland Security has released 125,565 illegal aliens into the country. In the past two weeks alone,
6,000 have been admitted. According to current projections, 2019 will witness around 500,000 to 775,000 border crossings. Additionally,
about 630,000 illegal aliens will be added to the population after having overstayed their visas. By the end of the year,
more than one million illegal aliens will have been added to the population:
These projections put the number of illegal aliens added to the U.S. population at around one to 1.5 million, on top of the
11 to
22 million illegal aliens who are already living across the country. This finding does not factor in the illegal aliens who
will be deported, die over the next year, or leave the U.S. of their own will. As DHS data has revealed, once border crossers
and illegal aliens are released into the country, the overwhelming majority are never deported.
In February, Trump signed a
bill allowing the DHS
secretary to add another 69,320 spots to the current H-2B cap of 66,000. On March 29, DHS began this process by announcing that it
would issue an additional
30,000 H-2B visas this year. The H-2B visa program allows foreign workers to come to the US and work in non-agricultural occupations.
Unlike the H-1B program, a Bachelor's degree is not required; most H-2B workers are employed in construction, maintenance, landscaping,
and so on. The demographic most affected by the expansion of the H-2B program will be unemployed working-class Americans. This flies
in the face of Trump's promise to protect American workers and stop importing foreigners.
Trump has indicated that he has plans to expand the H-1B visa program as well. "We want to encourage talented and highly skilled
people to pursue career options in the U.S.," he said in a
tweet in January.
Trump's betrayal of American workers is perhaps best encapsulated by the fact that one of the members of the advisory board
of his National Council for the American Worker
(which claims to "enhance employment opportunities for Americans of all ages") is the CEO of IBM, a company that has
expressed a preference for F-1 and H-1B visa holders
in its job postings.
Trump has been working on legal immigration with Jared Kushner, who has quietly been crafting a
plan to grant
citizenship to more "low- and high-skilled workers, as well as permanent and temporary workers" (so, just about everyone). Kushner's
plan proves the folly of the typical Republican line that legal immigration is fine and that only illegal immigration should be opposed.
Under his plan, thousands of illegal aliens will become "legal" with the stroke of a pen.
There is a paucity of anti-immigration hardliners in Trump's inner circle (though Stephen Miller is a notable exception). Trump
has surrounded himself with moderates: the Kushners, Mick Mulvaney, Alex Acosta, and others. There are more former Goldman Sachs
employees in the Trump White House than in the Obama and Bush administrations combined.
The new DHS secretary, Kevin McAleenan, who was appointed yesterday following Kirstjen Nielsen's resignation, is a middle-of-the-road
law enforcement official who served under Obama and Bush and is responsible for the revival of the "
catch-and-release " policy, whereby
illegal aliens are released upon being apprehended. It was reported last week that Trump was thinking of appointing either Kris Kobach
or Ken Cuccinelli to a position of prominence (as an "
immigration czar "),
but this appears to have been another lie.
Trump's failure to deliver on his promises cannot be chalked up to congressional obstruction. Congress. As Kobach said in a recent
interview , "It's not like we're powerless and it's not like we have to wait for Congress to do something. . . . No, we can actually
solve the immediate crisis without Congress acting." Solving the border crisis would simply demand "leadership in the executive branch
willing to act decisively." Kobach recently outlined an intelligent
three-point plan that Trump could implement:
Publish the final version of the regulation that would supersede the Flores Settlement. The initial regulation was
published by the Department of Homeland
Security in September 2018. DHS could have published the final regulation in December. Inexplicably, DHS has dragged its feet. Finalizing
that regulation would allow the United States to detain entire families together, and it would stop illegal aliens from exploiting
children as get-out-of-jail free cards. Set up processing centers at the border to house the migrants and hold the hearings in one
place. The Department of Justice should deploy dozens of immigration judges to hear the asylum claims at the border without releasing
the migrants into the country. FEMA already owns
thousands of travel trailers and mobile homes that it has used to address past hurricane disasters. Instead of selling them (which
FEMA is currently doing), FEMA should ship them to the processing centers to provide comfortable housing for the migrants. In addition,
a fleet of passenger planes should deployed to the processing centers. Anyone who fails in his or her asylum claim, or who is not
seeking asylum and is inadmissible, should be flown home immediately. It would be possible to fly most migrants home within a few
weeks of their arrival. Word would get out quickly in their home countries that entry into the United States is not as easy as advertised.
The incentive to join future caravans would dissipate quickly. Publish a proposed Treasury regulation that prohibits the sending
home of remittances by people who cannot document lawful presence in the United States. This will hit Mexico in the pocketbook: Mexico
typically brings in well over $20 billion a year in
remittances , raking in
more than $26 billion in 2017. Then, tell the government of Mexico that we will finalize the Treasury regulation unless they do two
things to help us address the border crisis: (1) Mexico immediately signs a "safe third country agreement" similar to our agreement
with Canada. This would require asylum applicants to file their asylum application in the first safe country they set foot in (so
applicants in the caravans from Central America would have to seek asylum in Mexico, rather than Canada); and (2) Mexico chips in
$5 billion to help us build the wall. The threat of ending remittances from illegal aliens is a far more powerful one than threatening
to close the border. Ending such remittances doesn't hurt the U.S. economy; indeed, it helps the economy by making it more likely
that such capital will be spent and circulate in our own country. We can follow through easily if Mexico doesn't cooperate.
It would not be all that difficult for Trump to implement these proposals. Kobach still has faith in Trump, but his assessment
of him appears increasingly to be too generous. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Trump is not actually interested in
curbing immigration and reversing America's demographic decline. He is a con artist and a coward who is willing to betray millions
of white Americans so that he can remain in the good graces of establishment neoconservatives . At the same time, he wants to
maintain the illusion that he cares about his base.
As Ann Coulter has put it, "He's like a waiter who compliments us for ordering the hamburger, but keeps bringing us fish.
The hamburger is our signature dish, juicy and grilled to perfection, you've made a brilliant choice . . . now here's your salmon.
"
Nearly everything Trump has done in the name of restricting immigration has turned out to be an empty gesture and mere theatrics:
threatening to close the border, offering protections to "Dreamers" in exchange for funding for the ever-elusive wall, threatening
to end the "anchor baby" phenomenon with an executive order (which never came to pass), cutting off aid to Central American countries,
claiming that he will appoint an "immigration czar" (and then proceeding to appoint McAleenan instead of Kobach as DHS secretary),
and on and on.
While Trump has failed to keep the promises that got him elected, he has fulfilled a number of major promises that he made to
Israel and the Jewish community.
First, he moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Trump claimed that the move would only cost $200,000, but in
reality it will end up being more than
$20 million . The construction
of the embassy also led to a series of bloody protests; it is located in East Jerusalem, which is generally acknowledged to be Palestinian
territory.
Second, he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. Netanyahu
claimed on Israeli TV that Israel was responsible for convincing him to exit the deal and reimpose sanctions on Iran. (Both Trump
and Netanyahu falsely alleged that Iran lied about the extent of its nuclear program; meanwhile, Israel's large arsenal of chemical
and biological weapons has escaped mention.) Third, he put an end to American funding for Palestinians. This coincided with the
passing of a
bill that codified a $38 billion, ten-year foreign aid package for Israel. Trump also authorized an act allocating an additional
$550 million toward US-Israel missile and tunnel defense cooperation.
Fourth, he recognized Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights (in defiance of the rest of the world, which recognizes the
Golan Heights as Syrian territory under Israeli occupation). Trump's Golan Heights proclamation was issued on March 21 and was celebrated
by Israel. Trump's track record on Israel shows that he is capable of exercising agency and getting things done. But he has failed
to address the most pressing issue that America currently faces: mass immigration and the displacement of white Americans. The most
credible explanation for his incompetence is that he has no intention of delivering on his promises. There is no "Plan," no 4-D chess
game. The sooner white Americans realize this, the better.
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story
of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is,
and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on
BookTV .
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to drain, turns out he is one of them
all along. We elected America's first Jewish president, nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel
Great Again, that was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back in 2015 that the H1b visa program
is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard,
I'll vote for them 2020. Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they belong.
His "implicitly white" supporters would have abandoned him in droves, not wanting to be associated with a racist, thus pointing
up the weakness of implicit whiteness as a survival strategy. And is it actually a survival strategy? A closer look at it makes
me think it's more of a racial self-extermination strategy. After all, what kind of a survival strategy is it that can't even
admit its goals to itself? And it's exactly this refusal of whites to explicitly state that they collectively want to continue
to exist as a race that is the greatest impediment to their doing so. It's an interesting problem with no easy solution. How
do you restore the will to live to a race that seems to have lost it? And not only lost its will to live, but actually prides
itself on doing so? Accordingly, this "betrayal" isn't a betrayal at all. It's what American whites voted for and want. Giving
their country away and accepting their own demographic demise is proof of their virtue; proof of their Christian love for all
mankind.
You are definitely onto something here.
Still, I feel it's not that deep and complicated. It could be that they simply don't believe that the danger is closing in.
Boils down to wrong judgment. People who haven't had the need to think hard about serious things tend to develop that weakness.
I guess that boils down to "good times make weak men."
Hard times are coming and they'll make hard men.
The catch is simple: will be enough of them in time ?
Switching to the Democrats is no solution. The DNC has proven itself to be a criminal organization through sabotaging Sander's
campaign and then being instrumental in creating Russophobia, in collusion with Obama, the CIA, the FBI, and the DoJ. The DNC
has rules in place stating that super delegates – elitists aligned with the DNC – can vote if one nominee does not win on the
first ballot at the National Convention.
Because we have a HUGE number of hats in the Democratic ring, the chances that the nomination
will not be decided on a first vote are extremely high, with the result being that the Democratic nominee is not going to be decided
by voters in the primaries but by super delegates, i.e., the elitists and plutocrats.
Democracy exists when we vote to support
candidates chosen by the elites for the elites; when we stop doing that, the elites turn on democracy. It is a sham; we will have
a choice in 2020: between Pepsi and Coke. You are free to choose which one you prefer, because you live in a democracy. For more
on the rigging of the democratic primaries for 2020, see
"... Weakened by "Russiagate" accusations, Trump was forced to back off his agenda of ending the wars. He put policy in the hands of neoconservative warmongers like John Bolton and Pompeo, and expanded the prospect of wars into Iran and Venezuela. Trump in office bears little resemblance to Trump campaigning for the presidency. ..."
"... It is not clear how Trump has benefited from his groveling. If polls can be believed, Trump's pandering has done him no good with American Jews, 70% of whom disapprove of Trump. Moreover, the Israel Lobby failed to use its influence to silence the presstitutes false "Russiagate" accusations against Trump. Perhaps the Lobby wanted to keep Trump in a weak position in order to extract more concessions from him. ..."
"... Trump, who campaigned on peace so that America's attention and resources could be focused on America's own situation, now has the US more embroiled than ever in the affairs of foreign countries, principally Israel, a Zionist state. This fact makes it reasonable to conclude that Trump is America's first Zionist president, a development that bodes more ill for the world. ..."
It is impossible not to feel some sympathy for President Donald Trump. His agenda to restore
normal relations with Russia and to end Washington's gratuitous wars has been frustrated by the
"Russiagate hoax" that the military/security complex and corrupt Democratic Party used in the
effort to remove Trump from the presidency. He and his wife have been embarrassed by the fake
"Steele Dossier" paid for by the Clinton campaign and used by a corrupt FBI leadership to
illegitimately obtain spy warrants on Trump and his associates. Accused of cavorting with
prostitutes in Moscow and confronted with claims by a porn star of an affair in order to boost
the recognition value of her name, Trump and his wife have experienced uncomfortable times. Now
that the lies the presstitutes have told since 2016 have been exposed by Mueller's inability,
despite his use of every dirty trick, to come up with any indictable offense connected to
"Russiagate," the psychopathic liars who comprise the presstitute media are on the verge of
tears. Mueller has betrayed them, they claim, by letting Trump off the hook. https://www.rt.com/usa/454550-mueller-media-reactions-trump-indictment/
In other words, there will be no apology to Trump. Don't be surprised to see the deranged
accusation that Mueller himself was part of the Russian collusion and was appointed for the
purpose of covering it up.
Weakened by "Russiagate" accusations, Trump was forced to back off his agenda of ending the
wars. He put policy in the hands of neoconservative warmongers like John Bolton and Pompeo, and
expanded the prospect of wars into Iran and Venezuela. Trump in office bears little resemblance
to Trump campaigning for the presidency.
Under such pressure Trump has broken American diplomatic precedent and international law
with respect to Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights in his effort to seek the protection of
the powerful Israel Lobby. He recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moved the US Embassy
there, and on March 22 he said it is time to accept the reality of Israel's occupation of
Syria's Golen Heights as Israeli territory. This extreme pandering to Israeli Zionism is a
disgrace to the United States. https://www.rt.com/news/454528-trump-recognize-golan-heights-netanyahu/
It is not clear how Trump has benefited from his groveling. If polls can be believed,
Trump's pandering has done him no good with American Jews, 70% of whom disapprove of Trump.
Moreover, the Israel Lobby failed to use its influence to silence the presstitutes false
"Russiagate" accusations against Trump. Perhaps the Lobby wanted to keep Trump in a weak
position in order to extract more concessions from him.
Nevertheless, by terminating US aid to Palestinians and by being the only head of state to
fully recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and to assign Syrian territory to Israel,
Trump has established a US relationship with Israeli Zionism that the US has with no other
state and that Israel has with no other state. On any issue that pertains to Israel's interest,
Trump has placed US foreign policy into Israel's hands.
Various diplomats and analysts are saying that Trump gifted the Golan Heights to Israel in
order to help out Netanyahu who faces indictment for corruption. I think the explanation is
that the neoconservatives running US foreign policy are Zionists and that the only ally Trump
has, other than the remnants of the American working class now dismissed as "white
supremacists," is the Israel Lobby.
The hostility of the Trump regime toward Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and
Venezuela does America no good (except for the shareholders of the military/security complex).
But the hostility toward Iran, Syria, and their protector -- Russia -- does benefit Israel.
Israel has been frustrated in its desire to occupy southern Lebanon by the Hezbollah militia,
which is supported by Syria and Iran. If Washington can destabilize Syria and Iran, as it did
Iraq and Libya, Hezbollah would be cut off from support. Moreover, Washington's accusations
against Russia and missile bases on Russia's border can distract Russia's attention and
resources away from the Middle East and leave Syria and Iran less able to resist the US/Israeli
pressures.
Trump, who campaigned on peace so that America's attention and resources could be focused on
America's own situation, now has the US more embroiled than ever in the affairs of foreign
countries, principally Israel, a Zionist state. This fact makes it reasonable to conclude that
Trump is America's first Zionist president, a development that bodes more ill for the
world.
King Solomon wrote, "Much study is a weariness of the flesh." (Eccl. 12:12 KJV) I will add that it doesn't
make one a lot of friends either -- especially if what one discovers through his studies cuts against the grain of
commonly accepted teaching.
In
my message to Liberty Fellowship last Sunday
, I made the point that Zionism is one of America's greatest
threats. I do not say that lightly. Many years and untold hours of laborious study have led me to that
conclusion. Only the lack of truth-preaching (including truth-preaching about Zionism) from America's pulpits
is a greater threat to our country. Beyond that, Zionism is one of the most politically protected institutions
in America. No! It is THE most politically protected institution in the country. Bar none!
The influence and intimidation that Zionism wields over America's major institutions and industries are
incalculable -- and seemingly impenetrable. From the church house to the White House, from Main Street to Wall
Street, from Hollywood and Vine to Broadway and from the marbled halls of Congress to the hallowed halls of
ivy-covered universities, Zionism reigns supreme.
ROBERT STEELE:
This is the single best over-all denouncement of the Zionist parasite as it
exists in America, that I have ever read. The pastor does three things: itemizes Zionist control and
atrocities of control, including the most recent attempts to destroy Senator Rand Paul and Representative Ilhan
Omar; challenges our President, whose past includes deep deep Zionist ties suggestive of compromise; and
explains how so many Christian Zionists have been bribed and brainwashed -- the two go together -- to place
Israel First instead of America First.
Zionism in the USA is OVER. The tide has turned.
I personally am hopeful that our President will divorce himself from the Zionists who think they own
him, and truly commit to America First.
Now we simply have to make #UNRIG – Election Integrity Act and disclosure of the Zionist role in
9/11 the twin demands of our President
if he wishes to be re-elected in 2020, AND to have a Congress
free of Zionist bribery, blackmail, and lies in 2020 and beyond.
On Monday, President Donald Trump designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, the first time the
United States has designated part of another nation's government as such a threat.
Iran's Supreme National Security Council responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist group.
With 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 2,000 in Syria, often in proximity to Iranian units, this inches America closer to war.
Why did we do it? What benefit did the U.S. derive?
How do we now negotiate with the IRGC on missile tests?
Israel's Bibi Netanyahu took credit for Trump's decision, tweeting, "Once again you are keeping the world safe from Iran aggression
and terrorism. Thank you for accepting another important request of mine."
Previous "requests" to which Trump acceded include moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, declaring Jerusalem Israel's eternal
capital, closing the Palestinian consulate and cutting off aid, and U.S. recognition of the Golan Heights, captured from Syria in
1967, as sovereign Israeli territory.
What Bibi wants, Bibi gets.
One hopes his future requests will not include a demand that we cease dithering and deliver the same "shock and awe" to Iran that
George W. Bush delivered to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
With Bibi's election win Tuesday, his fifth, the secret Mideast peace plan Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner has been laboring
on these last two years is likely to be unveiled.
Yet it is hard to see how Jared's baby is not stillborn.
Bibi is not going to accept a Palestinian right of return to Israel, or a sharing of the Holy City with a Palestinian state ruled
by a successor of Yasser Arafat. And as Bibi fought Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of the 8,000 Jewish settlers from Gaza, he is not going
to order the removal of tens of thousands of Jewish settlers from homes on the West Bank.
Indeed, on the eve of his reelection Tuesday, Bibi promised Israelis he would begin the annexation of Jewish settlements on the
West Bank.
As for Trump, he is the most popular man in Israel. And he is not going to force Bibi to do what Bibi does not want to do and
thereby imperil his major political gains in the U.S. Jewish community.
Given the indulgence of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party for BDS, the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanction
movement, and the divisions among Democrats over Netanyahu's expansionism, the president's pro-Israel stance has proven a political
winner for the GOP.
But while a U.S. war with Iran may be what Bibi wants, it is not what America wants or needs.
Consider what 20 years of U.S. wars in the Mideast have cost this country, as China has stayed out of the region and pushed its
power and influence into Asia, Africa and Europe.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban have regained control of more territory than they have held since 2001, and they are negotiating with
the Americans for a withdrawal of our remaining 14,000 troops.
Cost of the Afghan war: 2,400 U.S. dead, 32,000 wounded, $1 trillion sunk, and the U.S. on the precipice of a potential strategic
defeat.
So dreadful has become the five-year Yemeni civil war between Iran-backed Houthi rebels and the Saudi-backed regime they ousted
that the U.S. House and Senate have invoked the War Powers Act and directed Trump to terminate U.S. assistance for the Saudi intervention.
In Libya, where a U.S.-led NATO intervention overthrew Colonel Gadhafi in 2011, a renegade general now controls two-thirds of
the country and is mounting an assault on Tripoli. U.S. soldiers and diplomats fled the capital last week.
In Syria, President Bashar Assad, with the support of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, defeated the U.S. backed-rebels years ago.
The Syrian Kurdish militia we partnered with to crush ISIS have been designated as terrorists by the Turks, who promise to annihilate
the Kurds if they try to return to homes along the Turkish border.
As for Turkey itself, President Erdogan says he will take delivery this summer of a Russian-made S-400 air and missile defense
system.
Go through with that, says the U.S., and we cancel your order for 100 F-35s. The justified U.S. fear: Russia's S-400 system will
be tested against America's most advanced fifth-generation fighter, the F-35.
If Turkey does not cancel the S-400, a NATO crisis appears imminent.
In Iraq, where 5,000 U.S. troops remain, the government has both pro-U.S. and pro-Iran elements in Baghdad, and mutual designation
of the IRGC and CENT-COM as terrorist organizations can only present hellish problems for America's soldiers and diplomats still
in that country.
Bottom line: Though Bibi and John Bolton may want war with Iran, U.S. national interests, based on the awful experience of two
decades, and Trump's political interests, dictate that he not start any more wars.
Not a single Middle East war this century has gone as we planned or hoped.
"While the national debt of the United States was recorded at 22.03 trillion as of April
2019, Washington's going ahead with its hawkish policies worldwide with recent NATO summit
pushing for further unity against China, Russia and Iran. NATO's annual overall military
budget was US$ 957 billion in 2017 where the US's share was US$ 686 billion, accounting for
72 percent of the total. This number is pressed by the US to rise in the years to come."
@Thomm
That's so true that it's almost incredible, Andrew Anglin of the daily stormer has been
campaigning for Tulsi Gabbard & Andrew Yang for well over a month
He could be said to be instrumental in putting Yang on the democratic primaries and
possibly Tulsi as well all the while using his weaponized memes against Trump!! I'm in
disbelief.
Gabbard: Assange arrest is a threat to journalists
By Rachel Frazin – 04/11/19 06:10 PM EDT
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) condemned the arrest of
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday, calling the arrest a threat to
journalists.
"The arrest of #JulianAssange is meant to send a message to all Americans and
journalists: be quiet, behave, toe the line. Or you will pay the price," Gabbard
tweeted.
The Democrat's remark came hours after police in London arrested Assange, citing charges
he is facing in the U.S.
Assange is accused of conspiring to hack into computers in connection with WikiLeaks's
release of classified documents from former Army private and intelligence analyst Chelsea
Manning.
At least 60 companies reported an effective federal tax rate of zero, meaning they owe
nothing in federal taxes for 2018, and that tax burden then falls on the rest of us. Senator
Elizabeth Warren has a plan to fix that. She joins Stephanie Ruhle in her first interview since
unveiling her proposal.
60 years ago every job offered health insurance, retirement plans, paid vacation, and all
sorts of other benefits. It's time to have them pay a share of our societies costs, they use
the same roads, breathe the same air, and drink the same water...
Warren has consistently amazed me with her proposals... I hope she will make it to the
debates, since everyone's fawning over Bernie and Beto for their fundraising capabilities, I
hope they are not trying to sink her...
Warren Buffet, who saved 28 or so million on his, himself said trumps tax deal was
foolish..but he also said he wouldn't turn it down, which i don't blame him on that..
Senator Warren makes some excellent points (as usual): "market" implies a competitive
environment, so when huge corps squeeze out competitors, it's no longer a "market".
Corporations/rich individuals always say they made their profits themselves (independently of
others or of any social structure systems). Really? If you were living/doing business on a
mountaintop, disconnected from everyone else and any infrastructure support, you would have
done just as well? That's a load of crap, and if they had any responsibility at all (as
opposed to just pure greed), they'd be willing to give back a bit and contribute to the
system(s) they build their wealth on.
The fact is that the wealthy all over the world do not want their position of privilege to
be challenged. This is why Bernie Sanders has been saying (for several DECADES) that the only
way to move our society forward is to build from the bottom up... not the top down. And he is
100% correct.
"... On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions ..."
"... John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy despite his explicit campaign promises to do so. ..."
"... More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of Americans is totally unacceptable. ..."
On June 12, 2018 The Washington Post ran an overlooked story where they
disclosed that National Security Advisor John Bolton had accepted money from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, Deutsche Bank and HSBC
to return for his participation in speeches and panel discussions. These three entities have been linked to various kinds of corruption
including sanctions evasion for Iran, money laundering on behalf of drug cartels, provision of banking services to backers of Islamic
terror organizations and controversial donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The financial ties between Bolton and these institutions highlight serious ethical concerns about his suitability for the position
of National Security Advisor.
I. Victor Pinchuk Foundation
John Bolton accepted $115,000 from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation to speak at multiple events hosted by the Foundation including
one in September 2017 where Bolton assured his audience that President Donald Trump would not radically change US foreign policy
despite his explicit campaign promises to do so.
The Victor Pinchuk Foundation was blasted in 2016 over their donation of $10 to $25 million to the
Clinton Foundation between 1994 and 2005. The donations lead to accusations
of influence peddling after it emerged that Victor Pinchuk had been invited
to Hillary Clinton's home during the final year of her tenure as Secretary of State.
Even more damning was Victor Pinchuk's participation in activities that constituted evasions of sanctions levied against Iran
by the American government. A 2015 exposé by Newsweek highlighted the fact
that Pinchuk owned Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors. A now-removed
statement on Interpipe's website showed that they
were doing business in Iran despite US sanctions aimed to prevent this kind of activity.
Why John Bolton, a notorious war hawk who has called for a hardline approach to Iran, would take money from an entity who was
evading sanctions against the country is not clear. It does however, raise serious questions about whether or not Bolton should
be employed by Donald Trump, who made attacks on the Clinton Foundation's questionable donations a cornerstone of his 2016 campaign.
II. HSBC Group
British bank HSBC paid Bolton $46,500 in June and August 2017 to speak at two gatherings of hedge fund managers and investors.
HSBC is notorious for its extensive ties to criminal and terror organizations for whom it has provided illegal financial services.
Clients that HSBC have laundered money for include Colombian drug traffickers
and Mexican cartels who have terrorized the country and recently
raised murder rates to the highest levels in Mexico's history . They have
also offered banking services to Chinese individuals
who sourced chemicals and other materials used by cartels to produce methamphetamine and heroin that is then sold in the United
States. China's Triads have helped open financial markets in Asia to cartels
seeking to launder their profits derived from the drug trade.
In 2012, HSBC was blasted by the US Senate for for allowing money from
Russian and Latin American criminal networks as well as Middle Eastern terror groups to enter the US. The banking group ultimately
agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine for this misconduct as well as their involvement
in processing sanctions-prohibited transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma.
Some of the terror groups assisted by HSBC include the notorious Al Qaeda. During the 2012 scrutiny of HSBC, outlets such as
Le Monde , Business Insider
and the New York Times revealed that HSBC had maintained ties to Saudi
Arabia's Al Rajhi Bank. Al Rajhi Bank was one of Osama Bin Ladin's "Golden Chain" of Al Qaeda's most important financiers. Even
though HSBC's own internal compliance offices asked for the bank to terminate their relationship with Al Rajhi Bank, it continued
until 2010.
More recently in 2018, reports have claimed that HSBC was used for illicit
transactions between Iran and Chinese technology conglomerate Huawei. The US is currently seeking to extradite Huawei CFO Meng
Wanzhou after bringing charges against Huawei related to sanctions evasion
and theft of intellectual property. The company has been described as a "backdoor" for elements of the Chinese government by certain
US authorities.
Bolton's decision to accept money from HSBC given their well-known reputation is deeply hypocritical. HSBC's connection to
terror organizations such as Al Qaeda in particular is damning for Bolton due to the fact that he formerly served as the chairman
of the Gatestone Institute , a New York-based advocacy group that purports
to oppose terrorism. These financial ties are absolutely improper for an individual acting as National Security Advisor.
III. Deutsche Bank
John Bolton accepted $72,000 from German Deutsche Bank to speak at an event in May 2017.
Deutsche Bank has for decades engaged in questionable behavior. During World War II, they
provided financial services to the Nazi Gestapo and financed construction
of the infamous Auschwitz as well as an adjacent plant for chemical company IG Farben.
Like HSBC, Deutsche Bank has provided illicit services to international criminal organizations. In 2014
court filings showed that Deutsche Bank, Citi and Bank of America had all
acted as channels for drug money sent to Colombian security currency brokerages suspected of acting on behalf of traffickers.
In 2017, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $630 million fine after working with
a Danish bank in Estonia to launder over $10 billion through London and
Moscow on behalf of Russian entities. The UK's financial regulatory watchdog
has said that Deutsche Bank is failing to prevent its accounts from being used to launder money, circumvent sanctions and
finance terrorism. In November 2018, Deutsche Bank's headquarters was raided
by German authorities as part of an investigation sparked by 2016 revelations in the "Panama Papers" leak from Panama's Mossack
Fonseca.
Two weeks after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Bush administration signed
an executive order linking a company owned by German national Mamoun Darkazanli to Al Qaeda. In 1995,
Darkazanli co-signed the opening of a Deutsche Bank account for Mamdouh
Mahmud Salim. Salim was identified by the CIA as the chief of bin Laden's computer operations and weapons procurement. He was
ultimately arrested in Munich, extradited to the United States and
charged
with participation in the 1998 US embassy bombings.
In 2017, the Office of the New York State Comptroller opened an investigation into accounts that Deutsche Bank was operating
on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP is defined by both the United States and the European
Union as a terrorist organization. It is ironic that Bolton, who is a past recipient of the "Guardian of Zion Award" would accept
money from an entity who provided services to Palestinian groups that Israel considers to be terror related.
IV. Clinton-esque Financial Ties Unbecoming To Trump Administration
Bolton's engagement in paid speeches, in some cases with well-known donors to the Clinton Foundation, paints the Trump administration
in a very bad light. Donald Trump criticized Hillary Clinton during his
2016 Presidential campaign for speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs that were
labeled by her detractors as "pay to play" behavior. John Bolton's acceptance of money from similar entities, especially the Victor
Pinchuk Foundation, are exactly the same kind of activity and are an embarrassment for a President who claims to be against corruption.
More broadly, John Bolton's work for the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, HSBC and Deutsche Bank shows that while he preaches
hardline foreign policy approaches towards nations such as Iran and North Korea he has no issue tying himself to those who openly
flaunt American sanctions and diplomatic attempts to pressure these states. For an individual who is the President's National
Security Advisor to have taken money from banks who provide financial services to terror groups who have murdered thousands of
Americans is totally unacceptable.
It is embarrassing enough that Donald Trump hired Bolton in the first place. The next best remedy is to let him go as soon
as possible.
span y apenultimate on Wed, 04/10/2019 - 7:09pm She did it, an hour ago!
Tulsi Gabbard now has enough individual donors to make it into the televised Democratic
debates! Thanks to those of you who helped, either by becoming a donor, or in spirit!
The main way big corporations corrupt the movement is by lobbing for tax preferential regime.
Neoliberalism included "voodoo" supply side economics thory that speculates that lower taxes
increase employment, while in reality they mostly increase the wealth of capital owners. This
theory is brainwashed itno people minds by relentless neoliberal propaganda machine -- all major
MSM are controlled by neoliberals. Common people have no say in this gbig game.
But tax regime is the battlefield were big capital fights labor and big capital since 1970
won all major battles.
Notable quotes:
"... "Because of relentless lobbying, our corporate income tax rules are filled with so many loopholes and exemptions and deductions that even companies that tell shareholders they have made more than a billion dollars in profits can end up paying no corporate income taxes," Warren wrote in a Medium post unveiling the plan. "Let's bring in the revenue we need to invest in opportunity for all Americans. And let's make this year the last year any company with massive profits pays zero federal taxes." ..."
"... Warren's plan is aimed at large corporations -- ones that have generally paid lower tax rates than smaller companies in recent years. The GOP tax cut law nearly doubled the number of publicly held companies that paid no federal taxes from 30 to 60 in the last year alone, according to a recent study from the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. ..."
"... This is the latest significant tax proposal the Massachusetts senator has unveiled as part of her campaign platform, which also includes a two percent surtax on people with more than $50 million in assets and a three percent surtax on those who have $1 billion. ..."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) unveiled a major plank in her
platform to tax the rich on Thursday, introducing plans for a new tax on all corporations that
clear $100 million in annual profits.
Warren's "real corporate profits tax" is aimed at large corporations like Amazon that have
generated huge profits in recent years while almost entirely avoiding federal taxes through a
series of loopholes and credits.
"Because of relentless lobbying, our corporate income tax rules are filled with so many
loopholes and exemptions and deductions that even companies that tell shareholders they have
made more than a billion dollars in profits can end up paying no corporate income taxes,"
Warren
wrote in a Medium post unveiling the plan. "Let's bring in the revenue we need to invest in
opportunity for all Americans. And let's make this year the last year any company with massive
profits pays zero federal taxes."
The plan would institute a seven percent tax on profits over $100 million in addition to
current taxes. An economic analysis released by Warren's campaign estimated that at least 1,200
companies would be forced to pay new taxes under the plan, generating a net revenue boost of at
least $1 trillion for the government.
Warren's plan is aimed at large corporations -- ones that have generally paid lower tax
rates than smaller companies in recent years. The GOP tax cut law nearly doubled the number of
publicly held companies that paid no federal taxes from 30 to 60 in the last year alone,
according to a recent study from the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic
Policy.
This is the latest significant tax proposal the Massachusetts senator has unveiled as part
of her campaign platform, which also includes a two percent surtax on people with more than $50
million in assets and a three percent surtax on those who have $1 billion.
The plans have earned her plaudits on the left and drawn concern from some more
business-friendly moderate Democrats.
But so far, they haven't proven a game-changer in the presidential race. Warren continues to
struggle to siphon off a significant chunk of voters who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) last
election, her natural base of support. She's regularly polled in the mid- to upper-single
digits in recent state and national polls, in the second tier of candidates.
And she
raised just $6 million in her first quarter in the campaign, her team announced yesterday.
That's not a terrible haul in a crowded field, especially since she's sworn off big donors, but
it's nothing compared to the huge sums she pulled in as a Senate candidate -- and trailed even
upstart South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D).
She also spent almost all of that money, having
built out a large staff in the early primary states with a high payroll.
And Sanders isn't giving her much room on her left: He reintroduced a
sweeping Medicare for all plan on Wednesday, which she cosponsored, a move that puts
pressure on Warren and other Democrats to keep up as they try to woo the progressive wing of
the party base.
Trump betrayed white workers because he knows he can get away with it. For the last thirty years of the 20th century millions of
white families were wrenched out of the middle class without a squeak out of any major news outlet or national level politician. Trump
himself stiffed his workers in those days and got away with it.
Notable quotes:
"... “In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider. ..."
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.” ..."
"... Yes, it would have been worse with the Cackling Hyena, but what does that tell ya? ..."
I'm not sure why the author of this article seems to be surprised by the actions of Trump and his administration. The collective
image of him as a blood-thirsty racist whose hatred of all peoples queer 'n' colored runs marrow and generations-deep -- think
of a cross between a street corner John Galt and Ian Smith, daubed with vague overtones of Archie Bunker mingling with Clint Eastwood
-- is purely an invention of the media, the left as well as that of the right.
Why or how he became the impromptu pope of white nationalism escapes me. Anyone with ears to listen and eyes to see could find
for themselves that he never so much as intimated even muted sympathy for that movement, not during his campaign and certainly
not as head of state, media accusations of "dog whistles" and the like notwithstanding.
But a demoralized white working and middle class were willing to believe in anything, deluding themselves into reading between
the barren eruptions of his blowzy proclamations. They elevated him to messianic heights, ironically fashioning him into that
which he publicly claims to despise: an Obama, a Barry in negative image, "hope and change" for the OxyContin and Breitbart set.
Like his predecessor, Trump never really says anything at all. There are grand pronouncements, bilious screeds targeting
perceived enemies, glib generalities, but rarely are any concrete, definitive ideas and policies ever articulated. Trump, like
Obama, is merely a cipher, an empty suit upon which the dreams (or nightmares) of the beholder can effortlessly be projected,
a polarizing figurehead who wields mostly ceremonial powers while others ostensibly beneath him busy themselves with the actual
running of the republic.
To observe this requires no great research or expenditure of effort -- he lays it all out there for anybody to hear or read.
Unfortunately, the near totality of this country's populace is effectively illiterate and poorly equipped to think critically
and independently, preferring to accept the verdicts of their oleaginous talking heads at face value without ever troubling themselves
to examine why. (The dubious products of the glorified diploma mills we call "higher education" are often the most gullible and
dim-witted.) Trump is the dark magus of racism and bigotry -- boo! Trump is the man of sorrows who will carry aloft Western Civilization
resurgent -- yay!
Just as the hysterical left was quickly shattered by the mediocrity that was Barack Obama, so too does the hysterical right
now ululate the sting of Donald Trump's supposed betrayal. As with their ideological antipodes, they got what they deserved. Pity
that the rest of us have to be carted along for the ride.
Politics, at least at the national level, is a puppet show to channel and periodically blow off dissent.
“In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody criminality of the Bush
years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of
our military banking complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger.
This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump
won’t fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.”
Linh Dinh, “Orlando Shooting Means Trump for President,” published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016.
If you haven't picked up a copy of Vicky Ward's book, Kushner, Inc.: Greed. Ambition. Corruption. The Extraordinary Story
of Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump , you really should.
I haven't read Mr. Graham's essay yet, but I thought those two links would fit in nicely. I stay in a low boil, like it is,
and having plodded through both those reviews, I can't stand reading too much on this topic at once.
Something's gotta give. Or are the brainless goy just going to let themselves be led off a cliff?
Oh, yes. There's an interview with Ward on
BookTV .
Thanks for sharing the links on the Kushner Crime Family. It has been quite an adventure watching the MAGA man "transition"
into the MIGA man. What amazes me are the number of dumb f*ck Americans who still worship this ass hat, all the while he is driving
the betrayal dagger deeper into their back.
who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies?
See the SteveSailerism "Low-information voters."
If one is a regular reader of the Unz Review , one is almost by definition
not among this class of people. Regulars at sites like this are mainly all off towards
the right tail of the low-to-high 'information' distribution curve. It's easy to forget that
most of our fellow people are somewhere near the center of the curve, or in the left half.
And there is your answer.
Nothing gets my liberal friends gnashing their teeth harder than when I point out(with
facts) how Trump is just like Hillary – and that was before the election.
Yep. Trump's a lying POS pond scum like the rest of the DC swamp that he said he was going to
drain, turns out he is one of them all along. We elected America's first Jewish president,
nothing more. He needs to change his campaign slogan to MIGA, Make Israel Great Again, that
was the plan of his handlers all along.
What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are
they really that dumb?
Even Sanders came out and said we can't have open borders. I've also heard him said back
in 2015 that the H1b visa program is a replacement program for American workers. If he grows
a pair and reverts back to that stance, teams up with Tulsi Gabbard, I'll vote for them 2020.
Fuck Trump! Time for him and his whole treasonous rat family to move to Israel where they
belong.
@Dr. Robert
Morgan Trump did everything but explicitly say that he would restore white America when
talking about defining citizenship and restoring America, just as he did everything short of
naming the Jew when speaking of wars for other people and funding for other nations.
He knew
what he was doing, and he knew that he was lying.
Johnny Walker Read, April 10, 2019 at 11:54 am GMT
@Thinker
“What I want to know is, who are those idiots who still keep showing up at his rallies? Are they really that dumb?”
Can you say Christian Zionist? And yes they are that dumb.
"... Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to lease the troubled office tower for 99 years and is paying for the lease up front, rather than in the typical yearly ground rent, the Wall Street Journal reports. The financial terms of the deal were not made public, but the New York Times reports that Brookfield is paying $1.1B. ..."
"... Thanks b and you are wise to be sceptical. The up front payment to the Kusher kleptocracy by Brookfield Partners (Asset Management) is not just unusual but more like extraordinary! One test will be how this deal compares to other deals. Was Kushner avoiding taxes by doing a lease? Is this a common practice? ..."
"... It is an old story. From February 12, Bess Levin, Vanity Fair: Qatar Shocked, Shocked to Learn It Accidentally Bailed Out Jared Kushner ..."
"... In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the transaction, despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head ..."
"... Qatar paid over a billion dollars to build and expand the US base in Qatar and charges no rent for that base. This allows Qatar to easily brush aside any question of loyalty that may be posed by USA and makes the US/US military reluctant to pressure Qatar. But Israel would have no qualms about apply pressure. The "Jared bailout" allows for a narrative of Qatari leadership as weak and corrupt - much like the ridiculous claims that Putin is pro-Israel. ..."
Kushner Extorted Qatar - Or Did He?DG , Mar 30, 2019 5:37:23 PM |
link
The Hillreporter just published a very juicy story about Jared Kushner, the son in law and senior advisor of President
Trump.
It says that Kushner, with the help of the Saudi clown prince Mohammad bin Salman, extorted Qatar for $1 billion to save his families
real estate business in New York.
While the story sounds plausible and fits the public known timeline of other events, there is so far no evidence that supports
it.
Ward first talked through the story on yesterday's KrassenCast
, a podcast by the anti-Trump and
somewhat shady Krassenstein
brothers who also run the Hillreporter .
In 2007, at the hight of the real estate bubble, the Kushner family bought the 666 5th Avenue building in New York City for $1.8
billion. Ten years later the Kushners were in real trouble. Plans to replace the building with a new one found no financing. The
property was losing lots of money and a huge mortgage payment was due in January 2019. The family had to look for a bail out.
In early 2017 the Kushner family had several meetings with Qatari officials to discuss a deal. The Intercept
reported :
Joshua Kushner, a venture capitalist and the younger brother of White House adviser Jared Kushner, met with Qatari Finance Minister
Ali Sharif Al Emadi the same week as his father, Charles Kushner, did in April 2017, in an independent effort to discuss potential
investments from the Qatari government. Both meetings took place at Al Emadi's St. Regis Hotel suite in Manhattan.
This revelation comes after Charles Kushner, in an interview with the Washington Post this week, confirmed for the first time
that his meeting with Al Emadi had indeed taken place on the subject of financing for the underwater Kushner property at 666 Fifth
Avenue.
"What I have learned is that in the ensuing month [May 2017] before the US visit to Riyadh, Jared Kushner got on a plane and flew
to Doha, the Qatari capital, and he reamed the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, for not doing the deal with his father They
began to feel that he was indirectly threatening their sovereignty. The next thing they know, when they show up to the summit
in Riyadh, the Emir, the ruler of Qatar, arrives with an entourage, but his entourage is suddenly cut off from him, and not allowed
into the summit at the same time by the Saudis, which he felt was a move to deliberately make him look weak. You have to remember
during this summit, Jared and Ivanka go off for a cozy secret unmonitored dinner with [Saudi Crown Prince] MBS. Nobody knows what
they talked about."
Fifteen days later the Saudis and the UAE blockade Qatar and send troops to its border. Trump supports the Saudi blockade against
the advice of his Secretary of State Tillerson and his Defense Secretary Mattis and despite the fact the the biggest U.S. base in
the area is in Qatar.
Nine months later, a Canadian company, Brookfield Partners, who the Qatari Investment Authority owns a $1.8 billion or 9% stake
in, bailed out Kushner Properties, with a 99-year lease agreement for 666 5th Ave.
...
Around this same time, President Trump publicly shifts course, no longer supporting the blockade, as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
tells Saudi Arabia to stop the embargo.
If the blockade of Qatar originates in a Kushner extortion scheme, as the story insinuates, it would have serious political consequences.
But is that true?
Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take
control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who
have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it.
The deal only
closed in August 2018 on terms that had changed from the first report and were unusual:
Brookfield Asset Management has agreed to lease the troubled office tower for 99 years and is paying for the lease up front,
rather than in the typical yearly ground rent, the Wall Street Journal reports. The financial terms of the deal were not made
public, but the New York Times reports that Brookfield is paying $1.1B.
What was the real sequencing here? Was the property deal agreed upon before the Trump administration changed its stand on the
Qatar blockade or after that happened? Was it related to it or not? We don't know. There is no public record of the alleged Jared
Kushner flight to Qatar. There is so far no other evidence that would support the story. The tale fits the publicly known timeline,
but that is not enough to believe it. Its authors may have used the public timeline to then fit a story onto it.
It is possible that the Kushner property deal and the Qatar blockade are intimately intertwined but there is, so far, no proof
for it. That idea that Kushner played the Saudis is dubious. The other way around is more likely.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE had plenty of reason to blockade Qatar. Both countries fear the Qatari support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
They hate Qatar's Al Jazeerah TV because it often publicly opposes their policies. The Saudis need money and annexing the very rich
Qatar would solve all their problems. Brookfield Properties denies that Qatar or the Qatari investment agency had any involvement
in 666 5th Ave. deal.
Even if Qatar, through Brookfield, made a deal with the Kushner family, it does not mean that it was extorted. The Qatari rulers
might simply have hoped that the deal would help them. It did not. The blockade still continues despite the real estate deal. Trump
had his own reasons to support the Saudis Qatar blockade. He wanted them to buy as many U.S. weapon system as possible, if only to
beat out Obama, who sold the Saudis all sorts of military trash for a record amount of money.
During the Mueller Russia investigation lots of smoke seemed to show that there was a 'collusion' fire burning somewhere under
the hundreds of facts and figures. There wasn't.
The story about the Kushner 'extortion of Qatar' might create a similar '
the walls are closing in ' (vid) farce only to end up with
nothing. It is interesting that the Vicky Ward story was published on March 29, a day after Jared Kushner
was interviewed
behind closed door by the Senate Intelligence Commission:
President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner returned to the Senate Intelligence Committee for a closed door interview Thursday
as part of the committee's Russia investigation.
...
The first time Kushner appeared before the panel in 2017, he was interviewed by committee staff. The committee has wanted to re-interview
witnesses central to the investigation. On Thursday, senators were sitting in on the interview.
Russiagate is really finished
. The Republican's rule the Senate. Why would they continue to interview Kushner and why would senators sit in on it? Might the 'Kushner
extorted Qatar' be a planned sequel to Russiagate or why else was it launched right now?
Posted by b on March 30, 2019 at 05:28 PM |
Permalink
One has to wonder whether Kushner's influence was involved in this deal which would have seen the geopolitical balance in the
Middle East tilt into Saudi Arabia's favour.
Thanks b and you are wise to be sceptical. The up front payment to the Kusher kleptocracy by Brookfield Partners (Asset Management)
is not just unusual but more like extraordinary! One test will be how this deal compares to other deals. Was Kushner avoiding
taxes by doing a lease? Is this a common practice?
I did like the reference to Trump outdoing Obummer in arms deals and had a good laugh at Trumps childish racism in that game.
He sure hates Obummer but he sure won't go after him in any way. Trump wont even go after $hillary and her global empire shakedown
Foundation. Sometimes I think he is now a sitting duck but then I am an optimist.
In addition to likely having had the chance to hear about the deal through Brookfield directly or read about it in the paper
of record, one would imagine the Qataris were keeping tabs on all things Kushner on account of Jared's father, Charles Kushner,
taking a meeting with Qatar's finance minister, Ali Sharif Al Emadi in April 2017. (Kushner the Elder later said he accepted
the invite purely "out of respect" for the Qataris to tell them there was no way "we could do business.")
Of course Trump throwing the full weight of the US behind Saudi Arabia and UAE was a de facto shake down of Qatar. And of course,
Saudi and UAE were actively lobbying for it.
thanks b.. it will be interesting to see how much traction vicky wards reporting gets and whether any of it gets substantiated..
i do believe the usa is crazy enough to do another witch hunt, so anything is possible here... she works for the huffpost..
that is grounds to discredit here right there in my books..
More theatrics as diversion, while the crooks in D.C. dismantle the agencies that keep the wealthy oligarchs at bay, as they rewrite
the rules to allow greed and avarice to become virtues.
"Rules and regulations never changed a man's heart, but they can restrain the heartless."
Meanwhile, propaganda organs in America won't publicize real Donald Trump scandals like the case of ''Maria'' a Waterbury 12-year
old alleged child rape victim of Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The crimes allegedly occurred at a midtown
Manhattan mansion owned by Epstein's friend Les Wexner.
Donald Trump recently named as his Secretary of Labor, Alex Acosta, former U.S. Attorney for South Florida, the federal official
directly overseeing sweetheart future immunity deal for Grifter in Chief acolytes like Jeffrey Epstein... As Labor Secretary,
Acosta is charged with overseeing federal laws designed to combat domestic and international sex trafficking.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York is currently deciding whether to unseal the documents from a 2017
lawsuit involving one of Epstein's sex trafficking victims and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's assistant.
Other possible corrupt practices involving stable genius center around China's decision to grant Ivanka Trump 38 new trademarks
in the middle of a trade war dispute... Part of current trade war negotiations are EB-5 investment visas. Jared Kushner and Trump
stand to benefit from EB-5 visas designed to attract Chinese investment in the United States in return for permanent residency.
Curiously an EB-5 visa scam was being run out of an office in Jupiter, Florida, located across the street from the Orchids
of Asia massage parlor raided by police where Trump billionaire friend Kraft was caught in a possible Chinese Honey Trap.
Russiagate may be done but thats because it was defined improperly. Sometimes it helps to look back to get a big picture perspective
Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two oligarchs Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich, who would go on to become Chabad's biggest
patrons worldwide, to create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar,
who would come to be known as "Putin's rabbi."
Roman Abramovich is the owner of the Chelsea Football Club of the English Premier League. He was a victor (along with Paul
Manafort's patron Oleg Deripaska) in the aluminum wars of the 1990s and reportedly the person who convinced Boris Yeltsin that
Putin would be a proper successor.
Ivanka Trump is very close friends with Abramovich's wife , Dasha Zhukova. Zhukova reportedly attended the inauguration as
Ivanka's personal guest. Leviev is the one with the closest links to the Trumps and Israel
It starts with Bayrock . This is the company that Donald Trump teamed up with to build his Trump Soho project. There were three
main actors . One was convicted mob associate and FBI informant Felix Sater. Another was Tevfik Arif, a likely Russian intelligence
connection who was once was arrested by the Turks . The third was the late Tamir Sapir, another man with ties to Russian intelligence.
The late billionaire Tamir Sapir, was born in the Soviet state of Georgia. Trump has called Sapir "a great friend." In December
2007, he hosted the wedding of Sapir's daughter, Zina, at Mar-a-Lago. The groom, Rotem Rosen, was the CEO of the American branch
of Africa Israel, the Putin oligarch Leviev's holding company, and known as Leviev's right hand man.
As mentioned Leviev was one of two oligarch's who Putin had establish the "Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia" under
the leadership of Chabad rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as 'Putin's rabbi.'" Sater, Sapier, Jared, Ivanka are all
Chabad members and/or donors
Trump had business discussions in Moscow in 2013 about Moscow real estate projects with Agalarovs, Alex Sapir (son of Tamir
Sapir, brother of Zina, and brother-in-law of Rotem Rosen.) and Rotem Rosen, a pair of New York-based Russian . This may also
have been discussed during the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower that was attended by Kushner, Manafort and Donald Trump Jr and
a Russian lawyer associated with Fusion GPS (Steele dossier) and the Leviev linked Prevezon
Agalarov is a Moscow-based property developer who had won major contracts from Putin's government. He hosted Trump's 2013 Miss
Universe contest at his concert hall in Moscow. He orchestrated the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting and formed a new American shell
company a month beforehand with the help of the Russian lawyer who attended the meeting.
In 2015, Kushner and his family business, Kushner Cos., bought a portion of the New York Times building on West 43rd Street
from Russian /Israeli real estate billionaire Lev Leviev for $295M, where $285M was borrowed from Deutsche Bank to complete the
transaction, despite the 666 albatross hanging over Kushners head
Deutsche Bank and two companies tied to Leviev, Africa Israel Investments and Prevezon, have all recently been the subject
of money laundering investigations. A laundering case against Prevezon was settled two months after Trump fired Bharara, with
a $6M slap on the wrist settlement that raised some eyebrows.
As for 666, Kushner gets bailed out by Brookfield who has Qatar as its 2nd largest investor. But consider that at the same
time they did this deal they also acquired Westinghouse Electric, a nuclear power company. Now members of the Trump administration
propose selling nuclear power plants to Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
Can't seem to find a Putin/Russian oligarch connection although that's probably due to the fact you cant use anonymous shell
companies to buy property in NYC any longer due to new rules by FinCEN
But so many conflict of interests here, Israel, China, Saudis, Russian oligarchs, etc and virtually no oversight or transparency.
With twitter being used to manipulate markets one has to imagine rampant insider trading as well (hey guys, my tweets going out
at 3 pm, get your trades in and remember my 5%).
@7 savvy globalist somebody wants us to know that there's nothing to see here!
But the Vanity Fair article he links to, written by Bess L-evin, makes this unsubstantiated(!) point:
So why is Doha taking pains to insist it accidentally bailed out the First-in-Laws on their no good, very bad investment
now?
1) Actually, the Reuters article that she refers to explicitly states that Qatar has a minority position and no board representation
! It is a known in the financial world as a "passive investment".
2) L-evin's wording is extremely disingenuous: the Qataris never said they bailed out anyone, accidentally or otherwise!!
Interestingly, Vicky Ward used to work at Vanity Fair, and is currently an editor at HuffPost (a Democratic rag). And media that
broke/promoted this story (Leevin and Krasseenstein) could (naturally) rise some suspicions of a connection to Israel's conflict
with Iran. Qatar shares a huge gas field with Iran so Qatar has been reluctant to join KSA and Israel against Iran.
Qatar paid over a billion dollars to build and expand the US base in Qatar and charges no rent for that base. This allows
Qatar to easily brush aside any question of loyalty that may be posed by USA and makes the US/US military reluctant to pressure
Qatar. But Israel would have no qualms about apply pressure. The "Jared bailout" allows for a narrative of Qatari leadership as
weak and corrupt - much like the ridiculous claims that Putin is pro-Israel.
1) Documentation is scarce and the few that exist don't fit the journalist's story chronology (even though, in the concrete
case, you could argue for expediency/bureacratic delay, so this criterium alone doesn't bust the journalist's chronology)
2) The whole narrative simply doesn't have social cohesion. It simply doesn't make any sense for Trump to risk be impeached
in such polarized scenario just to rescue his son-in-law. It makes even less sense for the Arab royalties to submit to a much
weaker political player such as Kushner. And, as b mentions, Trump had many more powerful reasons to sanction Qatar.
@11 &12
Corruption abounds, but any of it that touches Zionists, the Clinton's, or the royal family (Epstein, Prince Andrew) is off limits.
They are untouchable to the MSM.
people like Brennan & Clapper are feeding the "trump really, really, no really hearts putin" narrative to the msdnc crowd, and
this of an administration being helmed by CIA men like Pompeo.
like the fbi's manufacture wholesale of "islamo-terrorist" non-events
in part to distract from the presence of the actual threat of rising fascism & racism (a la Nazism, as in NZ) from the usual suspects,
much beloved of the fibbies, it's convenient for all, incl trump, to be painted as bff's with Vlad.
if the goal was to stop or in any way impede the trump admin (not just trump himself, who is a know-nothing shit golem animated
by the glad-handing he receives from the people actually in charge, who just feed his narcissistic fantasies), there are other,
more practical & achievable ways to do it. in-fighting among the herd who have not yet jumped off the Gadarene cliffs is not the
same thing as opposition, not among the Legion possessed swine in D.C. they are just grunting & snorting at each other, occasionally,
very occasionally & deliberately, trampling one of their own, as they plummet over the edge.
it's pretty clear that funny things like such pigs' full-throated support of Zionism is more important to Pelosi & Schumer
than resisting the Trump admin *in any way,* no matter how much they personally despise trump. and mainly they despise him for
helping to reveal what some POTUS would have sooner or later: the pointlessness of Congress; that the "unitary executive", as
the titular head of the corporate security state, is already fully in charge; that "dyarchy," dual rule by legislative & executive,
is non-existent.
MIGA instead of MAGA. Taking into account of his level of violation of International law, he really is acting like a bully, or
a person who abuses amphetamines.
explains
why what he calls "geopolitical name-calling" is so harmful:
Labeling the IRGC as a terrorist organization will likely only push potential American
allies into an uncomfortable situation where they may be forced to betray the United
States.
After all, Iran is what it is and cannot be divorced from the region. Meanwhile, the US
has proven itself at best a fickle friend that has repeatedly abandoned allies. The Trump
administration has repeatedly threatened to toss Syrian, Iraqi, and Afghan allies aside.
Why would the People's Protection Units (YPG) fighters in northern Syria or Afghanistan's
Ministry of Defense stop talking to the IRGC, which has been around for 40 years and may be
around for another forty, to appease a White House that might change hands in less than two
years?
More than anything, the terrorism designation just risks making such designations more
meaningless than they already are, in a region where the term is bandied about too
readily.
Trump's irresponsible
decision doesn't serve U.S. interests in the least, but it will make it more difficult for
a future administration to enter into negotiations with Iran or lift sanctions. Iran hawks have
been very open about their desire to tie the
hands of the next president, and with this designation they are hoping to lock the U.S. on
a collision course with Iran. The Iranian government has been trying to wait until Trump is no
longer in office, and our hard-liners want to make it seem as if there is no point in doing
that. Their goal as always remains Iran's isolation in the vain belief that this will lead to
regime change.
Many regional governments that have and need to preserve good relations with Iran aren't
going to participate in this effort, and by putting them on the spot this designation is likely
to hurt U.S. relations with Iraq and Lebanon. Worse than that, it lays the groundwork for war.
Benjamin Friedman
warned against this yesterday:
Designating a part of Iran's government as a terrorist organization is a step toward
saying, 'we cannot live with them and have to bomb them.'
The designation is an overly broad and ideological one, and it is driven by the same
obsessive hostility that is warping the rest of U.S. policy towards Iran. Jason Rezaian, who
has more reason than most to loathe the IRGC,
questioned the decision: "I worry that this is another instance in which the U.S.
government is guilty of criminalizing people simply for being Iranian." Trump has called Iran a
"terrorist nation" on many different occasions, and the phrasing tells us that he sees the
country and its people in only the most simplistic and negative terms. His hard-line advisers
and allies have exploited that to get him to do whatever they want against Iran, and it isn't
hard to imagine how they would likewise talk him into further escalations in the
future.
I believe "War" is in the cards. I also believe "Trump" is a "useful idiot" for certain
countries whose agenda is to attack Iran. We all know who they are. They are supported by
American tax dollars, and buy American weapons. I feel sorry for any America soldiers that
will be ordered to take part in this planned evil, while the ones behind it all sit back in
their luxury bunkers watching the hell they created. Will nobody arrest these warmongers,
before it's too late? Another "War" is the madness of maniacs and the deaths of the innocent
people In Iran.
I believe "War" is in the cards. I also believe "Trump" is a "useful idiot" for certain
countries whose agenda is to attack Iran. We all know who they are. They are supported by
American tax dollars, and buy American weapons. I feel sorry for any America soldiers that
will be ordered to take part in this planned evil, while the ones behind it all sit back in
their luxury bunkers watching the hell they created. Will nobody arrest these warmongers,
before it's too late? Another "War" is the madness of maniacs and the deaths of the innocent
people In Iran.
So Trump has delivered Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, indifference to the Gaza human rights
catastrophe and now a ratchet up to war with Iran to Netanyahu.
Ruthless Bibi is happy getting his U.S. lapdog to yap on command yet again. And Sheldon
Adelson gets value for the $150 Million of mad money he threw into the Republican till in
2018. Plenty more where that came from. And now of course the Democrats running the House
will put their squeeze on everybody's favorite Casino Mogul and AIPAC front man for their
taste in 2020.
Couple that with MEK pimps Bolton, Giuliani, Gaffney, et al. whispering the sweet nothings
of Iran regime change in Trump's other ear and it's all over but the shooting
This is not a statement of the President of the USA. This is a statement of a pretty clueless in military affairs and
diplomacy NYC real estate developer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Amazing job so amazing we are ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new planes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. You like the F-35? ... you can't see it. You literally can't see it. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see," Mr Trump said in October. ..."
"... [T]o shoot down F-35 one has to have two different bands radar, good sensor-fusion algorithms and decent signal processing protocols and voila'. S-300 PMU2 Favorit can do this, certainly S-400, and its inevitably coming iterations for which there is literally a line of customers, can ..."
"... In general, this whole BS about "stealth" should end at some point of time--it was a good propaganda while it lasted. Reality is, with modern processing power and radar design F-35 is not survivable against modern cutting edge air-defense and air-forces. ..."
"Amazing job so amazing we are ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new planes for the
Air Force, especially the F-35. You like the F-35? ... you can't see it. You literally can't
see it. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see," Mr Trump said in October.
Or is he?
The F-35 may have some good electronics but is not a good plane to fly against any competent
competitor. The Marine version which can take off and land vertically, is a remake of the
Soviet Yakovlev 141 which first flew in 1989 (vid). The derived Air
Force and Navy versions do not have the vertical take off and landing capabilities, but
inherited the disadvantages the basic design brings with it. The F-35's stealth does not work
against modern radar:
[T]o shoot down F-35 one has to have two different bands radar, good sensor-fusion algorithms
and decent signal processing protocols and voila'. S-300 PMU2 Favorit can do this, certainly
S-400, and its inevitably coming iterations for which there is literally a line of customers,
can.
In general, this whole BS about "stealth" should end at some point of time--it was a
good propaganda while it lasted. Reality is, with modern processing power and radar design
F-35 is not survivable against modern cutting edge air-defense and air-forces.
"... "If the bully gets close, I'll punch the bully in the mouth," Rosselló said when asked about a tense meeting Wednesday between members of the Trump administration and Puerto Rican officials. "It would be a mistake to confuse courtesy with [lack of] courage." ..."
Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rosselló is through playing nice with President Trump.
After months of soft-pedaling his criticism of the president as Puerto Rico struggles to
recover from Hurricane Maria in 2017, Rosselló voiced his frustration with the White
House in a Thursday interview
with CNN .
"If the bully gets close, I'll punch the bully in the mouth," Rosselló said when
asked about a tense meeting Wednesday between members of the Trump administration and Puerto
Rican officials. "It would be a mistake to confuse courtesy with [lack of] courage."
President Trump campaigned against regime change wars when he ran for President, but now he
bows to the wishes of the neocons who surround him, clamoring for the regime change wars that
he claimed to oppose--this time in Venezuela and Iran.
These powerful politicians dishonor the sacrifices made by every one of my brothers and
sisters in uniform, their families - as they are the ones who pay the price for these wars.
In fact, every American pays the price for these wars that have cost us trillions of dollars
since 9/11.
Every dollar that we spend on regime change wars or on the new cold war and this nuclear
arms race is a dollar coming out of our pockets dollars that should be used to address the very
real, urgent needs of our people and our communities right here at home.
Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia want to drag the United States into war with Iran, and Trump is
submitting to their wishes. The cost in money and lives will be catastrophic.
Reconciliation between Palestinians and Israeli might now be impossible. But the county can't keep more then a million people in
Bantustan forever. Probably Israel eventually will go the way South Africa went and settlers will repatriate to Western countries, Russia
and Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... A number of analysts were quick to point out how this sets the stage for further unnecessary tit-for-tat escalation inevitably making things messier for US forces in the Middle East, and significantly increases the changes of direct war. ..."
"... Netanyahu is taking credit for Trump's decision to designate the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. "Thank you for responding to another important request of mine," Bibi says. ..."
"... He got the Golan 2 weeks ago and now this 1 day before Israel's election ..."
"... Likely the statement was not made in English in order to avoid making President Trump look weak in front of US political leaders and the American public , while at the same bolstering (in Hebrew to Israel's domestic audience) Netanyahu's ability to immediately make Washington bend to Israel's interests. ..."
"... Though Trump has clearly thrown his full support behind a Netanyahu victory, it doesn't bode well for "America First" having the Israeli leader essentially bragging that Washington policy can be dictated from Jerusalem. ..."
"... Netanyahu is the friend one appreciates not having. He's unable to avoid insulting everyone he's around, because he just can't control his need to announce at every opportunity how much better and smarter and prettier than everyone else he is. (Are we sure he's not a New Yorker? :-) ..."
"... Netanyahu over the weekend historically declared that he fully intends to extend Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. The incumbent prime minister also said he had told President Donald Trump that would not evacuate "a single person" from the 400,000 or so Jews residing in the West Bank. ..."
"... "There will be no Palestinian state," he said, "not like the one people are talking about. It won't happen." ..."
We noted Monday that just hours after President Trump formally designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist
organization, Iran's foreign ministry
responded
in kind , immediately put forward a bill placing US Central Command on a list of organizations designated as terrorists, akin
to Daesh.
A number of analysts were
quick to point out how this sets the stage for further unnecessary tit-for-tat escalation inevitably making things messier for
US forces in the Middle East, and significantly increases the changes of direct war. Soon after the White House's IRGC designation,
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked President Trump in a tweet, the Hebrew version of which bragged it was all the
prime minister's idea .
Netanyahu said in the Hebrew-only tweet that he was glad Trump "answered another one of my important requests" which will keep
the world safe from Iran. It's unclear what the prime minister mean from "another" of his requests, but less than two weeks ago Trump
made a dramatic decisions to overturn decades of official US policy and bestow formal recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the
Golan Heights after receiving a
"quickie"
history lesson .
It's well known that Netanyahu had personally lobbied for weeks and months for that decision, and on Monday appeared to be touting
both as his initiative on the eve of Israel's election.
According to The Intercept's translation the statement said: "Thank you, my dear friend, President Donald Trump," Netanyahu
tweeted in Hebrew , "for answering another one of my important requests."
Netanyahu is taking credit for Trump's decision to designate the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. "Thank you for responding
to another important request of mine," Bibi says.
Likely the statement was not made in English in order to avoid making President Trump look weak in front of US political leaders
and the American public , while at the same bolstering (in Hebrew to Israel's domestic audience) Netanyahu's ability to immediately
make Washington bend to Israel's interests.
Though Trump has clearly thrown his full support behind a Netanyahu victory, it doesn't bode well for "America First" having
the Israeli leader essentially bragging that Washington policy can be dictated from Jerusalem.
On the further significance of the statement, The Intercept
observed :
Joe Dyke, an Agence France-Presse correspondent, pointed out that Netanyahu omitted the claim that Trump's move was made at
his request in a subsequent tweet in English. That left the prime minister open to the charge often leveled at Palestinian leaders
by Israelis, that they placate the international community in English and then say something quite different for domestic consumption
in their native tongue.
Israelis head to the polls to elect a prime minister on Tuesday, and one key feature of Netanyahu's campaign -- lately beset by
no less than three corruption charges as prime minister -- has been his warm relations with the American president and close cooperation.
while at the same bolstering (in Hebrew to Israel's domestic audience) Netanyahu's ability to immediately make Washington bend
to Israel's interests.....
Disgusting. Zionist evil neo-con warmongers pulling strings in DC....what else is new.
I have to challenge your position for its intellectual integrity...
Is is "disgusting" for a group - any group - to use all methods of influence to reach their goals, or is it disgusting that
it's targets fold so easily?
Your indignation at the situation may be just, but your wrath is misplaced. Direct it at the cowards and scumbags who can be
flipped so easily.
Do you now understand why Zionists refer to us as "Dumb* Goyim"?
* 'Dumb' seems kind, given how a tiny minority can bridle the large majority so so easily. Other choice words come to mind.
HRC: Do you now understand why Zionists refer to us as "Dumb* Goyim"?
* 'Dumb' seems kind, given how a tiny minority can bridle the large majority so so easily.
Blind: Nepotism is why Jews are successful in host nations - Tribalism is a form of nepotism.
Also there is parasitism. The Jewish nation living independently within a host nation, meets the definition of a parasite:
one independent entity living within another, and deriving sustenance from it.
And CONCEALMENT is the main form of defense of every PARASITE.
● FOR EXAMPLE: The private-currency Ponzi-scheme PARASITE. In America they call their banks FEDERAL-Reserve banks, and their
currency FEDERAL-Reserve Notes. The "FEDERAL" part is to suggest FEDERAL-government and CONCEAL the fact they are PRIVATE. And
their FEDERAL-Reserve Notes look just like FEDERAL-government notes - more CONCEALMENT.
● FOR ANOTHER EXAMPLE, click this link:
http://static.neatorama.com/images/2006-08/cymothoa-exigua.jpg
[[Cymothoa exigua PARASITE enters the HOST fish and REPLACES it's tongue .. and CONCEALS the job by the PARASITE's body looking
just like the HOST's original tongue.]]
At best there is the suspicion that Israeli intelligence knew something was coming up. But same can be said about American intelligence,
where at some levels suspicions were pronounced, which due to incompetence and/or miscommunication between services weren't followed
upon.
The idea that Israel would stage super-complex false flag massacres against its big brother ally, using no less than 4 planes,
with Muslim recruits (mostly Saudis) is ridiculous. There is everything too lose, too little to gain.
Look at the aftermath: Iraq and Afghanistan were invaded. What's the gain here for Israel?!?! It had no big issues with any
of those two countries. And Iran was NOT attacked.
Critical: Look at the aftermath: Iraq and Afghanistan was invaded. Israel had no big issues with any of those countries.
Blind: Nonsense! Both countries stood in the way of the "Greater Israel" ("from the Nile to the Euphrates") project. Especially
IRAQ, the Euphrates River runs right through the middle of it!
The Greater Israel fantasy is an outlandish theory. Maybe some jewish reli-nutcases adhere to it, but it is mostly a fruit
of the mind of conspiracy theorists without geopolitical knowledge and realism.
Proof: Israel gave the Sinai back to Egypt + they left Southern Lebanon + it walled itself in...
The perpetrators own the media, own Hollywood and domimate the advertising industry. They've engineered our society so any
discussion of their political motives/actions is met with cries of bigotry. They've also used social engineering to turn half
of us against the other. We're on the losing end of a cultural war and 99% of us don't even know it's happening and 50% of those
people have mush for brains.
Captain: The [911] information is out there. They [Americans] just don't care.
Blind: The same people who engineered 9/11, also own the American Mainstream Media, and the keep us in the dark and feed us
********. The mushroom syndrome.
Yes of course! The Mossad 9/11 project was enabled by traitorous INSIDERS within the US government. Led by Cheney and Bush.
9/11 was an INSIDE job, as well as a false-flag to make Israel's enemies look like ours.
SpaceIL, an Israeli nonprofit, launched its Beresheet moon lander on a SpaceX rocket in February. ... Russia, China, and the
United States. Could Israel innovate and actually achieve this ...
The moon is in reach for Israel's Beresheet mission. The privately funded SpaceIL spacecraft is currently orbiting our lunar
neighbor and making preparations to attempt a soft landing Thursday.
Israel is on track to attempt a moon landing Thursday and, if successful, the tiny nation will become just the fourth to touch
down on the lunar surface. The landing attempt of the robotic probe ...
Netanyahu is the friend one appreciates not having. He's unable to avoid insulting everyone he's around, because he just
can't control his need to announce at every opportunity how much better and smarter and prettier than everyone else he is. (Are
we sure he's not a New Yorker? :-)
TEL AVIV – The U.S. is fully aware of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's flat rejection of the creation of a Palestinian state
along with his plans to extend Israeli law to West Bank settlements, the Israeli premier said on Monday.
In an interview with
Channel 12 , Netanyahu pushed back against his main challenger Benny Gantz's claims that his vow to annex the West Bank was
nothing more than an empty campaign promise.
Netanyahu over the weekend
historically declared that he fully intends to extend Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. The incumbent prime minister
also said he had told President Donald Trump that would not evacuate "a single person" from the 400,000 or so Jews residing in
the West Bank.
Gantz on Sunday said Netanyahu's statement was "meaningless" and no more than a last-minute bid for Likud to gain the upper
hand over Gantz's Blue and White party. Netanyahu, however, countered that such radical moves did not happen overnight.
"Why did it take two years to get recognition of the Golan Heights even with such a friendly president? These things takes
time," said Netanyahu in reference to Trump's presidential order last month recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Netanyahu said annexation of the West Bank would happen in three stages and he hoped to do it with "full American support."
"I discussed [annexation] with representatives of President Trump and I expressed my belief that there is no other option,
I think it is also the right move," he said.
"I want to do it gradually. If possible, I want to do it with full American support," the prime minister added.
"It is going to happen," he stated. "This isn't something I invented for the elections."
"I was under incredible pressure from the Obama administration -- that no prime minister has ever had -- to cease construction
in the [West Bank] and yet I withstood them and we continued building and now we will continue," he said.
Netanyahu also told
Army Radio that the Palestinians would not have a state or security control.
"There will be no Palestinian state," he said, "not like the one people are talking about. It won't happen."
Russian research team which claimed to have detected signs of intelligent life in Washington has now discovered the life there
not to be quite so intelligent after all.
A Russian spokesman, who wishes to remain anonymous, told our Moscow science correspondent -- who also wishes to remain anonymous
-- that the Washington atmosphere has been poisoned by huge clouds of putrid hot air belching from the corporate media. He explained
that such a hostile environment makes it almost impossible for intelligent life to survive, let alone evolve a sustainable culture.
The Russian team believes there may still be small pockets of intelligent life elsewhere on the North American continent but without
the necessary conditions they need to thrive they are destined to disappear without trace.
Speaking off the record, the Russian spokesman, who asked us not to disclose his identity, added that hopes of finding intelligent
life in London, Paris, Berlin and other Western European locations, where it might be expected to flourish, are fading fast. Though
it is believed intelligent life once existed in Occiental Europe, an atmosphere suitable for the maintenance of such life has all
but evaporated.
As expected, the Trump administration has
designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization:
The Trump administration on Monday designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as
a foreign terrorist organization, escalating the U.S. pressure campaign against Tehran and
marking the first time an element of a foreign state has been officially designated a
terrorist entity.
Over the weekend, Iranian officials made it clear that they would
respond in kind and apply a similar designation to U.S. forces. There is an obvious danger
that this decision could lead to armed conflict between U.S. forces and Iranian-backed militias
and proxies, but the designation could have other unexpected consequences that go beyond
U.S.-Iranian relations.
The precedent set by labeling part of another government's military as terrorists not only
makes it more likely that our military personnel will be subjected to similar treatment, but it
also blurs the definition of what constitutes a terrorist organization. Labeling the entire
IRGC as a terrorist organization is inaccurate and it continues a trend of using the label of
terrorist to mean "something that we don't like and want to punish."
The Iranian conscripts who are required to serve in the IRGC are obviously not terrorists
according to any sane definition of the word, but this designation means that the U.S. will now
treat them as if they are.
The Trump administration keeps finding new and irresponsible ways to drive the regime and
the people together and to make conflict between the U.S. and Iran more likely. U.S.-Iranian
tensions are now set to increase with no clear path for de-escalation.
So Trump administration will spend billion of fighting Iran, instead of helping US middle
class to survive... Guns instead of butter policy. This is clearly Obama-style betrayal of Trump
voters. Trump’s Budget Would Deny Food to 400,000 Children and Pregnant People By Dean
Baker
cepr.net
While any theocratic regime is reprehensible Trump clearly prefers one theocratic regime to
another.
From comments: "Apparently Bibi sleeping in Jareds bed wasn't a metaphor but a foreign policy
statement! The house of Kushner that Trump built."
Just hours after President Trump formally designated Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards
Corps as a terrorist organization, Iran's foreign ministry has put forward a bill placing US
Central Command on a list of organizations designated as terrorists, akin to
Daesh.
Today, I am formally announcing my Administration’s plan to designate Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including its Qods Force, as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This
unprecedented step, led by the Department of State, recognizes the reality that Iran is not
only a State Sponsor of Terrorism, but that the IRGC actively participates in, finances, and
promotes terrorism as a tool of statecraft. The IRGC is the Iranian government’s
primary means of directing and implementing its global terrorist campaign.
This designation will be the first time that the United States has ever named a part of
another government as a FTO. It underscores the fact that Iran’s actions are
fundamentally different from those of other governments. This action will significantly
expand the scope and scale of our maximum pressure on the Iranian regime. It makes crystal
clear the risks of conducting business with, or providing support to, the IRGC. If you are
doing business with the IRGC, you will be bankrolling terrorism.
This action sends a clear message to Tehran that its support for terrorism has serious
consequences. We will continue to increase financial pressure and raise the costs on the
Iranian regime for its support of terrorist activity until it abandons its malign and outlaw
behavior.
Previously, the Iranian Foreign Minister noted that those US officials who
advocated IRGC blacklisting, "seek to drag the US into a quagmire".
"#NetanyahuFirsters who have long agitated for FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organisation) of the
IRGC fully understand its consequences for US forces in the region. In fact, they seek to
drag the US into a quagmire on his behalf," Mohammed Javad Zarif said on his Twitter account.
"@realDonaldTrump should know better than to be conned into another US disaster."
Von Clausewitz. Just because I abbreviate it, does not make me wrong. Here's today's gift,
his eight book library that I spent hundreds on in college, free for the asking. it might
just help clarify some of the world's realities for you.
With Jared kushner ( Bibis bff and playing the role of **** Cheney) and Aldonson Trumps
private banker ( aka Vegas buddies) what could go wrong in PEACE negotiations?
Campaign 💩of Trump.
'We'll stop racing to topple foreign regimes with a policy of intervention and chaos
because we're all over the place fighting areas that we shouldn't be fighting in".
Disclaimer: except when it comes to family Zionism.
Trump actions:
1- On December 6, 2017, US President Donald Trump announced the United States recognition
of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel
2-Mar 22, 2019 · (CNN)President Donald Trump on Thursday overturned longstanding US
policy regarding the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, announcing "it is time" for the US to
"fully recognize Israel's Sovereignty" over the region.
3- Trump approves Saudi Arabi nuclear plant without agreement for oversight.
Apparently Bibi sleeping in Jareds bed wasn't a metephor but a foreign policy
statement!💊🐍 the house of Kushner that Trump built.😡
Iran Designates US Military As Terrorist Organization
Haha, Really? and what will they do? Attack US military?
Today, I am formally announcing my Administration’s plan to designate Iran’s
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including its Qods Force, as a Foreign Terrorist
Organization (FTO)
Judizing American foreign policy has made our military soliders martyrs for the State of
Isreal not terrorists in the international sense.
Our troops have been dying for the State of Isreal to " protect it" since the Zionist
movement that took over the Plaistinians land through Britian... The expansion will never
stop and americans will always be " mercinaries" for Isreal... Without proper
compensation.
NEW YORK -- Senator Elizabeth Warren lobbed another policy grenade into the Democratic
primary Friday, announcing she supports drastically changing the Senate by eliminating its
legendary filibuster to give her party a better chance of implementing its ambitious
agenda.
The move puts her campaign rivals on the spot to explain how they would pass their own
ambitious legislative priorities if the Senate keeps its rule in place requiring a 60-vote
supermajority to advance most bills.
Warren's announcement allows her to swerve to the left of Senator Bernie Sanders of
Vermont in a meaningful way at a time when she's straggling far behind him in early polls and
grass-roots fund-raising.
Sanders, who popularized proposals like free college and Medicare for All among Democrats
during his 2016 run for president, has been reluctant to support scrapping the filibuster.
That raises questions about how he would be able to pass his sweeping proposals into law
should he become president, given Democrats are extremely unlikely to have 60 seats in the
Senate.
"I'm not running for president just to talk about making real, structural change," Warren
told a group of activists at a conference organized by the Rev. Al Sharpton, where she
announced her opposition to the filibuster. "I'm serious about getting it done. And part of
getting it done means waking up to the reality of the United States Senate."
The appearance in New York caps off a three-week run that has seen Warren call for making
it easier to send executives to jail for corporate crimes, unveil a proposal to break up farm
monopolies, endorse forming a commission to study reparations for the descendants of slaves,
and say she would like to abolish the Electoral College so presidents are elected by popular
vote.
"Bernie Sanders, nobody's to his left on policy, but there's lots of running room on his
left on procedural changes that would be necessary to enact those policies," said Brian
Fallon, a former top Hillary Clinton aide and the founder of the liberal advocacy group
Demand Justice.
Sanders said he's not "crazy about" the idea of getting rid of the filibuster in an
interview in February, but said in a later statement that he is open to reform.
Getting rid of the Senate filibuster, which has been around since the mid-1800s, was once
seen as a radical proposal that would undermine the chamber's ability to take a deliberative
approach to major issues. But Democratic and Republican majorities have chipped away at it in
recent years, jettisoning filibusters for Cabinet and Supreme Court nominees.
Just this week, Senate Republicans infuriated Democrats by unilaterally reducing the
amount of debate time for other executive branch and judicial nominees before a filibuster
could be ended.
The move to ditch the filibuster has gained currency among liberals frustrated that the
Senate is more Republican than the general public because of liberals clustering on the
coasts and the constitutional requirement that all states get two senators regardless of
population.
President Trump and Barack Obama have complained about the filibuster, with Obama saying
last year that it made it "almost impossible" to govern.
Though probably too wonky a proposal to reach the average voter, the debate over the
Senate filibuster animates the Democratic activists who are watching the primary the most
closely and whose support the candidates are vying to win. Those activists are unmoved by
candidates who say they'll be able to persuade Republicans to sign onto their ambitious
liberal legislation.
"The idea that you can win people over by inviting them over for drinks on the Truman
Balcony -- that is completely out of vogue," Fallon said.
Other candidates have also called for getting rid of the filibuster, including Governor
J*a*y Inslee of Washington and Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, who is pondering
a run. However, Warren is the first sitting senator in the race to do so. Senator Kamala
Harris of California, who signed a letter in 2017 affirming the filibuster, now says she's
conflicted about it.
The filibuster's defenders say it protects the rights of the minority party, and forces
the majority to compromise. Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who also signed the 2017
letter, has said he is concerned that getting rid of the filibuster would mean Republicans
would be able to more easily pass legislation in the future over Democrats' objections.
In her speech to the National Action Network's activists, a largely black crowd, Warren
framed the filibuster as a tool of "racists" who used it for decades to block civil rights
legislation, including a bill to make lynching a federal crime that was first introduced in
the early 1900s. The legislation finally passed this year.
"We can't sit around for 100 years while climate change destroys our planet, while
corruption pervades every nook and cranny of Washington, and while too much of a child's fate
in life still rests on the color of their skin," she said.
After her speech, Warren told reporters that she is concerned about the bills Republicans
would be able to pass without the filibuster, but that getting rid of it is worth it for
Democrats. "Of course I'm worried. But I'm also worried about a minority that blocks real
change that we need to make in this country," she said.
The calls to eliminate the filibuster are part of a larger debate among Democrats about
reforming US democracy after they lost the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections despite
winning the popular vote. Warren, along with several other Democrats, has also called to
abolish the Electoral College. Warren, Harris, and former representative Beto O'Rourke of
Texas are also open to the idea of the next president expanding the number of seats on the
Supreme Court to offset its conservative majority.
Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist who pushes a host of liberal policies, has
been more conservative on these proposals than many of his presidential campaign rivals. He
is against expanding the court, arguing it would be a slippery slope that Republicans could
also take advantage of, and is still on the fence about ditching the filibuster and
abolishing the Electoral College.
Warren declined to call out her Senate colleagues when asked whether she was surprised
they had not endorsed the idea of ending the filibuster. "All I can do is keep running the
campaign I'm running and talking about these ideas," she said.
If Biden doesn't run, he's going to be indicted for illegally selling, tax payer financed,
tangible assets & racketeering, via unauthorized articles of political office, that
clearly state, use of office restrictions.
I'd seen headlines about the Orange Dope planning to declare Iran's Guards as terrorists, but till reading your post it hadn't
occurred to me this was groundwork for smashing another Muslim nation for the apartheid Jewish state. It's a bit like Obama in
2015:
I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order (the "order") declaring a national emergency with respect to the unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by the situation in Venezuela.
Again, something so crazy that it didn't seem relevant to 'the real world' at the time.
The obese dumbass in the White House has been a busy boy. It's a good guess either Trump or whoever holds the blackmail pictures
wants Netanyahu reelected. From Naked Capitalism this morning:
Do people really want the the Trump administration, the Department of Justice and the
F.D.A. involved here? Bit fuzzy on the details but wasn't there a time about a decade ago
when the States were getting together to sue banks for fraudulently marketing mortgages but
that Obama got ahead of this movement and basically short-circuited the whole process? And
the banks got a tap on the wrist as they were busy seizing homes by the millions?
If the Trump administration got involved, I would expect that Big Pharma would have to pay a
few billion dollars restitution (which they, like the banks previously, could claim back on
their taxes), that there would be no criminal sentences, that nobody would be convicted of a
crime or have it on their record, and that Big Pharma would promise to behave better in
future – starting February 30th.
Meanwhile, another thousand Americans would be dying
each and every week from what Big Pharma has created. Hopefully the States will create an
almighty stink with their law suits.
Who will Trump's Kamala Harris be?
(Mortgage fraud by banks versus Pharmafraud)
Kamala did squat in the mortgage settlement as California attorney general. What little
she did get was handed to Jerry Brown to resuscitate the general fund of the state, not to
homeowners cheated out of their homes.
She could have done what Scott Pruitt did in Oklahoma, which was to NOT accept the
nationwide settlement. Oklahoma received 6x the national average in mortgage settlements
because of that. "Chain of Title" by David Dayen.
like Corey Booker's pharma payoff, she got a nice donation for her next campaign for her
probank activities, from Trump's man Mnuchin himself.
Hey cut Kamala a break. My AG Schneiderman joined Obama's sideswipe, got pennies for NY
and didn't end up in the Senate. She got more for CA, the bigger political payoff and even a
run for president.
And unfortunately Justice for those abused by the corporations who benefitted is not
really in our political mainstream calculations.
This probably is as true today as it was in October 2017
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, Trump has failed to live up to his campaign promises, the poll reveals. Despite praise for Trump from rural Americans for his handling of economic and national security issues, his failure to tackle healthcare and immigration have resulted in increasingly poor approval numbers. ..."
"... according to poll statistics, Trump's approval among rural American voters today is 47 percent, while during the election it was 56 percent. ..."
"... Questionnaire respondents have revealed that they evaluate the US president according to his actions, not his flamboyant and often polarizing style. The way Trump talks or tweets concerns them little, Reuters reports, as long as the president keeps his promises. ..."
Feelings of resentment and deprivation have pervaded a lot of these places," Swenson said.
"And here comes a candidate [Trump] who's offering simplistic answers" to issues that concern
them.
"Rural people are more cynical about the federal government than people in general are,"
said Karl Stauber, who runs a private economic development agency for manufacturing communities
in south central Virginia. "They've heard so many promises, and they've not seen much
done."
Yet, Trump has failed to live up to his campaign promises, the poll reveals. Despite praise
for Trump from rural Americans for his handling of economic and national security issues, his
failure to tackle healthcare and immigration have resulted in increasingly poor approval
numbers.
Unlike in metropolitan voters, a surprising number of rural Americans appear to support
Trump's aggressive anti-immigration policy. According to the Reuters report, voters blame
consistent White House infighting and employee turnover for much of the failure of the Trump
agenda.
In dry numbers, according to poll statistics, Trump's approval among rural American voters today is 47 percent, while
during the election it was 56 percent.
Questionnaire respondents have revealed that they evaluate the US president according to his
actions, not his flamboyant and often polarizing style. The way Trump talks or tweets concerns
them little, Reuters reports, as long as the president keeps his promises.
"I like him less, but I support him more," an 87-year old respondent told Reuters.
Conducted online, the poll filtered for answers from areas designated as "non-metro" by the
federal government, dividing the responses into nine, four-week periods, each period containing
including between 1,300 and 2,000 responses.
Donald Trump is ramping up his attack on oil prices as US crude hit a 5-month high today. While up to now the US president
has been focused on denouncing high energy costs via Twitter, it appears he now is looking to do more than merely bash OPEC online.
As CNBC reported, the US wants to ensure "dominance" in this sector through a blockbuster executive order designed to boost pipeline
infrastructure. In reality, Trump walks a dangerous tightrope when it comes to crude.
Of course the Saudis are laughing at Trump. The world is laughing at Trump. He is an ignorant baffoon.
Of course the Saudis are laughing at Trump. The world is laughing at Trump. He is an ignorant baffoon.
May be ignorant bully, not only (or so much) baffoon ? He practices what is called “gangster capitalism” on international arena
for some time. Totally ignores international law. Does not even use a fig leaf as previous administrations. Trump is “Full Spectrum
Dominance” in action
In view of the Saudi role of the guarantor of the “dollar as the reserve currency” system his behavior might well be a reckless
move, which totally contradicts Trump’s behavior in Khashoggi case. Kind of direct pressure is Soprano style: “Do what I want,
or…”
If Saudi stop selling oil for dollars that will be a very bad news for the USA. Hopefully they can’t do this being a Washington
vassal, but to insult a vassal is not the best diplomacy, anyway.
Why Trump can’t understand that oil is limited and higher prices might well be the best strategy as they helps to find alternatives,
develop infrastructure (for example for EV passenger cars) and prepare to inevitable shortages, or even the Seneca Cliff in oil
supply.
Why he wants to propel/sustain the US stock market at any cost?
Low oil prices can help to kick the neoliberal can down the road, but they can’t save the USA from the “secular stagnation”
and might not be able to save the USA from the recession too because consumption is low: credit card debt reached 0.87 trillion
in the fourth quarter of 2018 On other words the bottom 80% of the USA population might well be debt slaves of the US banks.
On March 25, 2019 yields curve inverted the first time since mid 2007: The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury note dipped below
the yield on the 3-month paper.
In other words secular stagnation is the result of the crisis of neoliberalism both as the ideology and as the social system
dominant in the world. Neoliberalism entered “zombie” stage in 2008 and it continues to exist (and even counterattack, as in Argentina
and Brazil) only due to the fact that there is no acceptable alternative and the return to the New Deal capitalism (which many
wish) is difficult or impossible because management now is allied with the capital owners, not with workers (as was temporary
the case after the Great Depression; that alliance ended in 70th).
Or he is a “naturally stupid” bully, who does not care to learn diplomatic etiquette and some elements of diplomacy, while
on the job.
In both cases he is a real embarrassment for the nation, is not he?
While I do not support Russiagate witch hunt, his behavior really raises questions about fitness for the office.
Also Bush II style (as in Iraq WDM fiasco ) bunch of crazy warmongers, neocons that control Trump administration foreign
policy (Haley in the past, Pompeo, Bolton now ) is not what his voters expected based on his election promises.
In a sense, he proved to be Republican Obama, another master of “bait and switch” maneuver.
Looks like we are living during what Chinese call “interesting times”, aren’t we ?
Tulsi is a really great polemist with a very sharp mind and ability to find weak points in the opponent platform/argumentation
and withstand pressure. In the debate she will probably will wipe the floor with Trump. IMHO he stands no chances against her in the
open debate
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity. ..."
"... While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist move indeed. ..."
"... In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion boost in defense spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote. ..."
US President Donald Trump, who has been relentlessly bashing everything linked to what he sees as 'socialism,' is himself no stranger
to using socialist principles to support the US arms industry, Tulsi Gabbard has claimed. One could hardly suspect Trump of being
a socialist in disguise.
After all, the US president has emerged as one of the most ardent critics of the leftist ideological platform.
Just recently, he announced he would "go into the war with some socialists," while apparently referring to his political opponents
from the Democratic Party.
But the president also seems to be quite keen on borrowing some socialist ideas when it fits his agenda, at least, according to
the congresswoman from Hawaii and Democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, who recently wrote in a tweet that "Trump
is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers."
Trump is for socialism when it comes to taxpayers underwriting military contractors and arms manufacturers. The same money
would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country's infrastructure and green economy, and it would be better for humanity.https://t.co/tcNqsNQVbN
She was referring to a
piece in The Los Angeles Times, which cheerfully reported that Trump's whopping military budget helps to breathe some new life
into a Pentagon-owned tank manufacturing plant somewhere in northwestern Ohio that was once on the verge of a shutdown.
While the paper hailed the fact that the Pentagon's budget increase allowed local workers to keep their jobs and encouraged a
skilled workforce to move to a small town in rural Ohio, Gabbard apparently hinted that the whole story in fact described what amounted
to re-distribution of money from taxpayers to a de-facto depressed area to save some jobs – a social-democratic if not outright socialist
move indeed.
It is very much unclear if Trump had this Ohio plant or any other factories like it in mind when he supported the record Pentagon
budget. After all, redistributing large sums of public money in favor of the booming US military industrial complex does not look
very much like socialism.
In her post, Gabbard also added that the US might have had a better use for a $160 billion
boost in defense
spending over two years. “The same money would create more jobs used for rebuilding our country’s infrastructure and green economy,
and it would be better for humanity,” she wrote.
Trump, meanwhile, seems to be pretty confident that his policies indeed “make America great again” while it is those
pesky socialists that threaten to ruin everything he has achieved. “I love the idea of 'Keep America Great' because you know
what it says is we've made it great now we're going to keep it great because the socialists will destroy it,” he told an audience
of Republican congress members this week, while talking about the forthcoming presidential campaign.
Too often caught between Randian individualism on one hand and big-government collectivism
on the other, America's working-class parents need a champion.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap , co-authored with her daughter Amelia
Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows. Long a samizdat favorite among socially
conservative writers, the book recently got a new dose of attention after being spotlighted on
the Right by Fox News's
Tucker Carlson and on the Left by Vox's
Matthew Yglesias .
The book's main takeaway was that two-earner families in the early 2000s seemed to be less,
rather than more, financially stable than one-earner families in the 1970s. Whereas
stay-at-home moms used to provide families with an implicit safety net, able to enter the
workforce if circumstances required, the dramatic rise of the two-earner family had effectively
bid up the cost of everyday life. Rather than the additional income giving families more
breathing room, they argue, "Mom's paycheck has been pumped directly into the basic costs of
keeping the children in the middle class."
Warren and Warren Tyagi report that as recently as the late 1970s, a married mother was
roughly twice as likely to stay at home with her children than work full-time. But by 2000,
those figures had almost reversed. Both parents had been pressed into the workforce to maintain
adequate standards of living for their families -- the "two-income trap" of the book's
title.
Advertisement
What caused the trap to be sprung? Cornell University economist Francine Blau has helpfully
drawn a picture of women's changing responsiveness to
labor market wages during the 20th century. In her work with Laurence Kahn, Blau found that
women's wage elasticities -- how responsive their work decisions were to changes in their
potential wages -- used to be far more heavily driven by their husband's earning potential or
lack thereof (what economists call cross-wage elasticity). Over time, Blau and Kahn found,
women's responsiveness to wages -- their own or their husbands -- began to fall, and their
labor force participation choices began to more closely resemble men's, providing empirical
backing to the story Warren and Warren Tyagi tell.
Increasing opportunity and education were certainly one driver of this trend. In 1960, just
5.8
percent of all women over age 25 had a bachelor's degree or higher. Today, 41.7 percent of
mothers aged 25 and over have a college degree. Many of these women entered careers in which
they found fulfillment and meaning, and the opportunity costs, both financially and
professionally, of staying home might have been quite high.
But what about the plurality of middle- and working-class moms who weren't necessarily
looking for a career with a path up the corporate ladder? What was pushing them into full-time
work for pay, despite consistently
telling pollsters they wished they could work less?
The essential point, stressed by Warren and Warren Tyagi, was the extent to which this
massive shift was driven by a desire to provide for one's children. The American Dream has as
many interpretations as it does adherents, but a baseline definition would surely include
giving your children a better life. Many women in America's working and middle classes entered
the labor force purely to provide the best possible option for their families.
In the search for good neighborhoods and good schools, a bidding war quickly became an arms
race. There were "two words so powerful the families would pursue them to the brink of
bankruptcy: safety and education ." The authors underplay the extent to which
policy had explicitly sought to preserve home values, driven by their use as investment
vehicles and retirement accounts, a dynamic covered expertly by William Fischel's The Homevoter Hypothesis . But their broader
point is accurate -- rising house prices, aided and abetted by policy choices around land use,
have made it harder for families to afford the cost of living in 21st-century America.
Another factor in the springing of the trap? Divorce. In her 2000 book about how feminism had failed women, Danielle
Crittenden writes about how fear of dependency, especially in an era of no-fault divorce, had
caused women to rank financial independence highly.
These two factors, along with others Warren and Warren Tyagi explore, made it difficult for
families to unilaterally disarm without losing their place in the middle class. "Today's
middle-class mother is trapped," they write. "She can't afford to work, and she can't afford to
quit."
A quiet armistice may have been declared in the so-called "mommy wars," but the underlying
pressures haven't gone away since The Two-Income Trap was published. If anything,
they've gotten worse.
Warren and Warren Tyagi propose severing the link between housing and school districts
through a "well-designed voucher program," calling the public education system "the heart of
the problem." They correctly note that "schools in middle-class neighborhoods may be labeled
'public,'" but that parents effectively pay tuition by purchasing a home within a carefully
selected school district. Breaking the cartel that ties educational outcomes to zip codes would
increase choices for families and open the door to further educational pluralism.
Warren and Warren Tyagi are also unafraid to tell unpopular truths about the futility of
additional funding for colleges (identifying "faith in the power of higher education [as] the
new secular religion"), housing affordability ("direct subsidies are likely to add more
ammunition to the already ruinous bidding wars, ultimately driving home prices even higher"),
universal child care (which "would create yet another comparative disadvantage for
single-income families trying to compete in the marketplace"), and usurious credit (Warren's
long work on bankruptcy requires deeper treatment than this space allows, but their questioning
of our over-reliance on consumer debt deserves a fuller hearing).
Warren's presidential campaign contains elements of this attempt to make life easier for
families, but the shades of her vision of a pro-family economic policy seem paler than they
were a decade and a half ago.
Her universal child
care plan , for example, seemingly contradicts her prior stated worries about
disadvantaging stay-at-home parents. While she explicitly -- and wisely -- steers clear of a
subsidy-based approach, her attempt to "create a network of child care options" does less to
directly support families who aren't looking for formal care. In a sense, Warren would
replicate the public school experience for the under-five crowd -- if you don't want to
participate, that's fine, but you'll bear the cost on your own. A true pro-family populism
would seek to increase the choice set for all families, regardless of their work-life
situations.
Warren's housing plan has
similarly good intentions, seeking to increase the supply of affordable housing rather than
simply trying to subsidize demand. Her competitive education grant would reward municipalities
for relaxing restrictive zoning requirements. But while her campaign has yet to release a plan
on education, it seems unlikely we'll see the kind of bold approach to educational choice she
espoused in 2003. Populist sympathizers of all ideological stripes should hope I'm proven
wrong.
Warren's attempt at pro-family progressive populism seems honest. If not for certain
infamous biographical missteps, her personal story would be one of how America is still a land
of opportunity -- the daughter of a Oklahoma department store salesman who worked her way to a
law degree, a professorship, and a Senate seat. There's a congruence in her positioning of
economic security as a family values issue and the resurgent interest in a pro-worker,
pro-family conservative agenda. And unlike so many politicians, her personal experience seems
to have instilled an understanding of why so many dual-earner families see work as a means to
the end of providing a better life for their children rather than an end in itself.
A politician willing to question the sacred cows of double-income families, more money
for schools, and easy credit is the kind of politician this populist moment requires. A
candidate willing to call into question an economic model that prioritizes GDP growth over all
else would boldly position himself or herself as being on the side of families whose vision of
the American Dream involves a better life for their children, yet who are exhausted and hemmed
in by costs.
How Warren needs to position her platform to navigate the vicissitudes of a Democratic Party
primary will likely not be the best way to address the needs of the modern American family. But
in a crowded field, an uncompromising vision of increased choice for families across all
dimensions -- not just within the public school system, for example, but among all options of
education -- would be an impressive accomplishment and a way of distinguishing herself from the
pack. An explicit defense of parenthood as a social good would be unconventional but
welcome.
Still, a marker of how far the conversation around families has shifted from the early 2000s
is the extent to which Warren's and Warren Tyagi's view of parenthood as something more than an
individual "lifestyle choice" would now be viewed as radical, particularly on the Left. "That
may be true from the perspective of an individual choosing whether or not to have a child,"
they write, "but it isn't true for society at large. What happens to a nation that rewards the
childless and penalizes the parents?"
What indeed. Paging the Elizabeth Warren of 2003 -- your country needs you.
Patrick T. Brown ( @PTBwrites ) is a master's of public affairs student at
Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
Doe anyone think the middle and especially upper middle class would be in favor of a school
choice plan that would cause their housing values to take hit? And there's another big
roadblock with a school choice program: the need for transportation. Two years ago my next
door neighbors who were able to place their young son in a good school across town sold their
house and moved to be closer to the school since the daily cross-town commute at rush hour
was just too much.
They might well have had one in Elizabeth Warren, whose 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap,
co-authored with her daughter Amelia Warren Tyagi, was unafraid to skewer sacred cows.
It's more recent than that. The first edition was 2003, but a second edition came out in
2016, by which time Mom probably knew she might be running for president. It's got a new
introduction by the authors, so obviously it was done with their cooperation.
I haven't read either edition, so I don't know what's been changed in the new one.
I am struck again and again, by the unbelievable power of the forces in the political
arena pushing everyone who is a Democrat because they are fiscally liberal* to ALSO become
socially liberal,* and everyone who is a Republican because they are socially conservative*
to ALSO become fiscally conservative.*
The net result of the laws of motion seem to systematically take the ideological space of
"socially conservative, fiscally liberal" (the old New Deal) and push everyone in it either
out to the usual left "fiscally liberal, socially liberal" or the usual right "socially
conservative, fiscally conservative" quadrants.
This article shows how it's happening with Elizabeth Warren in one direction, and it's
happened constantly with socially conservative Republicans who get yanked back to the proper
quadrant anytime they try to move to a direction of economic policy that doesn't involve tax
cuts for the rich and actually help their constituents.
One can have all the opinions on better ways to do things for the good of society, but if
those ideas are not politically viable, it creates a change in directions. Warren probably by
now .realizes how complicated all of these policy issues are and the unintended consequence
of these policies are always a factor and a risk. Elizabeth Warren seems to have a good grasp
of complicated issues, but that never get her the support she would need to prevail in this
campaign. We currently live in the age of "Fantasyland" spewed by both the Trump RINOs and
the Lunatic Left. Warren is a thinker. That is not helpful these days.
What happened is that Warren wants the Team D nomination, and Team D, like Team R, could not
care less about the 99.9% of Americans who are not non-campaign bundlers or big contributors.
In fact, Team D (again, just like Team R) is actively hostile to any proposal that might
take money out of the pockets of the .1%, or otherwise affect the way the the economic pie is
sliced.
If this was the 1970s Warren would probably have supported busing. Pocahontas – leave
my safe neighborhood, my children's schools, and my home equity alone. Because these well
meaning social engineering schemes seldom work out as planned. As a middle class American I
will probably get the short end of the stick.
Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers. Talk
about "the heart of the problem."
My wife and I did a sort of calculation. In our state child care would be about 11,000 per
child per year. Also, you can't drop them off if they are sick, so you have to use your sick
days for them. Oh, and if you don't use the child care if you're on vacation, you still need
to pay to hold the slot. With two kids and taxes, she has to clear well over 30k per year to
about break even.
Add in the fact you'll be missing out on their childhood, spending maybe three or so hours
per day with them, is it really worth it?
The more I see the 'big tech' developments, they are basically things your pay for to let
you work so you can afford to work. TaskRabbit, Fivrer, DoorDash, etc basically give you free
time so you can work more.
"What happens to a nation that rewards the childless and penalizes the parents?"
Laughing.
They become liberals, democrats, anarchists, socialists, communists . . . supporters of
murdering children in the womb, efficiency advocates by way of eugenics . . . and other
assorted malcontents against ordered society.
But in my view, what has damaged economic sociology has been the shift in practice without
any assessment what it would do to the traditional family dynamic between husbands and wives
in family construction. That simply demanding that space be made for women and millions of
women would seriously tighten the job market for all and disrupt the pillars upon which our
nation was built, despite its problems.
Power dynamic, chivalry outran practical realities and that remains the case in
increasingly stratifying civil demands.
And while I sympathetic to the complaint about bussing, that had a very little impact on
the employment numbers which government and businesses and edication raced to fill the
discrimination expectations with women, and primarily white women.
tired comment, but accurate nonetheless, so instead of hiring men in response to
discrimination, those men were instead replaced by women, most of whom already had access via
the cultural dynamics of the majority.
Warren and Warren Tyagi propose severing the link between housing and school districts
through a "well-designed voucher program," calling the public education system "the heart of
the problem." [ ]
In my opinion, Warner's education voucher proposal by guaranteeing voucher dollar
enrollment in the affluent zip codes ignores the heart of the education problem. Affluent zip
codes do not ensure a child's academic success via 'better' teachers and educational
materials. Public schools in the big cities are filled with teachers who have their masters
and Ph.D's along with continuing education requirements.
Student success is fundamentally based upon parental commitment and community involvement.
Are the parents committed to their children's academic success? Does the parent(s) provide a
conducive and safe home environment? Does the child have a quiet space to study, do their
homework and prepare for school? Does the parent(s) sit down and teach? Review the child's
homework? Do the parents volunteer at the school? Are they involved with school events? Is
education a top priority? Or is school a babysitting service to drop off and pick up?
Those affluent zip codes are more than a number. For the most part, they are a supportive
community of families.
A child's academic success is assuredly tethered to the parental guiding hands. Simply, a
child's success begins at home with parents who care about their children's future.
Probably, every conservative will agree, that the basic flaw is materialism. Thus, with
materialism, personal values that cannot be sold or bought for money, are neglected in favour
of the gross domestic product per capita philosophy. Such personal values are, for instance,
family values, that is, children need both a mother, especially when they are below teenage,
and a father, especially when they are teenagers, and perhaps most important, a father and a
mother need one another. All this family thing does, however, not enter into the money
economy of big government. Whence, on the side of families, those need to take quite brave
choices, to choose morals above money. And on the side of the government, this needs to tax
the rich and help the poor. In fact, according to the World Bank, economic growth is
stimulated best, if governments help the poor directly, rather than with obscure subsidies to
the economic system. However, there is also the difficulty with difficult access to regular
jobs. By no doubt, abortion genosuicide decreases demand on the most simple of goods and
services, causing unemployment for the poor, and driving up costs of raising children.
Society then goes into socialism, with genosuicide instead of economic growth, while the
money flows into pension funds of the upper middle class. Governments must simply help the
poor. Humankind has always been able to produce twice the amount of good food that it needs,
but bureaucratic governments keep the poor enslaved, to fill them with lie.
Warren's academic work and cheeky refusal to fold under pressure when her nomination as
Obama's consumer ('home ec.'?) finance czar was stymied by the GOP are worthy of respect. I'd
like to see her make a strong run at the dem nomination, but am put off by her recent
tendency to adopt silly far-left talking points and sentiments (her Native DNA, advocating
for reparations, etc.). Nice try, Liz, but I'm still leaning Bernie's direction.
As far as the details of the economic analysis related above, though, I am unqualified to
make any judgment – haven't read the book. But one enormously significant economic
development in the early 70s wasn't mentioned at all, so I assume she and her daughter passed
it over as well. In his first term R. Milhouse Nixon untethered, once & for all, the
value of the dollar from traditional hard currency. The economy has been coming along nicely
ever since, except for one problematic aspect: with a floating currency we are all now living
in an economic environment dominated by the vicissitudes of supplies and demands, are we not?
It took awhile to effect the housing market, but signs of the difference it made began to
emerge fairly quickly, and accelerated sharply when the tides of globalism washed lots of
third world lucre up on our western shores. Now, as clearly implied by both Warren and the
author of this article, young Americans whose parents may not have even been born back then
– the early 70s – are probably permanently priced out of the housing market in
places that used to have only a marginally higher cost of entry – i.e. urban
California, where I have lived and worked for most of my nearly 60 years. In places like this
even a 3-earner income may not suffice! Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because
it seems to me that as long as unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit
$) is the underlying dynamic of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism. Of
course, nothing could be more conservative than that, right? What say you, TAColytes?
"Maybe we should bring back the gold standard, because it seems to me that as long as
unfettered competition coupled to supply/demand and (EZ credit $) is the underlying dynamic
of the American economy we're headed for the New Feudalism."
I take it you think the old one has departed.
It was in the area of how businesses and government were reciprocating unhealthy and
unfair business practices is where I think her advocacy was most accurate. But she has
abandoned all of that.
"Funny that policy makers never want to help families by taking a little chunk out of hedge
funds and shareholders and vulture capitalists and sharing it with American workers."
Funny that Warren HAS brought up raising taxes on the rich.
"... US President John Bolton is a disaster for our country. This is going to end bad. ..."
"... Adelson/Bolton/Netanyahu Remember Israel is in bed with Saudi Arabia. Don Corleone Trump is just their puppet. ..."
"... Well let's get ready for another 20 year war trying to bring "Democracy" or fighting "Terrorists" which will be paid for with U.S. tax dollars. Lets just open up the check book now and write one out to John Bolton so it can save everybody time. ..."
"... Trump drained the swamp and put the worst swamp creatures in his administration. ..."
It always ends up with the middle east. Adelson/Bolton/Netanyahu Remember Israel is in bed with Saudi Arabia. Don Corleone
Trump is just their puppet.
Obama made so many enemies in the world, and then we get this cult in DC. Who are hell bent on supremacy of the world. Batshit
crazy times we're witnessing.
Well let's get ready for another 20 year war trying to bring "Democracy" or fighting "Terrorists" which will be paid for
with U.S. tax dollars. Lets just open up the check book now and write one out to John Bolton so it can save everybody time.
Looks like Trump is a tenant of House of Bolton, not the owner of the White House ;-)
It always ends up with Adelson/Bolton/Netanyahu. Looks like Adelson is a new Don Corleone Trump is just their puppet.
Ilhan is right and DC is ZOGGED!
Notable quotes:
"... How is it that President Trump's national security advisor John Bolton seems to actually be running things and even over-riding his boss's foreign policy? ..."
"... It is similar to the role played by Bolton's ideological comrades in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war: Keep control of the president and make sure he sees nothing that contradicts what is your desired policy: ..."
How is it that President Trump's national security advisor John Bolton seems to actually be running things and even over-riding
his boss's foreign policy?
As RPI Director Daniel McAdams tells Rick Sanchez of RT America, it's because he's frozen everyone else from the intelligence
and national security community out and insists on controlling all information that gets to the president.
It is similar to the role played by Bolton's ideological comrades in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war: Keep control of the
president and make sure he sees nothing that contradicts what is your desired policy:
"... "I'm not running for president just to talk about making real, structural change. I'm serious about getting it done," the speech reads. "And part of getting it done means waking up to the reality of the United States Senate." ..."
"... Advocates including Warren also say the end of the filibuster would make it easier for the Senate to pass meaningful legislation to combat the climate crisis and to further other progressive causes. ..."
"... "We can't sit around for 100 years while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful and everyone else falls further and further behind," Warren's speech reads. "We can't sit around for 100 years while climate change destroys our planet, while corruption pervades every nook and cranny of Washington, and while too much of a child's fate in life still rests on the color of their skin. Enough with that." ..."
"We can't sit around for 100 years while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful
and everyone else falls further and further behind."
The 2020 presidential candidate is expected to endorse the proposal in a speech
at the National Action Network Convention in New York Friday morning.
"When Democrats next have power, we should be bold and clear: We're done with two sets of
rules -- one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats," Warren is expected to say. "And
that means when Democrats have the White House again, if Mitch McConnell tries to do what he
did to President Obama and puts small-minded partisanship ahead of solving the massive problems
facing this country, then we should get rid of the filibuster."
"I'm not running for president just to talk about making real, structural change. I'm
serious about getting it done," the speech reads. "And part of getting it done means waking up
to the reality of the United States Senate."
Getting rid of the filibuster -- the Senate procedure which allows a minority party to delay
a vote by drawing out debate and block legislation from passing by requiring a "supermajority"
of 60 senators to approve it -- would be a key step toward passing progressive measures,
advocates say.
At the NAN Convention, Warren is expected to note that the filibuster has stopped the Senate
from passing radical justice legislation for decades, including an
anti-lynching bill which was first introduced a century ago but didn't pass until December
2018.
"It nearly became the law back then. It passed the House in 1922. But it got killed in the
Senate -- by a filibuster. And then it got killed again. And again. And again," Warren plans to
say. "More than 200 times. An entire century of obstruction because a small group of racists
stopped the entire nation from doing what was right."
Advocates including Warren also say the end of the filibuster would make it easier for the
Senate to pass meaningful legislation to combat the climate crisis and to further other
progressive causes.
"We can't sit around for 100 years while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful
and everyone else falls further and further behind," Warren's speech reads. "We can't sit
around for 100 years while climate change destroys our planet, while corruption pervades every
nook and cranny of Washington, and while too much of a child's fate in life still rests on the
color of their skin. Enough with that."
Warren joins
fellow 2020 Democratic hopefuls Pete Buttigieg and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee in endorsing the
end of the filibuster. Her speech Friday will represent her latest push for "structural change"
that she says would have far-reaching positive effects on the lives of working Americans. Since
announcing her candidacy in January she has called for a tax on the wealth of the
richest Americans to combat economic inequality and fund progressive programs, a
universal childcare plan, and a breakup
of powerful tech giants , among other proposals.
"... Tulsi didn't join in the standing ovation for NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg during his warmongering speech to the US Congress on Weds. Good for her. ..."
"... Tracey has allowed Tulsi to explain the nuances of her foreign policy stands concerning regime change, war, and fighting terrorism. I do not believe any other interviewer has been able to bring out those distinctions. ..."
"... I hope people will take the time to listen to Tracey's interview. It is posted on YouTube, but it is an audio interview only. Tracey does a nice introduction to both parts of the interview which was conducted over two days. ..."
The Tulsi2020 campaign continues to gain unique donors, closing in on the
magic number. As of tonight, Tulsi has 61,029 of them, and needs only 3,971 more to get into the Democratic debates. That's only
97 new donors per day through May 14.
Tulsi didn't join in the standing ovation for NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg during his warmongering speech to the US Congress
on Weds. Good for her.
with Tulsi Gabbard so far. Tracey has allowed Tulsi to explain the nuances of her foreign policy stands concerning regime change,
war, and fighting terrorism. I do not believe any other interviewer has been able to bring out those distinctions.
I hope people will take the time to listen to Tracey's interview. It is posted on YouTube, but it is an audio interview only.
Tracey does a nice introduction to both parts of the interview which was conducted over two days.
RobinG
says: April 2, 2019
at 11:35 pm GMT 100 Words @Cloak And
Dagger What do they say about Tulsi? Please note in this interview when Cenk asks her
directly if she opposes the Occupation, she says Yes! A true Zio supporter (as some here have
accused her!) would object to even using the word. And she addresses the Adelson question. On
the conflict, her answer is pretty pablum, but probably as far as she can go strategically.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her. IMO it's
a very good interview. Can you picture for a moment, Tulsi in a debate with Trump? What are her
boosters doing to prepare her for that? She's handling all the animosity with equanimity, and
she'll arrive at the final contest battle-hardened.
Cenk has been castigated from both sides, either as too harsh or too easy with her.
It is a good interview and she handles herself very well and her positions are well
articulated. I remain wary of her, however, but I will keep an open mind and watch her in the
months ahead to see where her funding comes from.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
Junk author, junk book of the butcher of Yugoslavia who would be hanged with Bill clinton by
Nuremberg Tribunal for crimes against peace. Albright is not bright at all. she a female bully
and that shows.
Mostly projection. And this arrogant warmonger like to exercise in Russophobia (which was the
main part of the USSR which saved the world fro fascism, sacrificing around 20 million people)
This book is book of denial of genocide against Iraqis and Serbian population where bombing with
uranium enriched bombs doubled cancer cases.If you can pass over those facts that this book is
for you.
Like Robert Kagan and other neocons Albright is waiving authoritarism dead chicken again and
again. that's silly and disingenuous. authoritarism is a method of Governance used in military.
It is not an ideology. Fascism is an ideology, a flavor of far right nationalism. Kind of
"enhanced" by some socialist ideas far right nationalism.
The view of fascism without economic circumstances that create fascism, and first of
immiseration of middle and working class and high level of unemployment is a primitive
ahistorical view. Fascism is the ultimate capitalist statism acting simultaneously as the civil
religion for the population also enforced by the power of the state. It has a lot of common with
neoliberalism, that's why neoliberalism is sometimes called "inverted totalitarism".
In reality fascism while remaining the dictatorship of capitalists for capitalist and the
national part of financial oligarchy, it like neoliberalism directed against working class
fascism comes to power on the populist slogans of righting wrong by previous regime and kicking
foreign capitalists and national compradors (which in Germany turned to be mostly Jewish)
out.
It comes to power under the slogans of stopping the distribution of wealth up and elimination
of the class of reinters -- all citizens should earn income, not get it from bond and other
investments (often in reality doing completely the opposite).
While intrinsically connected and financed by a sizable part of national elite which often
consist of far right military leadership, a part of financial oligarchy and large part of lower
middle class (small properties) is is a protest movement which want to revenge for the
humiliation and prefer military style organization of the society to democracy as more potent
weapon to achieve this goal.
Like any far right movement the rise of fascism and neo-fascism is a sign of internal problem
within a given society, often a threat to the state or social order.
Still another noted that Fascism is often linked to people who are part of a distinct ethnic
or racial group, who are under economic stress, and who feel that they are being denied rewards
to which they are entitled. "It's not so much what people have." she said, "but what they think
they should have -- and what they fear." Fear is why Fascism's emotional reach can extend to
all levels of society. No political movement can flourish without popular support, but Fascism
is as dependent on the wealthy and powerful as it is on the man or woman in the street -- on
those who have much to lose and those who have nothing at all.
This insight made us think that Fascism should perhaps be viewed less as a political
ideology than as a means for seizing and holding power. For example, Italy in the 1920s
included self-described Fascists of the left (who advocated a dictatorship of the
dispossessed), of the right (who argued for an authoritarian corporatist state), and of the
center (who sought a return to absolute monarchy). The German National Socialist Party (the
Nazis) originally came together ar ound a list of demands that ca- tered to anti-Semites,
anti-immigrants, and anti-capitalists but also advocated for higher old-age pensions, more
educational op- portunities for the poor, an end to child labor, and improved ma- ternal health
care. The Nazis were racists and, in their own minds, reformers at the same time.
If Fascism concerns itself less with specific policies than with finding a pathway to power,
what about the tactics of lead- ership? My students remarked that the Fascist chiefs we remem-
ber best were charismatic. Through one method or another, each established an emotional link to
the crowd and, like the central figure in a cult, brought deep and often ugly feelings to the
sur- face. This is how the tentacles of Fascism spread inside a democ- racy. Unlike a monarchy
or a military dictatorship imposed on society from above. Fascism draws energy from men and
women who are upset because of a lost war, a lost job, a memory of hu- miliation, or a sense
that their country is in steep decline. The more painful the grounds for resentment, the easier
it is for a Fascist leader to gam followers by dangling the prospect of re- newal or by vowing
to take back what has been stolen.
Like the mobilizers of more benign movements, these secular evangelists exploit the
near-universal human desire to be part of a meaningful quest. The more gifted among them have
an apti- tude for spectacle -- for orchestrating mass gatherings complete with martial music,
incendiary rhetoric, loud cheers, and arm-
lifting salutes. To loyalists, they offer the prize of membership in a club from which
others, often the objects of ridicule, are kept out. To build fervor, Fascists tend to be
aggressive, militaristic, and -- when circumstances allow -- expansionist. To secure the
future, they turn schools into seminaries for true believers, striv- ing to produce "new men"
and "new women" who will obey without question or pause. And, as one of my students observed,
"a Fascist who launches his career by being voted into office will have a claim to legitimacy
that others do not."
After climbing into a position of power, what comes next: How does a Fascist consolidate
authority? Here several students piped up: "By controlling information." Added another, "And
that's one reason we have so much cause to worry today." Most of us have thought of the
technological revolution primarily as a means for people from different walks of life to
connect with one another, trade ideas, and develop a keener understanding of why men and women
act as they do -- in other words, to sharpen our perceptions of truth. That's still the case,
but now we are not so sure. There is a troubling "Big Brother" angle because of the mountain of
personal data being uploaded into social media. If an advertiser can use that information to
home in on a consumer because of his or her individual interests, what's to stop a Fascist
government from doing the same? "Suppose I go to a demonstra- tion like the Women's March,"
said a student, "and post a photo
on social media. My name gets added to a list and that list can end up anywhere. How do we
protect ourselves against that?"
Even more disturbing is the ability shown by rogue regimes and their agents to spread lies
on phony websites and Facebook. Further, technology has made it possible for extremist
organiza- tions to construct echo chambers of support for conspiracy theo- ries, false
narratives, and ignorant views on religion and race. This is the first rule of deception:
repeated often enough, almost any statement, story, or smear can start to sound plausible. The
Internet should be an ally of freedom and a gateway to knowledge; in some cases, it is
neither.
Historian Robert Paxton begins one of his books by assert- ing: "Fascism was the major
political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain." Over the
years, he and other scholars have developed lists of the many moving parts that Fascism
entails. Toward the end of our discussion, my class sought to articulate a comparable list.
Fascism, most of the students agreed, is an extreme form of authoritarian rule. Citizens are
required to do exactly what lead- ers say they must do, nothing more, nothing less. The
doctrine is linked to rabid nationalism. It also turns the traditional social contract upside
down. Instead of citizens giving power to the state in exchange for the protection of their
rights, power begins with the leader, and the people have no rights. Under Fascism,
the mission of citizens is to serve; the government's job is to rule.
When one talks about this subject, confusion often arises about the difference between
Fascism and such related concepts as totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, tyranny,
autocracy, and so on. As an academic, I might be tempted to wander into that thicket, but as a
former diplomat, I am primarily concerned with actions, not labels. To my mind, a Fascist is
someone who identifies strongly with and claims to speak for a whole nation or group, is
unconcerned with the rights of others, and is willing to use whatever means are necessary --
including violence -- to achieve his or her goals. In that conception, a Fascist will likely be
a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist.
Often the difference can be seen in who is trusted with the guns. In seventeenth-century
Europe, when Catholic aristocrats did battle with Protestant aristocrats, they fought over
scripture but agreed not to distribute weapons to their peasants, thinking it safer to wage war
with mercenary armies. Modern dictators also tend to be wary of their citizens, which is why
they create royal guards and other elite security units to ensure their personal safe- ty. A
Fascist, however, expects the crowd to have his back. Where kings try to settle people down,
Fascists stir them up so that when the fighting begins, their foot soldiers have the will and
the firepower to strike first.
Hypocrisy at its worst from a lady who advocated hawkish foreign policy which included the
most sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam, when, in 1998, Clinton began almost daily
attacks on Iraq in the so-called no-fly zones, and made so-called regime change in Iraq
official U.S. policy.
In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeleine Albright, who at the time was
Clinton's U.N. ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, in connection with
the Clinton administration presiding over the most devastating regime of sanctions in history
that the U.N. estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of
them children. , "We have heard that a half-million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and, you know, is the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think
the price is worth it.
While I found much of the story-telling in "Fascism" engaging, I come away expecting much
more of one of our nation's pre-eminent senior diplomats . In a nutshell, she has devoted a
whole volume to describing the ascent of intolerant fascism and its many faces, but punted on
the question "How should we thwart fascism going forward?"
Even that question leaves me a bit unsatisfied, since it is couched in double-negative
syntax. The thing there is an appetite for, among the readers of this book who are looking
for more than hand-wringing about neofascism, is a unifying title or phrase which captures in
single-positive syntax that which Albright prefers over fascism. What would that be? And, how
do we pursue it, nurture it, spread it and secure it going forward? What is it?
I think Albright would perhaps be willing to rally around "Good Government" as the theme
her book skirts tangentially from the dark periphery of fascistic government. "Virtuous
Government"? "Effective Government"? "Responsive Government"?
People concerned about neofascism want to know what we should be doing right now to avoid
getting sidetracked into a dark alley of future history comparable to the Nazi brown shirt or
Mussolini black shirt epochs. Does Albright present a comprehensive enough understanding of
fascism to instruct on how best to avoid it? Or, is this just another hand-wringing exercise,
a la "you'll know it when you see it", with a proactive superficiality stuck at the level of
pejorative labelling of current styles of government and national leaders? If all you can say
is what you don't want, then the challenge of threading the political future of the US is
left unruddered. To make an analogy to driving a car, if you don't know your destination, and
only can get navigational prompts such as "don't turn here" or "don't go down that street",
then what are the chances of arriving at a purposive destination?
The other part of this book I find off-putting is that Albright, though having served as
Secretary of State, never talks about the heavy burden of responsibility that falls on a head
of state. She doesn't seem to empathize at all with the challenge of top leadership. Her
perspective is that of the detached critic. For instance, in discussing President Duterte of
the Philippines, she fails to paint the dire situation under which he rose to national
leadership responsibility: Islamic separatists having violently taken over the entire city of
Marawi, nor the ubiquitous spread of drug cartel power to the level where control over law
enforcement was already ceded to the gangs in many places...entire islands and city
neighborhoods run by mafia organizations. It's easy to sit back and criticize Duterte's
unleashing of vigilante justice -- What was Mrs. Albright's better alternative to regain
ground from vicious, well-armed criminal organizations? The distancing from leadership
responsibility makes Albright's treatment of the Philippines twin crises of gang-rule and
Islamist revolutionaries seem like so much academic navel-gazing....OK for an undergrad
course at Georgetown maybe, but unworthy of someone who served in a position of high
responsibility. Duterte is liked in the Philippines. What he did snapped back the power of
the cartels, and returned a deserved sense of security to average Philippinos (at least those
not involved with narcotics). Is that not good government, given the horrendous circumstances
Duterte came up to deal with? What lack of responsibility in former Philippine leadership
allowed things to get so out of control? Is it possible that Democrats and liberals are
afraid to be tough, when toughness is what is needed? I'd much rather read an account from an
average Philippino about the positive impacts of the vigilante campaign, than listen of
Madame Secretary sermonizing out of context about Duterte. OK, he's not your idea of a nice
guy. Would you rather sit back, prattle on about the rule of law and due process while
Islamic terrorists wrest control over where you live? Would you prefer the leadership of a
drug cartel boss to Duterte?
My critique is offered in a constructive manner. I would certainly encourage Albright (or
anyone!) to write a book in a positive voice about what it's going to take to have good
national government in the US going forward, and to help spread such abundance globally. I
would define "good" as the capability to make consistently good policy decisions, ones that
continue to look good in hindsight, 10, 20 or 30 years later. What does that take?
I would submit that the essential "preserving democracy" process component is having a
population that is adequately prepared for collaborative problem-solving. Some understanding
of history is helpful, but it's simply not enough. Much more essential is for every young
person to experience team problem-solving, in both its cooperative and competitive aspects.
Every young person needs to experience a team leadership role, and to appreciate what it
takes from leaders to forge constructive design from competing ideas and champions. Only
after serving as a referee will a young person understand the limits to "passion" that
individual contributors should bring to the party. Only after moderating and herding cats
will a young person know how to interact productively with leaders and other contributors.
Much of the skill is counter-instinctual. It's knowing how to express ideas...how to field
criticism....how to nudge people along in the desired direction...and how to avoid ad-hominem
attacks, exaggerations, accusations and speculative grievances. It's learning how to manage
conflict productively toward excellence. Way too few of our young people are learning these
skills, and way too few of our journalists know how to play a constructive role in managing
communications toward successful complex problem-solving. Albright's claim that a
journalist's job is primarily to "hold leaders accountable" really betrays an absolving of
responsibility for the media as a partner in good government -- it doesn't say whether the
media are active players on the problem-solving team (which they have to be for success), or
mere spectators with no responsibility for the outcome. If the latter, then journalism
becomes an irritant, picking at the scabs over and over, but without any forward progress.
When the media takes up a stance as an "opponent" of leadership, you end up with poor
problem-solving results....the system is fighting itself instead of making forward
progress.
"Fascism" doesn't do nearly enough to promote the teaching of practical civics 101 skills,
not just to the kids going into public administration, but to everyone. For, it is in the
norms of civility, their ability to be practiced, and their defense against excesses, that
fascism (e.g., Antifa) is kept at bay.
Everyone in a democracy has to know the basics:
• when entering a disagreement, don't personalize it
• never demonize an opponent
• keep a focus on the goal of agreement and moving forward
• never tell another person what they think, but ask (non-rhetorically) what they think
then be prepared to listen and absorb
• do not speak untruths or exaggerate to make an argument
• do not speculate grievance
• understand truth gathering as a process; detect when certainty is being bluffed;
question sources
• recognize impasse and unproductive argumentation and STOP IT
• know how to introduce a referee or moderator to regain productive collaboration
• avoid ad hominem attacks
• don't take things personally that wrankle you;
• give the benefit of the doubt in an ambiguous situation
• don't jump to conclusions
• don't reward theatrical manipulation
These basics of collaborative problem-solving are the guts of a "liberal democracy" that
can face down the most complex challenges and dilemmas.
I gave the book 3 stars for the great story-telling, and Albright has been part of a great
story of late 20th century history. If she would have told us how to prevent fascism going
forward, and how to roll it back in "hard case" countries like North Korea and Sudan, I would
have given her a 5. I'm not that interested in picking apart the failure cases of
history...they teach mostly negative exemplars. Much rather I would like to read about
positive exemplars of great national government -- "great" defined by popular acclaim, by the
actual ones governed. Where are we seeing that today? Canada? Australia? Interestingly, both
of these positive exemplars have strict immigration policies.
Is it possible that Albright is just unable, by virtue of her narrow escape from Communist
Czechoslovakia and acceptance in NYC as a transplant, to see that an optimum immigration
policy in the US, something like Canada's or Australia's, is not the looming face of fascism,
but rather a move to keep it safely in its corner in coming decades? At least, she admits to
her being biased by her life story.
That suggests her views on refugees and illegal immigrants as deserving of unlimited
rights to migrate into the US might be the kind of cloaked extremism that she is warning us
about.
Albright's book is a comprehensive look at recent history regarding the rise and fall of
fascist leaders; as well as detailing leaders in nations that are starting to mimic fascist
ideals. Instead of a neat definition, she uses examples to bolster her thesis of what are
essential aspects of fascism. Albright dedicates each section of the book to a leader or
regime that enforces fascist values and conveys this to the reader through historical events
and exposition while also peppering in details of her time as Secretary of State. The climax
(and 'warning'), comes at the end, where Albright applies what she has been discussing to the
current state of affairs in the US and abroad.
Overall, I would characterize this as an enjoyable and relatively easy read. I think the
biggest strength of this book is how Albright uses history, previous examples of leaders and
regimes, to demonstrate what fascism looks like and contributing factors on a national and
individual level. I appreciated that she lets these examples speak for themselves of the
dangers and subtleties of a fascist society, which made the book more fascinating and less of
a textbook. Her brief descriptions of her time as Secretary of State were intriguing and made
me more interested in her first book, 'Madame Secretary'. The book does seem a bit slow as it
is not until the end that Albright blatantly reveals the relevance of all of the history
relayed in the first couple hundred pages. The last few chapters are dedicated to the reveal:
the Trump administration and how it has affected global politics. Although, she never
outright calls Trump a fascist, instead letting the reader decide based on his decisions and
what you have read in the book leading up to this point, her stance is quite clear by the
end. I was surprised at what I shared politically with Albright, mainly in immigration and a
belief of empathy and understanding for others. However, I got a slight sense of
anti-secularism in the form of a disdain for those who do not subscribe to an Abrahamic
religion and she seemed to hint at this being partly an opening to fascism.
I also could have done without the both-sides-ism she would occasionally push, which seems
to be a tactic used to encourage people to 'unite against Trump'. These are small annoyances
I had with the book, my main critique is the view Albright takes on democracy. If anything,
the book should have been called "Democracy: the Answer" because that is the most consistent
stance Albright takes throughout. She seems to overlook many of the atrocities the US and
other nations have committed in the name of democracy and the negative consequences of
capitalism, instead, justifying negative actions with the excuse of 'it is for democracy and
everyone wants that' and criticizing those who criticize capitalism.
She does not do a good job of conveying the difference between a communist country like
Russia and a socialist country like those found in Scandinavia and seems okay with the idea
of the reader lumping them all together in a poor light. That being said, I would still
recommend this book for anyone's TBR as the message is essential for today, that the current
world of political affairs is, at least somewhat, teetering on a precipice and we are in need
of as many strong leaders as possible who are willing to uphold democratic ideals on the
world stage and mindful constituents who will vote them in.
The book is very well written, easy to read, and follows a pretty standard formula making
it accessible to the average reader. However, it suffers immensely from, what I suspect are,
deeply ingrained political biases from the author.
Whilst I don't dispute the criteria the author applies in defining fascism, or the targets
she cites as examples, the first bias creeps in here when one realises the examples chosen
are traditional easy targets for the US (with the exception of Turkey). The same criteria
would define a country like Singapore perfectly as fascist, yet the country (or Malaysia)
does not receive a mention in the book.
Further, it grossly glosses over what Ms. Albright terms facist traits from the US
governments of the past. If the author is to be believed, the CIA is holier than thou, never
intervened anywhere or did anything that wasn't with the best interests of democracy at
heart, and American foreign policy has always existed to build friendships and help out their
buddies. To someone ingrained in this rhetoric for years I am sure this is an easy pill to
swallow, but to the rest of the world it makes a number of assertions in the book come across
as incredibly naive. out of 5 stars
Trite and opaque
We went with my husband to the presentation of this book at UPenn with Albright before it
came out and Madeleine's spunk, wit and just glorious brightness almost blinded me. This is a
2.5 star book, because 81 year old author does not really tell you all there is to tell when
she opens up on a subject in any particular chapter, especially if it concerns current US
interest.
Lets start from the beginning of the book. What really stood out, the missing 3rd Germany
ally, Japan and its emperor. Hirohito (1901-1989) was emperor of Japan from 1926 until his
death in 1989. He took over at a time of rising democratic sentiment, but his country soon
turned toward ultra-nationalism and militarism. During World War II (1939-45), Japan attacked
nearly all of its Asian neighbors, allied itself with Nazi Germany and launched a surprise
assault on the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor, forcing US to enter the war in 1941. Hirohito
was never indicted as a war criminal! does he deserve at least a chapter in her book?
Oh and by the way, did author mention anything about sanctions against Germany for
invading Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Poland? Up until the Pearl Harbor USA and
Germany still traded, although in March 1939, FDR slapped a 25% tariff on all German goods.
Like Trump is doing right now to some of US trading partners.
Next monster that deserves a chapter on Genocide in cosmic proportions post WW2 is
communist leader of China Mao Zedung. Mr Dikötter, who has been studying Chinese rural
history from 1958 to 1962, when the nation was facing a famine, compared the systematic
torture, brutality, starvation and killing of Chinese peasants compares to the Second World
War in its magnitude. At least 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in
China over these four years; the total worldwide death toll of the Second World War was 55
million.
We learn that Argentina has given sanctuary to Nazi war criminals, but she forgets to
mention that 88 Nazi scientists arrived in the United States in 1945 and were promptly put to
work. For example, Wernher von Braun was the brains behind the V-2 rocket program, but had
intimate knowledge of what was going on in the concentration camps. Von Braun himself
hand-picked people from horrific places, including Buchenwald concentration camp. Tsk-Tsk
Madeline.
What else? Oh, lets just say that like Madelaine Albright my husband is Jewish and lost
extensive family to Holocoust. Ukrainian nationalists executed his great grandfather on
gistapo orders, his great grandmother disappeared in concentration camp, grandfather was
conscripted in june 1940 and decommissioned september 1945 and went through war as
infantryman through 3 fronts earning several medals. his grandmother, an ukrainian born jew
was a doctor in a military hospital in Saint Petersburg survived famine and saved several
children during blockade. So unlike Maideline who was raised as a Roman Catholic, my husband
grew up in a quiet jewish family in that territory that Stalin grabbed from Poland in 1939,
in a polish turn ukrainian city called Lvov(Lemberg). His family also had to ask for an
asylum, only they had to escape their home in Ukraine in 1991. He was told then "You are a
nice little Zid (Jew), we will kill you last" If you think things in ukraine changed, think
again, few weeks ago in Kiev Roma gypsies were killed and injured during pogroms, and nobody
despite witnesses went to jail. Also during demonstrations openly on the streets C14 unit is
waving swastikas and Heils. Why is is not mentioned anywhere in the book? is is because
Hunter Biden sits on the board of one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies called
Burisma since May 14, 2014, and Ukraine has an estimated 127.9 trillion cubic feet of
unproved technically recoverable shale gas resources? ( according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA).1 The most promising shale reserves appear to be in the
Carpathian Foreland Basin (also called the Lviv-Volyn Basin), which extends across Western
Ukraine from Poland into Romania, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the East (which borders
Russia).
Wow, i bet you did not know that. how ugly are politics, even this book that could have been
so much greater if the author told the whole ugly story. And how scary that there are
countries where you can go and openly be fascist.
To me, Fascism fails for the single reason that no two fascist leaders are alike. Learning
about one or a few, in a highly cursory fashion like in this book or in great detail, is
unlikely to provide one with any answers on how to prevent the rise of another or fend
against some such. And, as much as we are witnessing the rise of numerous democratic or
quasi-democratic "strongmen" around the world in global politics, it is difficult to brand
any of them as fascist in the orthodox sense.
As the author writes at the outset, it is difficult to separate a fascist from a tyrant or
a dictator. A fascist is a majoritarian who rouses a large group under some national, racial
or similar flag with rallying cries demanding suppression or exculcation of those excluded
from this group. A typical fascist leader loves her yes-men and hates those who disagree: she
does not mind using violence to suppress dissidents. A fascist has no qualms using propaganda
to popularize the agreeable "facts" and theories while debunking the inconvenient as lies.
What is not discussed explicitly in the book are perhaps some positive traits that separate
fascists from other types of tyrants: fascists are rarely lazy, stupid or prone to doing
things for only personal gains. They differ from the benevolent dictators for their record of
using heavy oppression against their dissidents. Fascists, like all dictators, change rules
to suit themselves, take control of state organizations to exercise total control and use
"our class is the greatest" and "kick others" to fuel their programs.
Despite such a detailed list, each fascist is different from each other. There is little
that even Ms Albright's fascists - from Mussolini and Hitler to Stalin to the Kims to Chavez
or Erdogan - have in common. In fact, most of the opponents of some of these
dictators/leaders would calll them by many other choice words but not fascists. The
circumstances that gave rise to these leaders were highly different and so were their rules,
methods and achievements.
The point, once again, is that none of the strongmen leaders around the world could be
easily categorized as fascists. Or even if they do, assigning them with such a tag and
learning about some other such leaders is unlikely to help. The history discussed in the book
is interesting but disjointed, perfunctory and simplistic. Ms Albright's selection is also
debatable.
Strong leaders who suppress those they deem as opponents have wreaked immense harms and
are a threat to all civil societies. They come in more shades and colours than terms we have
in our vocabulary (dictators, tyrants, fascists, despots, autocrats etc). A study of such
tyrant is needed for anyone with an interest in history, politics, or societal well-being.
Despite Ms Albright's phenomenal knowledge, experience, credentials, personal history and
intentions, this book is perhaps not the best place to objectively learn much about the risks
from the type of things some current leaders are doing or deeming as right.
Each time I get concerned about Trump's rhetoric or past actions I read idiotic opinions,
like those of our second worst ever Secretary of State, and come to appreciate him more.
Pejorative terms like fascism or populism have no place in a rational policy discussion. Both
are blatant attempts to apply a pejorative to any disagreeing opinion. More than half of the
book is fluffed with background of Albright, Hitler and Mussolini. Wikipedia is more
informative. The rest has snippets of more modern dictators, many of whom are either
socialists or attained power through a reaction to failed socialism, as did Hitler. She
squirms mightily to liken Trump to Hitler. It's much easier to see that Sanders is like
Maduro. The USA is following a path more like Venezuela than Germany.
Her history misses that Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist, and Nazism in
Germany was a reaction to Wiemar socialism. The danger of fascism in the US is far greater
from the left than from the right. America is far left of where the USSR ever was. Remember
than Marx observed that Russia was not ready for a proletarian revolution. The USA with ready
made capitalism for reform fits Marx's pattern much better. Progressives deny that Sanders
and Warren are socialists. If not they are what Lenin called "useful idiots."
Albright says that she is proud of the speech where she called the USA the 'Indispensable
Nation.' She should be ashamed. Obama followed in his inaugural address, saying that we are
"the indispensable nation, responsible for world security." That turned into a policy of
human rights interventions leading to open ended wars (Syria, Yemen), nations in chaos
(Libya), and distrust of the USA (Egypt, Russia, Turkey, Tunisia, Israel, NK). Trump now has
to make nice with dictators to allay their fears that we are out to replace them.
She admires the good intentions of human rights intervention, ignoring the results. She says
Obama had some success without citing a single instance. He has apologized for Libya, but
needs many more apologies. She says Obama foreign policy has had some success, with no
mention of a single instance. Like many progressives, she confuses good intentions with
performance. Democracy spreading by well intentioned humanitarian intervention has resulted
in a succession of open ended war or anarchy.
The shorter histories of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Venezuela are much more
informative, although more a warning against socialism than right wing fascism. Viktor Orban
in Hungary is another reaction to socialism.
Albright ends the book with a forlorn hope that we need a Lincoln or Mandela, exactly what
our two party dictatorship will not generate as it yields ever worse and worse candidates for
our democracy to vote upon, even as our great society utopia generates ever more power for
weak presidents to spend our money and continue wrong headed foreign policy.
The greatest danger to the USA is not fascism, but of excessively poor leadership
continuing our slow slide to the bottom.
Radio Sputnik's Loud and Clear spoke with Daniel Lazare,
a journalist and author of three books, "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's
Undeclared War," about what we can expect from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
in 2019, its third year of operation.
"A House committee can keep the ball rolling indefinitely," Lazare noted. "Nothing solid has
turned up about collusion in the Russiagate story. Yet, the story keeps going and going, a new
tidbit is put out every week, and so the scandal keeps somehow perpetuating itself. And even
though there's less and less of substance coming out, so I expect that'll be the pattern for
the next few months, and I expect that the Democrats will revv this whole process up to make it
sort of seem as if there really is an avalanche of information crashing down on Trump when
there really isn't."
investigation, noting it had produced little to nothing of substance in support of the
thesis justifying its existence: that Russia either colluded with the Trump campaign or
conspired to interfere in the US election to tilt it in Trump's favor.
Indeed,
report after
report on the data that has been provided to Congress by tech giants like Facebook, Twitter
and Google show an underwhelming performance by any would-be Russian actors. In contrast to the
apocalyptic claims by Democrats and the mainstream media about the massive disinformation
offensive waged by Russian actors, the websites, social media accounts, post reach and ad money
associated with "Russians" is always
dwarfed by the equivalent actions of the Trump campaign and the campaign of its rival in
the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, along with their throngs of supporters
across the US corporate world, both of whom sunk hundreds of millions into winning the
social media game.
Among the chief motivations for Democrats going into 2019 is that "Democrats are now the
party of war," Lazare said, noting that Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi called Trump's
prospective withdrawal from Syria a "Christmas gift to ISIS [Daesh]."
"This is the raison d'etre for Russiagate: they're trying to maneuver Trump into
hostilities with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. I mean, this is foreign policy by
subterfuge it's about keeping 2,000 troops in Syria as well, and getting Americans' heads
blown off in Afghanistan, all of which the Democrats want to do. The whole thing is backroom
government of the worst kind."
"... Now there are different ways to view these staggering disconnects – perhaps even cognitive dissonances – between America's public values and its (not-quite) private policy . ..."
"... Some view it as proof of US hypocrisy in the world – and it is that. Others see this as the realist nature of doing business in a complex, nasty world – perhaps this is also true; thought it rests on the assumption that the US should be meddling in the region to begin with, which seems to have less and less efficacy. ..."
"... Values, so to speak, cannot be separated from and are inextricably linked to strategy. As such, over the last 18 years the combination of American military hyper-interventionism and nefarious alliances has been utterly counterproductive – destabilizing the region, emboldening jihadis, and endangering the Homeland. And make no mistake: libertarians, "realists," progressives, and (believe it or not) conventional national security hawks, should ultimately agree with this proposition; if , that is, each could set aside partisan tribal affiliations and do what's right for the country they purport to love. So don't bet on it. ..."
With Friends Like These: Abusive Frenemies and American Mideast Policy
Pop quiz: name the two largest
(by far) recipients of U.S. foreign military aid and one other country which recently
negotiated the biggest American arms sale deal in world history. Let's call them the Big three (beneficiaries of largesse, that
is). Need some hints? One is ruled by a dictatorial general who came to power in a coup and subsequently ordered the
slaughter of some one thousand civilian protesters. Another regularly
defies international law, has
annexed conquered territory, and boasts a military that has
shot to death 250 civilian protesters along its border over just the last year. Finally, the last country
fatally starved upwards
of 85,000 foreign children and still
decapitates women for
the crimes of "witchcraft" and "sorcery." By the way, all three are rather tight with old Uncle Sam – regularly described
as "partners" in Washington. Which reminds me of the old saying: with friends like these, who needs well, you get it.
Ready for the (not-so) shocking answers? So, the military dictatorship is Egypt – recipient of $1.3 billion in military aid per
annum. The nation that conquered and annexed adjacent territory is Israel – the donee of some $3.1 billion in military aid each year;
and, ironically, the state that US leaders regularly (if incorrectly) tout as the
"only
democracy in the Mideast." And the charming, child-starving, woman-beheading regime: that's the theocracy and absolute monarchy
of Saudi Arabia – future owner (maybe) of a
record
$110 billion in US military equipment. Now that's a proud lot!
By backing this core of abusive regimes, Washington only rewards and encourages bad behavior. If the US didn't cut funding when
Egypt gunned down protesters, and Trump
praises its President General Sisi as doing a "tremendous job," what's to stop repeat human rights abuses? If Washington barely
blushed when the Saudis killed and dismembered a
Washington Post journalist, and refuses to shutdown the Saudi terror war in Yemen, why should the crown prince – and Jared Kushner
bro – behave? And, if Egypt and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can commit crimes at will, can the US really criticize Chinese
human rights abuses of dissidents or Uighur Muslims? Finally, if the US unilaterally
moves (as it did) its embassy to a "Jewish capital"
in Jerusalem and
recognizes (as it also has) Israel's illegal annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, how can Washington protest when Russia annexes
Crimea, or Eastern Ukraine?
Now there are different ways to view these staggering disconnects – perhaps even cognitive dissonances – between America's
public values and its (not-quite) private policy .
Some view it as proof of US hypocrisy in the world – and it is that. Others see this as the realist nature of doing business
in a complex, nasty world – perhaps this is also true; thought it rests on the assumption that the US should be meddling in the region
to begin with, which seems to have less and less efficacy.
Finally, another group of US imperial apologists trade in what-about-ism – pointing to (ostensibly) worse regimes in the
Mideast to mitigate the ugly nature of America's partners.
On and on the arguments – which are as old as the US republic itself – go as each side retreats into its comfortable ideological
corner. Still, as a former devotee and servant of the American empire, and a reformed / concerned citizen, let me propose one rarely
noted addition: that backing authoritarian and/or abusive regimes often proves both ethically and strategically destructive to US
standing in the world, and, by extension, to the safety of otherwise disengaged American civilians.
Values, so to speak, cannot be separated from and are inextricably linked to strategy. As such, over the last 18 years the
combination of American military hyper-interventionism and nefarious alliances has been utterly counterproductive – destabilizing
the region, emboldening jihadis, and endangering the Homeland. And make no mistake: libertarians, "realists," progressives, and (believe
it or not) conventional national security hawks, should ultimately agree with this proposition; if , that is, each could set
aside partisan tribal affiliations and do what's right for the country they purport to love. So don't bet on it.
Nevertheless, consider an historical analogy. In the Cold War – for which, oddly, many hawkish observers seem to pine – the United
States set aside its values of liberty and democracy in favor of reflexive anti- communism . Thus, Washington would back,
aid, fund, or place in power right-wing dictatorial regimes that abused their citizens and (sometimes) regional neighbors. The priority
became promoting capitalism and (superficially) decreasing the zero-sum global influence of the Soviet Union. All this, of course,
was based on the false assumption that worldwide communism was a monolith intent on world conquest. It wasn't. The major communist
powers – think Russia and China – went to war with each other just as often.
Worse still, the outcome of these odious partnerships was usually
"blowback" – unintended
consequences that left the world a more unstable and dangerous place. CIA-instigated coups and surreptitious military backing of
autocracies increased the amount of intra-state and regional wars, ethnic cleansing, and jihadi terrorism worldwide – from South
America to Africa and Asia. In North Africa and Southwest Asia in particular, the US backed (and in a sense birthed ) Islamist
insurgencies and terrorists, who, conveniently, were also anti-communist and anti-Soviet. Of course, once victorious, such groups
turned their ire onto the United States and the rest, so they say, is history.
In the 21st century, the US strategic paradigm has shifted but remains equally obtuse and deficient. In place of anti-communism,
the new enemy "monolith" is Islamism. And, true to its antiquated Cold War-thinking, Washington now backs anyone in the region
that purports to fight "terror." See there's no room for nuance, for complexity, for parsing out the differences between local nationalists
and global jihadists, internal and international threats, or manageable versus existential threats to the US So here we go again.
The answer to all vaguely Islamist challenges is always the same: US military intervention, raids, or foreign training; plus American
support and arms for faintly anti-terror (but abusive) regimes.
The formula has never worked as designed – then or now. Cast aside delusions: there will be "Blowback" 2.0 as a result of American
support for the Big Three and other vile regimes. It will go something like this: backing authoritarian Arab or apartheid Israeli
leaders will radicalize regional (and international) Muslims against not only their governments but the West, more generally. Civilians
will be wantonly slaughtered in the ensuing local wars – further substantiating the Islamist narrative and grievances. Global terror
attacks
will rise – as they have since 9/11 – and some of these horrific events will target the West, mainly the US In response to the ensuing
public outrage, Washington will feel obliged (and pleased anyway) to militarily intervene and throw more cash at local strongmen
"partners." Which, ever so absurdly, serves to repeat the whole cycle of forever war.
Where does it all end? Violence begets violence. More arms don't decrease conflict – they fuel it. Still the lumbering American
hegemon either never learns, or, more disturbingly, craves a system that feeds the military-industrial corporate beast.
Hypocrisy can be contra-strategic in addition to ethically unseemly. Throwing arms, cash, support, and the American name
behind a military dictatorship, a theocratic absolute monarchy, and a
corrupt , apartheid-like
government, shames our nation and subverts safety. It is as indefensible as it is counterproductive. That Washington is able to do
so demonstrates that either the public is utterly apathetic or completely powerless in the face of the corporate arm's industry.
It's hard to say which is worse: a people who don't care about their broken democracy or one that hardly exists at all.
Danny Sjursen is a retired US Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com
He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet
.
[ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect
the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]
Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams Should middle America be thankful for all the "jobs" provided by
the military in areas like the National Guard? That's the argument of some pro-war
progressives. It's dead wrong. The massive military budget is driven by the idea that "debt
doesn't matter" – a false notion that is leading us to economic devastation. On today's
Ron Paul Liberty Report:
This is from 2015 and it certainly characterize Krugman as a despicable political hack...
Notable quotes:
"... The big story he won't write about is that the Republicans wouldn't be such a threat if Team D was worth a damn. ..."
"... The spectacle of 2009-2010 cured me of any lingering desire to vote Democrat ever again – or to waste my time reading Krugman. ..."
"... Krugman is a collaborator. His wealth and prestige is built on his capacity for perpetuating falsehoods that have had vast and deadly consequences (Obama care, for instance). ..."
"... Not to mention he was a huge advocate of NAFTA. Something he never mentions. ..."
"... Krugman's defense of Obama care either indicates a lack of intellect, or in my view the more probable possibility, the inability to accept that the system is thoroughly corrupt, including most dems and economists ..."
"... It's no excuse for someone who actually thinks and writes about public policy, but could it be that Krugman is like my fellow guests and just never had to think about the cost of his health insurance simply because he could always afford it. So, I mean, he's never done the math. He's just done the "responsible thing" and carried insurance his whole life. ..."
Used to be an avid Krugman reader. But I get bored reading about how bad the Republicans are.
Tell me something I don't know. The big story he won't write about is that the Republicans
wouldn't be such a threat if Team D was worth a damn.
It's like they got the ball in 2009 with the field wide open for a touchdown. But since the
game was fixed Team D just danced around their own 20-yard line looking for the feeble Republican
defense to block them. Every time they have an opening for a good play they panic over the prospect
of scoring big and contrive to fumble the ball. The most they ever want is field goals and to
prevent the Republicans from running away with the game too much.
That's why Krugman can write about how scary the Republicans are. But so what? Everyone knows
that. Why are they in such a position? That's the interesting story.
Barmitt O'Bamney
Indeed, and seconded: Kruggers is irrelevant. However correct his critique may be, as far as
it goes, it never goes far enough since he has chosen to mutilate himself into playing the role
of partisan hack. There is a beam in the Republicans' eye? Well, there is a beam in his eye, too.
The spectacle of 2009-2010 cured me of any lingering desire to vote Democrat ever again
– or to waste my time reading Krugman. If my choice is between voting against my own interests
on the one hand, and voting against my interests on the other, I'll just stay home or else make
my vote a protest against the party that assumes it has an unconditional right to my vote. Reading
about how the Republicans are always wrong, with nary a mention of how Democrats are right there
with them in the latrine of wrongness isn't worth a minute more of my time – and my time isn't
even very valuable.
Benedict@Large
The problem (that leads to the boredom) with reading Krugman is not that he's always talking
about how bad the Republicans are. That after all is true. The problem with reading Krugman is
that he's always picking on the lowest hanging fruit; the easy cases that require no special nuance
or understanding. Krugman is a smart man, and he is better than this. We have all too many of
us capable of picking apart the 4th grade thinking and analysis that is so common in the GOP.
To add Krugman to that list is a waste of (his and our) time.
tongorad
Krugman is a smart man, and he is better than this.
Evidence, please.
Krugman is a collaborator. His wealth and prestige is built on his capacity for perpetuating
falsehoods that have had vast and deadly consequences (Obama care, for instance).
hidflect
Not to mention he was a huge advocate of NAFTA. Something he never mentions.
fresno dan
Krugman's defense of Obama care either indicates a lack of intellect, or in my view the
more probable possibility, the inability to accept that the system is thoroughly corrupt, including
most dems and economists
Ulysses
I think the most serious problem that Paul Krugman has, in accepting that the system is thoroughly
corrupt, is his internalization of the meritocratic myth. The syllogism runs as follows:
1) I have "merit"
2)The system has lavished wealth and renown on me
3)Therefore, those who claim that our system "isn't really meritocratic"
must themselves lack "merit," or be deluded from too much sentimentality, or too much attention
to "exceptions that prove the rule."
Tom Allen
He's also prone to defending politicians and economists with whom he's personal friends - and
there are a lot of them. That's human nature, but it tends to make one skeptical of his objectivity
when, for example, Larry Summers or Ben Bernanke is involved.
NotTimothyGeithner
He's also preaching to the choir. Who is Krugthullu's audience? Outside of New Yorkers, it's
largely people who fantasize about finishing the Sunday crossword despite not actually trying
and love to have a simplified "liberal" world view reinforced. Given how Obots use to swarm, would
he have survived not towing the company line? Without his column, Krugthullu is just another economics
professor without the backing of a billionaire who keeps him around as a pet. Maybe Warren Buffet
would put up a nice fence to keep Krugthullu in his yard, but he would likely have to spend time
in Omaha.
The flip side is Krugthullu has likely burned too many bridges to regain his 2009 status. The
Obots can't handle criticism, and it's rather late to join the Obama anonymous support group.
jrs
I mostly think they keep Krug around to justify "trade" agreements. That the little battles
don't matter so much compared to "trade" agreements (and in fact they don't, on the issue of healthcare,
"trade" agreements are a serious threat to even those countries with better medical systems. "Trade"
agreements can override other political battles, even those where Krugs position might be decent).
jo6pac
Thanks for LOL, so true.
GlobalMisanthrope
Yeah, I am completely mystified by his defense of the ACA. My employers think of themselves
as good liberals (although they do not provide health insurance but rather a health stipend to
a handful of top managers that we can apply toward our purchase of insurance on the exchange)
and have trotted out Krugman on occasion when I have argued against the Act.
I was at a dinner party before Christmas with a diverse group of professionals hosted by a
friend who is a wine maker. There were several people from the food and beverage industry, a university
professor and her law school administrator spouse, an obstetrical surgeon, a rancher and three
others I never got a chance to learn anything about. The subject of "Obamacare" came up. I was
truly astonished by the completely fact-free conversation that ensued. So much so that I stayed
silent for a long time, really not knowing what to say.
My friend, the host, noticed my expression and asked me what I thought about Obamacare. So
I described it as the boondoggle that it is and went into some detail debunking many of the claims
made by the other guests. Honestly, I mean they were more or less polite, but they didn't think
I knew what I was talking about. What can account for this?
Well, one of the things that came out was that I was, by some distance, the lowest paid person
at the table.
It's no excuse for someone who actually thinks and writes about public policy, but could it
be that Krugman is like my fellow guests and just never had to think about the cost of his health
insurance simply because he could always afford it. So, I mean, he's never done the math. He's
just done the "responsible thing" and carried insurance his whole life.
Anyway, it was a cold shower to realize how intractable their belief in the system is. As I
find myself saying a lot lately, I was not heartened.
flora
The whole ACA thing reminds me of the urban renewal projects of the 50s and 60s. Those were
supposedly progressive projects to replace blighted areas with modern housing. In fact it was
political snake oil that didn't help the poor so much as help large cities fill their coffers.
It replaced poor dwellings with middle class dwellings that increased the cities' tax revenues.
The poor were left to fend for themselves as their poor but stable neighborhoods were destroyed.
The designers of the projects thought they were doing good.
I wonder how many people sitting around the table with you tried to buy their mandated insurance
on the ACA web portal or on the open market? ACA sounds good in theory.
Lexington
It's no excuse for someone who actually thinks and writes about public policy, but could
it be that Krugman is like my fellow guests and just never had to think about the cost of his
health insurance simply because he could always afford it. So, I mean, he's never done the
math. He's just done the "responsible thing" and carried insurance his whole life.
Yup.
I have my frustrations with Krugman too, but I think progressives need to cut the guy some
slack: he's a professor at Princeton, a Nobel laureate, and has a trophy case full of professional
honours and twenty books plus a couple of hundred articles under his belt. He's in the sanctum
sanctorum of the elite.
If he never penned another op ed or blog post or participated in another public debate it wouldn't
make the slightest difference to his legacy. Yet there he is, the very model of a public intellectual,
actually inviting non specialists to engage in a discussion about economics and public
policy, and fighting the good fight for liberalism. You can be sure he isn't doing it to win plaudits
from his peers. ...
"... As usually happens in times of distress, the Germans became a people for whom resolve was valued more highly than prudence, daring more than caution, and righteousness more than discretion. In many ways, they were a people not so different from today's Americans. ..."
"... What was needed, the Germans thought, was a strong leader -- someone who would put an end to politics as usual; most of all, someone who could unite all the divisions in Germany and dispel the clamor. They found that leader in Adolf Hitler, and for a time, most Germans were glad they did. ..."
"... How would we react if things got worse? If we were to lose the war in Iraq, leaving a fundamentalist regime in place; if we endured several more major terrorist attacks; if the economy collapsed; if fuel prices reached $7 per gallon -- would we cling even more fiercely to our democratic ideals? Or would we instead demand greater surveillance, more secret prisons, more arrests for "conspiracies" that amount to little more than daydreams, and more quashing of dissent? ..."
"... Our history suggests the latter. We Americans have had our flights from democracy -- the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Red Scare and the McCarthy era, Watergate -- but we have always pulled back from the brink and returned to normal. ..."
Imagine this situation: Your country has had a military setback in a war that was supposed to be over after a few months of "shock
and awe." Because of that war, it has lost the goodwill and prestige of much of the international community.
The national debt has grown to staggering size. Citizens complain bitterly about the government, especially the legislative branch,
for being a bunch of do-nothings working solely for themselves or for special interest groups. In fact, the political scene has pretty
much lost its center -- moderates are attacked by all sides as the political discourse becomes a clamor of increasingly extreme positions.
It seems there are election campaigns going on all the time, and they are increasingly vicious. The politicians just want to argue
about moral issues -- sexuality, decadent art, the crumbling family and the like -- while pragmatic matters of governance seem neglected.
Sound familiar? That society was Germany of the 1920s -- the ill-fated Weimar Republic. But it also describes more and more the
political climate in America today.
Germans were worried about the future of their country. They suffered from all sorts of terror, as assassinations, coup attempts
and crime pulled their society apart. The left blamed the right; the right blamed the left, and the political center simply dried
up.
To get themselves out of the mess, Germans might have demanded government that carefully mended fences with its allies and enemies;
one that judiciously hammered out compromises among the various political parties and sought the middle path.
But we know that didn't happen. In Germany of the 1920s, as now in 21st-century America, appeals to reason and prudence were no
way to get votes in times of crisis. Much more effective were appeals to the anger and fear of the German people. A politician could
attract more votes by criticizing the government than by praising it, and a vicious negative campaign was usually more effective
than a clean one. One of the problems of democracy is that voters aren't always rational, and appeals like these could be very effective.
As usually happens in times of distress, the Germans became a people for whom resolve was valued more highly than prudence, daring
more than caution, and righteousness more than discretion. In many ways, they were a people not so different from today's Americans.
What was needed, the Germans thought, was a strong leader -- someone who would put an end to politics as usual; most of all, someone
who could unite all the divisions in Germany and dispel the clamor. They found that leader in Adolf Hitler, and for a time, most
Germans were glad they did.
Of course, America is not 1920s Germany, and we are certainly not on the verge of a fascist state. But neither have we experienced
the deep crises the Germans faced. The setbacks of the Iraq/Afghan war are a far cry from the devastating loss of the First World
War; we are not considered the scourge of the international community, and we don't need wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf
of bread. But even in these relatively secure times, we have shown an alarming willingness to choose headstrong leadership over thoughtful
leadership, to value security over liberty; to accept compromises to constitutional principles, and to defy the opinion of the rest
of the world.
How would we react if things got worse? If we were to lose the war in Iraq, leaving a fundamentalist regime in place; if we endured
several more major terrorist attacks; if the economy collapsed; if fuel prices reached $7 per gallon -- would we cling even more
fiercely to our democratic ideals? Or would we instead demand greater surveillance, more secret prisons, more arrests for "conspiracies"
that amount to little more than daydreams, and more quashing of dissent?
Our history suggests the latter. We Americans have had our flights from democracy -- the internment of Japanese-Americans in World
War II, the Red Scare and the McCarthy era, Watergate -- but we have always pulled back from the brink and returned to normal.
The time is coming for us to pull back from the brink again. This must happen before the government gets so strong that it can
completely demonize opposition, gain complete control of the media, and develop dossiers on all its citizens. By then it will be
too late, and we'll have ourselves to blame.
Brian E. Fogarty, a sociology professor at the College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, is the author of "
War, Peace, and the Social
Order ."
"... Slick Willy, recruited by the CIA to report on anti-war activism from Oxford back in 1968. ..."
"... we get America's first Black President, which serves to paralyze the left with identity politics in exactly the same way that the first woman President would. ..."
"... Unfortunately for the CIA and neoliberal establishment, Trump's unexpected win ( "Damn you ornery American voters!" ) has mortally wounded identity politics as an ideology, so the corporate mass media has tons of work ahead of them for getting plans back on track, if it is possible at all. ..."
Here is the way the CIA planned it from way back in Ronald Raygun's presidency:
PotUS 41: Bush Sr, CIA Don.
PotUS 42:Slick Willy, recruited by the CIA to report on anti-war activism from
Oxford back in 1968.
PotUS 43: Bush the Lesser, raised by the CIA.
PotUS 44: Slick Willy's ambitious cling-on who forced her way into the CIA scheme
back in the 1970s. Intended to be the first woman President. This symbolic
faux-progressive "victory" was intended to paralyze what remains of America's left
while she worked for the interests of the capitalist elites. Plan failed, but not too
badly. CIA candidate who was doing the trial run for PotUS 45 and getting some election
cred won instead. "No big deal!" sez the CIA, "44, 45 and 46 are all
interchangeable anyway." Instead we get America's first Black President, which serves
to paralyze the left with identity politics in exactly the same way that the first woman
President would. ( Aside:Obama's mamma was a CIA mule channeling financing to death squads
in Indonesia via the CIA cutout the Ford Foundation. The CIA crime family keeps tabs on
all of their used assets in case they get chatty and need to be quieted down. This
brought boy Obama to their attention and allowed them to groom him from infancy to be
their tool )
PotUS 45: Originally intended to be the "First Black President!" but
switched out for Clinton when plans SNAFUed in 2008. Hey, "First woman President!"
works just as good to choke criticism from the left, right? Right?
PotUS 46 (2024): What can you follow "First Black President!" and
"First woman President!" with to leverage identity politics and render the left
impotent? Why, the "First gay President!" , of course! With a name like Buttgig they
are shoving it right in our faces.
But the American electorate threw a monkey wrench (or an orange buffoon?) into the works
and screwed everything up. Trump was just floated as a "heel" (pro wrestling term)
or "foil" to be beaten, and in the process of being beaten reinforce the identity politics of
the victor and discredit populism.
Not having any better ideas, and not having any idea why their plans failed, the CIA is
just charging ahead with their idea of installing a gay President in 2024 and giving the
electorate some exposure to their tool now.
Unfortunately for the CIA and neoliberal establishment, Trump's unexpected win ( "Damn
you ornery American voters!" ) has mortally wounded identity politics as an ideology, so
the corporate mass media has tons of work ahead of them for getting plans back on track, if
it is possible at all.
Most on the alt right say they will not be voting again, but for those who are still
planning to vote, it seems like the only Presidential candidate they support is the Asian
American Democrat Andrew Yang, who's running on a single issue, a Universal Basic Income
(UBI) of $1,000 a month for every adult American, aged 18 or older
And I have no idea whether this support for Yang is serious, or whether they're being
ironic
The Trump administration is a government of deep and intensifying crisis. A recession is
looming, and the Federal Reserve has little ammunition to fight it. Trump's foreign policy,
staggering from one crisis to another, has exposed the dramatic decline in the world position
of American imperialism.
Trump's bluster is based not on strength, but on weakness. While the Democratic Party's
palace coup is in shambles, social opposition is growing.
Since Trump has taken office, the number of workers engaged in strikes has increased
20-fold. Tens of thousands of teachers, locomotive workers, university employees and orchestra
musicians have gone on strike since the beginning of this year. This is only the initial
expression of a mounting wave of social opposition. Trump knows full well that efforts to gut
social policies on which millions of people depend will trigger popular opposition.
"... Trump crushes adderol and snorts the powder. ..."
"... Whereas, Obama maintained a cool composure as he lied - those whoppers!; and as he expanded Corporate and MIC power and Cut Taxes on the rich, while smiling and telling you he was on your side, but gosh darn it - those mean republicans.... ..."
"... Obama seemed the Cyborg. Not on drugs, but who knows? ..."
"... Now Trump and Dubya. These guys share certain drug induced behaviors. Harder to control. Neither is very bright or curious. Bit of a loose cannon, harder to control. So you see these ticks and twitches and highs and lows. ..."
Whereas, Obama maintained a cool composure as he lied - those whoppers!; and as he
expanded Corporate and MIC power and Cut Taxes on the rich, while smiling and telling you he
was on your side, but gosh darn it - those mean republicans....
Obama seemed the Cyborg. Not on drugs, but who knows? He's got Michael's big pecker, so
he's content; and he'll make lots of money and live a jet set lifestyle of the rich and
famous. Easy. He's smart and slicker than cat shite. He guided the USA farther down the path
to the New World Order. No problem.
Now Trump and Dubya. These guys share certain drug induced behaviors. Harder to
control. Neither is very bright or curious. Bit of a loose cannon, harder to control. So you
see these ticks and twitches and highs and lows.
And Kushner. Too Young and inexperienced to do all that he does. It points to puppet masters pulling their strings.
Trump just wanted some good looking pussycats to come up to his suite; and some
hamberders.
Under neoliberalism any regime change is necessary followed by an economic rape. That was the case with the USSR in 1991,
that was the case in Ukraine in 2014. Only the size and length of the looting varies depending of the strength of new government.
Both the size and the length is maximal if in power are marionette like Yeltsin or Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko.
Saying "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" now should sound as "Beware of Americans who bring you color revolutions." They bring the
economic rape (aka "Disaster
capitalism") as the second phase. That's the nature of neocolonialism -- now you do not need to occupy the country.
It's enough to make it a debt slave using IMF and install compradors to endure the low of money and continuing impoverishment of the
population.
With such crooked and greedy friends as Biden and Kerry and their narcoaddicts sons you do not need enemies. But the main
danger are not individual sharks but Western financial institutions like IMF and World bank. Those convert countries into debt slaves
and that means permanently low standard (Central African in case of Ukraine, something like $2 a day) of living for generations
to come.
What is interesting is that unlike say German nationalists in 30th, the Ukrainian nationalists proved to be completly
useless in defending the Ukraine from looting. They actually serves as supplementary tool of the same looting.
The standard of living of Ukrainians dropped 2-3 times since 2014. How pensioners survive, on $50 a month pension I simply do not
understand. In any case Neoliberalism proved to be very effecting is keeping "developing" nations economic growth down and converting
them into debt slaves. The fact that Biden use loans as a tool of extortion (as in threat to cancel one billion loan) to close criminal
investigation of his sons company is just an icing on the cake. Poroshenko and his camarilla should be tried in the court of law for
his corruption and pandering to the Western sharks, who were happy to steal from Ukraine as much as then can.
To pay $166K a month for Biden's son cocaine is way too much to such impoverished country as Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
"... " Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat. ..."
"... The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member. ..."
"... U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. - The Hill ..."
"... And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill: ..."
"... The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's case against Burisma; ..."
"... President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 ..."
"... Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse. ..."
"... Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now! ..."
"... At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski. Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified. ..."
"... Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This is basic stuff. ..."
"... Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$. ..."
Originally from:
Forget 'Creepy'
- Biden Has A Major Ukraine Problem Joe Biden appears to have made a major tactical error last year when he bragged to an
audience of foreign policy experts how he threatened to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy if their top prosecutor, General Viktor Shokin,
wasn't immediately fired, according to
The Hill 's John Solomon.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council
on Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden's account, though they claim the pressure was applied
over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day . Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine's
parliament obliged by
ending Shokin's tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not
bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired. -
The Hill
And why would Biden want the "son of a bitch" fired?
In what must be an amazing coincidence, the prosecutor was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas
firm - which Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of directors.
The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm
Burisma Holdings
that employed Biden's younger son, Hunter, as a board member.
U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, received regular transfers
into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period
when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia. -
The Hill
The Hill 's Solomon reviewed the general prosecutor's file for the Burisma probe - which he reports shows Hunter Biden, his business
partner Devon Archer and their firm, Rosemont Seneca, as potential recipients of money.
And before he was fired, Shokin says he had made "specific plans" for the investigation - including "interrogations and other
crime-investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden." "I would like to emphasize the fact
that presumption of innocence is a principle in Ukraine," added Shokin. Joe Biden "clearly had to know" about the probe before he
insisted on Shokin's ouster . Via The Hill:
Although Biden made no mention of his son in his 2018 speech, U.S. and Ukrainian authorities both told me Biden and his office
clearly had to know about the general prosecutor's probe of Burisma and his son's role. They noted that:
Hunter Biden's appointment to the board was widely reported in American media;
The U.S. Embassy in Kiev that coordinated Biden's work in the country repeatedly and publicly discussed the general prosecutor's
case against Burisma;
Great Britain took very public action against Burisma while Joe Biden was working with that government on Ukraine issues;
Biden's office was quoted, on the record, acknowledging Hunter Biden's role in Burisma in a New York Times article about the
general prosecutor's Burisma case that appeared four months before Biden forced the firing of Shokin. The vice president's office
suggested in that article that Hunter Biden was a lawyer free to pursue his own private business deals.
President Obama named Biden the administration's point man on Ukraine in February 2014 , after a popular revolution ousted
Russia-friendly President Viktor Yanukovych and as Moscow
sent military forces into Ukraine's Crimea territory.
***
Key questions for 'ol Joe:
Was it appropriate for your son and his firm to cash in on Ukraine while you served as point man for Ukraine policy? What work
was performed for the money Hunter Biden's firm received? Did you know about the Burisma probe? And when it was publicly announced
that your son worked for Burisma, should you have recused yourself from leveraging a U.S. policy to pressure the prosecutor who
very publicly pursued Burisma?
Remember Victoria Nuland's famous phone recording of "**** the EU?" This was nothing more than another CIA destabilization
campaign carried out of another Sovereign Country. With the goal of breaking the Bush Senior & Jim Baker agreement of not surrounding
Russia with NATO countries after their Collapse.
Let's face it. If Ukrainians loved it's Country, Joey, Hunter and the Choco-**** would have wound up like Mikhail Lesin
during an all night party in an upscale grotto in Kiev by now!
Amazing that all 3 of them are still alive and that "Song Bird" McCain (#4) was allowed to die from his brain cancer instead
of joining them or being dismembered and put on display when he made these visit(s) (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfsTcJCKDE ) along
with General Vallely (#5)!!!
Taras Bulba , 1 hour ago
At last some questions for this dirt ball-burisma is tied in with one of the most if not the most corrupt oligarch, Koloimiski.
Biden is up to his eyeballs in some dodgy deals in china as well-this guy and his son are walking corruption personified.
CarifonianSeven, 2 hours ago
Didn't Hillary teach Joe that a tax free foundation is better than using your son's LLC for laundering the bribes... This
is basic stuff.
Pernicious Gold Phallusy, 1 hour ago
Joe cheated his way through undergrad and law school. He would be unable to understand any of that.
whittler, 1 hour ago
What? You mean folks will finally care about little Hunter hiring Azov neo-Nazi fighters (oops! security I mean) to protect
his fracking site just north of the 'troubles' in the eastern Ukraine? I'm sure they were working for free and that no Biden money
was ever used to payoff (oops again! I mean pay the wages of) a bunch of Nazis (dang it again, I mean neo-Nazis, it sounds so
much warmer and fuzzier when you add 'neo').
Creepy Joe and all D's agree, 'Nazi' = bad, neo-Nazi = warm, fuzzy and good; heck, they even like to kill Russians Russians
Russians!!!
Cracker 16 , 1 hour ago
Joe "the Conqueror" "Caesar Magnus" Biden. Joe of Ukraine, the best bud of $oro$.
His drug use has been obvious to me for some time. If you view everything he has done
through the lens of "drug addict" it kind of all fits together and makes sense.
The fact that he always bragged he never drank or took drugs only made me sure he was
abusing and/or addicted to prescription medicine. That way he could justify abusing it. He
probably got diagnosed with ADD at one point in his life and was given Ritalin or something,
and his addiction grew from that. I'm guessing he's been addicted for decades, based on how
out of control he is.
We are witnessing an addict "hit bottom" in truly biblical proportions. I would not be
surprised if he abuses opioids, too. He's not very healthy, and at his age and his weight, he
probably has a lot of pain. I don't mean to over generalize, but it's interesting to me, and
so sad, that many of his supporters come from communities where the opioids epidemic is
particularly bad. Perhaps they resonate with his vibe.
Thanks for the video, and blessings. Or should I say, "Buckle up, Buttercup!!!" ; )
President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have so very much in
common.
They're both being investigated for corruption; Netanyahu is on the verge of being
indicted, while Trump is still being investigated by the U.S. Attorney in the Southern
District of New York. Both Bibi and Trump use the term "Fake News" to delegitimize media
outlets critical of them. And both have courted the support of extremists. Trump has
retweeted visible white supremacists and defended racists as "fine people" after
Charlottesville, while Netanyahu recently embraced the political party known as "Jewish
Power" which has been called the KKK of Israel.
And now these BFF's have something else in common: They both oppose self-determination for
Palestinians. And in so doing, Netanyahu and Trump will almost certainly push people
desperate for justice to join the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, known as
BDS.
Bibi has made it clear for a while now that he opposes a Palestinian state, though the
American media has for the most part shockingly ignored this. He stated it point blank in
2015 when he last ran for re-election, insisting there will never be a Palestinian state on
his watch. And just a few weeks ago, he reaffirmed that position. He told Israeli voters, "A
Palestinian state would endanger our existence" and slammed his main political rivals by
claiming that in contrast to him, "Sooner or later, probably sooner, they will establish a
Palestinian state."
And because Netanyahu opposes both a Palestinian state and -- one presumes -- granting the
millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza the right to vote in Israeli elections, he
is committed to permanently dispossessing them of civil rights and citizenship in any state
-- a Palestinian one or a Jewish one.
And it now appears that Trump is following the lead of his pal. Last week, Trump's
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, while testifying before Congress, refused to commit to a
two-state solution. "We think we have some ideas that are new and fresh and different," he
said.
I can only imagine what "new ideas" Trump has in store. After all, Trump has already
cruelly cut over $360 million in aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency that is a
lifeline for countless Palestinian refugees, providing them with food, medical care and
schooling.
Add to that, Trump ended $25 million in aid to hospitals in East Jerusalem that provide
specialized care for Palestinians unavailable in the Palestinian territories. And Pompeo's
State Department recently slashed $200 million dollars in aid that had been set aside for
Palestinian infrastructure projects in the West Bank and Gaza.
And this is where BDS comes in. With Netanyahu emphatically opposed to Palestinian
self-determination and Trump seemingly on board with that, there are limited options for
people who support human rights for Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state. As
far I can tell, there are three:
They can simply surrender to these powerful forces and stop advocating for Palestinians.
Obviously, that's an unlikely option.
Or, they can continue to advocate for the Palestinians with more traditional ways of
trying to effectuate a change of policy, such as by lobbying elected officials, making the
case in the media, and the like. That's where I am and have been for years as I've tried to
present Palestinians like my family living in the West Bank as human beings deserving of
human rights and self-determination.
But with leaders like Trump and Bibi at the helm, this option seems less and less
effective with every passing day. Which leads me to the third option, which is join the BDS
movement and the call to put economic pressure on Israel, since it doesn't seem willing to
end the occupation on its own.
I've had my reasons for not getting involved in BDS before, mostly because I have long
supported a two-state solution, while many in the BDS movement seek a one-state solution. I
respect their push for a single state where Israelis and Palestinians would be equal
citizens, but I would prefer to see my family have their own nation that they can govern.
But if Netanyahu and Trump both team up to say no to Palestine, and yes to Palestinians
living under permanent occupation with no civil rights, where does that leave people like me?
Do I simply continue to repeat the same actions over and over and hope for a different
result?
Or do I join BDS?
Of course, BDS has its own problems. For starters, as of now at least, while it has
grabbed some headlines, it's proved as ineffective as my own methods. Despite some visible
successes by the BDS movement since its founding in 2005, Israel's economy has been growing
robustly the past few years plus foreign direct investments and tourism are at or near all
times highs. There's no real delegitimization happening, only bad PR for Netanyahu's regime.
And as a person who supports two states, I'm not seeking to "delegitimize" the state of
Israel, which some on the right have claimed is the true goal of BDS.
The answer for me -- and I suspect others -- is to wait for the results of the April 9th
election in Israel.
If Netanyahu wins, it's likely Trump will formally embrace Bibi's position of no
Palestinian state. Then it seems to me the only option I have is to reluctantly become a part
of the BDS movement in order to attempt to change this policy.
And if I'm right, many others who had been hesitant to join the BDS movement will get on
board as well. And to those upset with that result, you have two people to blame: Netanyahu
and Trump.
Dean Obeidallah is the host of SiriusXM Progress' The Dean Obeidallah Show. He co-created
the stand up comedy show "Stand up for Peace" to foster understanding between Jews, Muslims
and Christians. And he's a frequent contributor to CNN and The Daily Beast.
This story "Trump and Netanyahu Are BDS's Biggest Recruiters" was written by Dean
Obeidallah.
An explosive report by Reuters confirms that John Bolton sabotaged the denuclearization talks between Kim Jong un and Donald Trump
in Hanoi in February. According to a March 29 exclusive by journalists Lesley Wroughton and David Brunnstrom:
"Donald Trump handed North Korean leader Kim Jong Un a piece of paper" demanding that Kim surrender all of his "nuclear weapons
and bomb fuel to the United States."
Trump also added a number of unrelated demands including "fully dismantling" all "chemical and biological warfare program(s)
. and ballistic missiles, launchers, and associated facilities."
Trump surprised Kim by demanding complete, unilateral disarmament in exchange for a flimsy promise to lift economic sanctions
sometime in the future. Naturally, Kim rejected the offer.
Here's more from the same article:
" The document appeared to represent Bolton's long-held and hardline "Libya model" of denuclearization that North Korea has
rejected repeatedly . North Koreans rejected Bolton's repeated demands for it to follow a denuclearization model under which components
of Libya's nuclear program were shipped to the United States in 2004.
Seven years after a denuclearization agreement was reached between the United States and Libya's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the
United States took part in a NATO-led military operation against his government and he was overthrown by rebels and killed" ("Exclusive:
With a piece of paper, Trump called on Kim to hand over nuclear weapons",
Reuters )
Bolton presented Kim with an offer he knew Kim would reject, the same offer that led to the destruction of Libya and the savage
murder of Gaddafi. Bolton wanted the talks to fail so he could push for tougher sanctions that would pave the way for regime change.
That was his goal. Kim's nuclear weapons were never the target, they were merely the pretext for intensifying the economic strangulation,
the relentless belligerence and the threats of war.
But why would Trump agree to go along with this fraud? And why has Trump deployed more troops to Syria while green-lighting Israel
to annex the Golan Heights?
Is there a connection between Trump's (recent) foreign policy reversals and the termination of the Mueller investigation? Did
Trump make a deal with his deep state antagonists to get Mueller off his back?
It's hard to say, but there was no reason for Mueller to wrap up the investigation. The probe was doing exactly what it was supposed
to do: Create a 4th branch of government that was empowered to hector, harass and indict anyone it chose in order to keep the administration
on the defensive, derail any effort to normalize relations with Russia, and undermine the legitimacy and moral authority of the president.
Why would Mueller give up all that if it wasn't part of some undisclosed Grand Bargain?
He wouldn't.
On a personal level, Trump trusts Kim which is why he probably wanted to cut a deal. An article in last week's Korea's Hankyoreh
news supports this view. Check it out:
"During the North Korea-US summit in Hanoi last month, US President Donald Trump reportedly had a positive perspective on relaxing
sanctions on North Korea provided that there was a "snapback" clause that would reinstate sanctions if the North failed to implement
its agreement. North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui made this statement during a briefing to foreign diplomats in Pyongyang
on Mar. 15, but her full remarks hadn't been made public until now.
According to the text of Choe's remarks released on Mar. 25, she said, "When we made a practical proposal in the talks, President
Trump adopted the flexible position that an agreement would be possible if a clause was added stating that the sanctions could
be reinstated if North Korea resumed nuclear activities after the sanctions were lifted." But Choe went on to say that, "because
of their continuing hostility and mistrust, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton
created obstacles to the two leaders' efforts to have constructive negotiations, and ultimately the summit didn't produce meaningful
results."
. According to Choe's statement the two leaders appear to have explored the possibility of trading Yongbyon's shutdown for
partial sanctions relief. Choe's remarks imply that the ultimate reason the summit concluded without an agreement was because
of resistance from Pompeo and Bolton. " ("Trump responded positively to relaxing sanctions with "snapback clause" during Hanoi
summit", Hankyoreh News
)
The Hankyoreh article corroborates much of what is stated in the Reuters piece. Both articles acknowledge that the nuclear talks
were scuppered by Bolton.
The media has consistently misled its readers about what actually took place at Hanoi and who should ultimately be held responsible
for its failure. According to CNN:
"Kim had demanded total sanctions relief upfront in exchange for only partial denuclearization, leaving the two sides at an
impasse .(Wrong) Trump cast his decision to walk away as evidence that he will not accept a bad deal, (Wrong) but the abrupt conclusion
of his much-ballyhooed second summit nonetheless amounted to the most stinging setback yet in his effort to achieve North Korea's
denuclearization through direct talks with its leader . (Wrong, it wasn't a setback, it was deliberate.)
More than anything, the failure to produce results during the second summit called into question the personality-driven diplomacy
that has been at the core of Trump's effort to end the North Korean nuclear threat." (Wrong, again) ("Takeaways from the Trump-Kim
Hanoi summit", CNN
)
None of this is true. The meetings didn't fail because of Trump's "personality-driven diplomacy". They failed because Bolton deliberately
blew them up. That's what happened. As one would expect, virtually everything CNN tries to pass off as evenhanded, thoroughly-researched
journalism is nothing more than misleading gobbledygook served up by political activists. (The dismal Hanoi coverage helps to show
that the Trump-collusion fiction was not a "one off", but a critical feature of media policy which aims to shape the news according
to the political agenda of elites.)
But if the Trump administration is unwilling to honestly negotiate with the North, then how can Kim possibly move forward with
his plan to establish peaceful relations with his friends in the South and his allies in the region?
The only way forward for Kim is to bypass the Trump administration altogether and strengthen relations with those who will help
him achieve his strategic objectives. He must show that he is a trustworthy partner who is willing to continue along the path of
denuclearization regardless of the obstacles and provocations created by the United States. He must continue to seek the input of
leaders in Beijing, Moscow and Seoul and prove to them that he is unwaveringly committed to ridding the peninsula of its nuclear
weapons in the interests of peace and security. Kim must welcomeinternational weapons inspectors to monitor the decommissioning of
his nuclear arsenal and his nuclear enrichment plants. He must increase the frequency of his visits to Seoul where his public approval
ratings have skyrocketed and where his efforts for peace and reunification are applauded by nearly 80% of the people. He must "promote
his own denuclearization timetable" and present his case to the UN Security Council for review. He must convince the public that
he will not backtrack on his ironclad commitment to dialogue, cooperation, economic integration and peace.
According to Hankyoreh News, Kim' Jong un's chief of staff and protocol officer made a secret trip to Moscow last week "fueling
speculation that Kim Jong-un may be about to pay a visit to Russia." At the same time, a senior national security official (Kim Hyun-chong)
from South Korea visited Russia as well.
Can you see what's going on? What these secret meetings suggest is that regional leaders are now developing a "post-Hanoi" strategy
that will take into account Kim's eagerness to cooperate and Washington's obstinate rejection of any policy that does not further
enhance its own vicious grip on power. The Trump team is no longer in the loop. Regional bigwigs are taking matters into their own
hands and moving forward.
As we pointed out in an earlier piece, Kim is neither a firebrand nor ideological. He is a contemporary man who who wants to make
his own mark on the world, lead his country into the modern era, and join the coalition of nations that are fast becoming the biggest
trading block in history.
Here's how author John Delury summed it up in a recent op-ed in the New York Times:
"Mr. Kim wants to be a great economic reformer (He wants to) shift the regime's focus, from security to prosperity .He wants
North Korea to catch up with and integrate into the region, and it's in everyone's interest to help him do so "("Kim Jong-un Has
a Dream. The U.S. Should Help Him Realize It", New York Times)
Yes, "Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them. " But he turned to be a fake, a marionette who is controlled by neocons like hapless Bush II.
Notable quotes:
"... Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war. ..."
"... The overwhelming theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system. ..."
"... The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen $150 million contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or $50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little money and close to no institutional support became a surprise contender . ..."
"... Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there was little difference between Republicans and Democrats. ..."
"... Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties, the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way. ..."
"... The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my bullshit . ..."
"... Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because he was one of them. ..."
Faulty coverage of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign later made foreign espionage a more plausible explanation for his ascent to power
Last weekend, I published a book chapter criticizing the Russiagate
narrative, claiming it was a years-long press error on the scale of the WMD affair heading into the Iraq war.
Obviously (and I said this in detail), the WMD fiasco had a far greater real-world impact, with hundreds of thousands of lives
lost and trillions in treasure wasted. Still, I thought Russiagate would do more to damage the reputation of the national news media
in the end.
A day after publishing that excerpt, a
Attorney General
William Barr sent his summary of the report to Congress, containing a quote filed by Special Counsel
Robert Mueller : "[T]he investigation did not establish
that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
Suddenly, news articles appeared arguing people like myself and Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept were
rushing to judgment
, calling us bullies whose writings were intended to leave reporters "cowed" and likely to "
back down from aggressive coverage of Trump ."
This was baffling. One of the most common criticisms of people like Greenwald, Michael Tracey, Aaron Mate, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal,
Jordan Chariton and many others is that Russiagate "skeptics" - I hate that term, because it implies skepticism isn't normal and
healthy in this job - were really secret Trump partisans, part of a "horseshoe" pact between far left and far right to focus attention
on the minor foibles of the center instead of Trump's more serious misdeeds. Even I received this label, and I once wrote a book
about Trump called Insane Clown President .
A typical social media complaint:
@mtaibbi and all his deplorable followers. The truth will come out
and your premature celebrations are embarrassing.
It's irritating that I even have to address this, because my personal political views shouldn't have anything to do with how I
cover anything. But just to get it out of the way: I'm no fan of
Donald Trump .
I had a well-developed opinion about him long before the 2016 race started. I once interned for Trump's nemesis-biographer, the
late, great muckraker Wayne Barrett
. The birther campaign
of 2011 was all I ever needed to make a voting decision about the man.
I started covering the last presidential race in 2015 just as I was finishing up a book about the death of Eric Garner called
I Can't Breathe . Noting that
a birther campaign started by "peripheral political curiosity and reality TV star Donald Trump" led to 41 percent of respondents
in one poll believing Barack Obama was "not even American," I wrote:
If anyone could communicate the frustration black Americans felt over Stop-and-Frisk and other neo-vagrancy laws that made
black people feel like they could be arrested anywhere, it should have been Barack Obama. He'd made it all the way to the White
House and was still considered to be literally trespassing by a huge plurality of the population.
So I had no illusions about Trump. The Russia story bothered
me for other reasons, mostly having to do with a general sense of the public being misled, and not even about Russia.
The problem lay with the precursor tale to Russiagate, i.e. how Trump even got to be president in the first place.
The 2016 campaign season brought to the surface awesome levels of political discontent. After the election, instead of wondering
where that anger came from, most of the press quickly pivoted to a new tale about a Russian plot to attack our Democracy. This conveyed
the impression that the election season we'd just lived through had been an aberration, thrown off the rails by an extraordinary
espionage conspiracy between Trump and a cabal of evil foreigners.
This narrative contradicted everything I'd seen traveling across America in my two years of covering the campaign. The overwhelming
theme of that race, long before anyone even thought about Russia, was voter rage at the entire political system.
The anger wasn't just on the Republican side, where Trump humiliated the Republicans' chosen
$150 million
contender , Jeb Bush (who got three delegates, or
$50 million per delegate ). It was also evident on the Democratic side, where a self-proclaimed "Democratic Socialist" with little
money and close to no institutional support became
a surprise contender
.
Because of a series of press misdiagnoses before the Russiagate stories even began, much of the American public was unprepared
for news of a Trump win. A cloak-and-dagger election-fixing conspiracy therefore seemed more likely than it might have otherwise
to large parts of the domestic news audience, because they hadn't been prepared for anything else that would make sense.
This was particularly true of upscale, urban, blue-leaning news consumers, who were not told to take the possibility of a Trump
White House seriously.
Priority number-one of the political class after a vulgar, out-of-work game-show host conquered the White House should have been
a long period of ruthless self-examination. This story delayed that for at least two years.
It wasn't even clear Trump whether or not wanted to win. Watching him on the trail, Trump at times went beyond seeming disinterested.
There were periods where it looked like South Park's "
Did I offend you? " thesis was true, and he was
actively trying to lose, only the polls just wouldn't let him.
Forget about the gift the end of Russiagate might give Trump by allowing him to spend 2020 peeing from a great height on the national
press corps. The more serious issue has to be the failure to face the reality of why he won last time, because we still haven't done
that.
... ... ...
Trump, the billionaire, denounced us as the elitists in the room. He'd call us "bloodsuckers," "dishonest," and in one line that
produced laughs considering who was saying it, "
highly-paid ."
He also did something that I immediately recognized as brilliant (or diabolical, depending on how you look at it). He dared cameramen
to turn their cameras to show the size of his crowds.
They usually wouldn't – hey, we don't work for the guy – which thrilled Trump, who would then say something to the effect of,
"See! They're
very dishonest people ." Audiences would turn toward us, and boo and hiss, and even throw little bits of paper and other things
our way. This was unpleasant, but it was hard not to see its effectiveness: he'd re-imagined the lifeless, poll-tested format of
the stump speech, turning it into menacing, personal, WWE-style theater.
Trump was gunning for votes in both parties. The core story he told on the stump was one of system-wide corruption, in which there
was little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
...
Perhaps just by luck, Trump was tuned in to the fact that the triumvirate of ruling political powers in America – the two parties,
the big donors and the press – were so unpopular with large parts of the population that he could win in the long haul by attracting
their ire, even if he was losing battles on the way.
...
The subtext was always: I may be crude, but these people are phonies, pretending to be upset when they're making money off my
bullshit .
I thought this was all nuts and couldn't believe it was happening in a real presidential campaign. But, a job is a job. My first
feature on candidate Trump was called "
How
America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable ." The key section read:
In person, you can't miss it: The same way Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house, Donald on the stump can see his future.
The pundits don't want to admit it, but it's sitting there in plain view, 12 moves ahead, like a chess game already won:
President Donald Trump
It turns out we let our electoral process devolve into something so fake and dysfunctional that any half-bright con man with
the stones to try it could walk right through the front door and tear it to shreds on the first go.
And Trump is no half-bright con man, either. He's way better than average.
Traditional Democratic audiences appeared thrilled by the piece and shared it widely. I was invited on scads of cable shows to
discuss ad nauseum the "con man" line. This made me nervous, because it probably meant these people hadn't read the piece, which among other things posited the failures
of America's current ruling class meant Trump's insane tactics could actually work.
Trump was selling himself as a traitor to a corrupt class, someone who knew how soulless and greedy the ruling elite was because
he was one of them.
...
The only reason most blue-state media audiences had been given for Trump's poll numbers all along was racism, which was surely
part of the story but not the whole picture. A lack of any other explanation meant Democratic audiences, after the shock of election
night, were ready to reach for any other data point that might better explain what just happened.
Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in
what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither
Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing
to vote for Donald Trump."
Post-election, Russiagate made it all worse. People could turn on their TVs at any hour of the day and see anyone from Rachel
Maddow to Chris Cuomo openly reveling in Trump's troubles. This is what Fox looks like to liberal audiences.
Worse, the "walls are closing in" theme -- two years old now -- was just a continuation of the campaign mistake, reporters confusing
what they wanted to happen with what was happening . The story was always more complicated than was being represented.
I think Trump completely discredited himself in foreign policy due to appointment of Bush II team of neocon which drive it.
So the only chance for him to win is if US voters do not care about foreign policy. Demagogy will not work like in 2016 as
he now have a dismal record including attempt in regime change in Venezuela.
Notable quotes:
"... the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically ditching the draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between the U.S. people and their military ..."
"... Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family – quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table" affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes. ..."
"... In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd "bomb the shit" out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more "stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked. ..."
"... Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently picks the party's candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. ..."
"... If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast. ..."
"... So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents (think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. ..."
"... Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came down on Ilhan Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials. ..."
"... Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs flaws – such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy. ..."
The 2020 election will not turn on global issues – and more's the pity. After all, thanks to decades upon decades of accumulating
executive power in an increasingly
imperial presidency,
it is in foreign affairs that the commander-in-chief possesses near dictatorial power. Conversely, in domestic policy, a hostile
Congress can – just ask Barry Obama – effectively block most of a president's agenda.
Still, the vast majority of Americans don't give a hoot about issues of war, peace, and international diplomacy. Why should
they care? It's not as though anything is asked of them as citizens. By cynically
ditching the
draft, Tricky Dick Nixon took the wind out of the sails of current and future antiwar movements, and permanently cleaved a gap between
the U.S. people and their military.
Mothers no longer lose sleep over their teenage sons serving their country and they – along with the rest of the family –
quit caring about foreign policy. Such it is, and so it will be, that the 2020 presidential election is likely to be decided by "kitchen-table"
affairs like healthcare, immigration, race, and taxes.
Be that as it may, serious observers should pay plenty of attention to international strategy.
First, because the occupant of the Oval Office makes policy almost unilaterally – including the decision of whether or not
to end the human race with America's suicidal nuclear button.
Second, because 2020 is likely to be another close contest, turning on the votes of a few hundred thousand swing state voters.
As such, Trump's opponent will need to win every vote on every issue – including foreign affairs. What's more, there are still
some folks who genuinely care about a potential commander-in-chief's international bonafides.
So, while Dems can't win the White House with foreign policy alone, they can lose it by ignoring these issues or – oh so typically
– presenting a muddled overseas strategy.
This is serious.
Just in case there are any out there still underestimating Trump – I, for one, predict he'll win in 2020 – make no mistake, he's
no pushover on foreign policy. Sure he doesn't know much – but neither does the average voter. Nonetheless, Trump is no dope. He's
got the pulse of (white) voters across this country and senses that the populace is tired of spending blood and cash (but mostly
its cash) on Mideast forever wars. In 2016, he (correctly) made Hillary"regime change" Clinton out to be the true hawk in the
race. Trump, on the other hand, combined tough guy bravado (he'd
"bomb the shit"
out of ISIS) with earthy good sense (there'd be no more
"stupid" Iraq invasions. And it worked.
So, with 2020 in mind, whether you're a progressive, a libertarian, or just a Trump-hater, its vital that the opposition (most
likely the Dems) nominate a candidate who can hang with Trump in foreign affairs.
Mark my words: if the DNC – which apparently
picks the party's
candidates – backs a conventional neoliberal foreign policy nominee, Trump will wipe the floor with him or her. And, if the
Dems national security platform reads like a jumbled, jargon-filled sheet full of boring (like it usually does) than Joe the proverbial
plumber is going to back The Donald.
That's what has me worried. As one candidate after another enters an already crowded field, this author is left wondering whether
any of them are commander-in-chief material. So far I see a huge crew (Liz, Kirsten, Kamala, Beto) that live and die by domestic
policy; two potentially conventional foreign policy guys (Biden and Booker); and two other wildcards (Bernie and Tulsi). That's not
a comprehensive list, but you get the point. If they want to stand a chance in 2020, the Dems had better back a nominee with
a clear, alternative progressive foreign policy or get one the domestic-focused candidates up to speed and fast.
So here's how my mental math works: a progressive candidate needs to win over libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents
(think Rand Paul-types) by force of their commonsense alternative to Trump's foreign policy. That means getting the troops out
of the Mideast, pulling the plug from other mindless interventions and cutting runaway defense spending. Then, and only then, can
the two sides begin arguing about what to do with the resultant cash surplus. That's an argument for another day, sure, but here
and now our imaginary Democratic (or Third Party?) nominee needs to end the wars and curtail the excesses of empire. I know many
libertarians – some still nominally Republican – who could get behind that agenda pretty quickly!
Still, there's more than a little reason for concern . Look at how "Nasty" Nancy Pelosi and the establishment Dems came
down on Ilhan
Omar for that representative's essentially accurate tweets criticizing the Israel Lobby. Then there's Joe Biden. Look, he's
definitely running. He's also definitely been wrong time and again on foreign policy – like how he was
for the
Iraq War before he was against it (how'd that turn out for John Kerry in 2004?). And, for all the talk of a progressive "blue wave"
in the party ranks, Biden still polls as the
top choice for
Democratic primary voters. Yikes.
Behind him, thankfully, is old Bernie – who sometimes shows potential in foreign affairs – the only candidate who has both
backed Omar and
been consistent in a career of generally antiwar votes. Still, Bernie won his household name with domestic policy one-liners – trashing
Wall Street and pushing populist economic tropes. Whether he can transform into a more balanced candidate, one that can confidently
compose and deliver a strong alternative foreign policy remains to be seen.
Tulsi Gabbard, though she still looks the long shot, remains intriguing given here genuine antiwar (and combat veteran) credentials.
Still, she'll have her hands full overcoming
problematic skeletons
in her own closet: ties to Indian Hindu nationalists, opposition to the Iran deal, and sometime backing of authoritarians and Islamophobes.
Then again, even Bernie has his foreign affairs
flaws
– such as reflexively denouncing the BDS movement and occasionally calling for regime change in Syria. Nevertheless, both Bernie
and Tulsi demonstrate that there's some promise for fresh opposition foreign policy.
Here's (some) of what that would look like:
speedily withdraw all U.S. troops from the (at least)
seven shooting wars
in the Greater Middle East;
choke off excessive arms deals and expensive military handouts to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other frenemies;
quit bombing or
enabling
the bombing of impoverished civilians in places like Yemen and Gaza; begin dismantling America's
"empire
of bases" overseas;
seek firm détente rather than conflict with Russia and China;
and cut defense and war-related spending down to size.
Our imaginary candidate would need to convey this commonsense course to a war-weary American people as plainly and coherently
as Trump can. No jargon, no Clintonian wonky crap – simple and to the point. Imagine it: a commonsense course for a clear-eyed country!
Less war and more investment at home. Less war and more middle-class tax cuts. Whatever. That fight will come and the progressives
and independents/libertarians will fight it out. For now, though, what's essential is checking the war machine and military-industrial
behemoth before its too late (it may be already!).
None of this will be easy or likely, of course. But count on this much: the establishment Democrats, media-mogul "left," and centrist
DC think tanks won't save us from the imperial monster or deliver a Trump-defeating strategy in foreign affairs. The Mueller-will-save-us,
Mattis-was-a-hero, reflexively anti-Trump, born-again
hawks like Rachel Maddow and the other disappointing chumps at MSNBC or CNN aren't on our side. Worse yet, they're born losers
when it comes to delivering elections.
All of this may be far-fetched, but is not impossible. Neither libertarians nor progressives can countenance Trump. Nor should
they. One of their only true hopes for compromise rest on foreign policy and a genuine antiwar message. It can be done.
Look, on a personal note, even America's beloved and over-adulated soldiers are reachable on this issue – that's how you know
the foreign policy alliance has potential! For every rah-rah war-fever cheerleader in uniform, there's an exhausted foot soldier
on his Nth tour in the Mideast. There's also a huge chunk (
40%! ) who are racial minorities – usually a reliably anti-Trump demographic. Finally, among the white men and women in uniform
I've personally met a solid core of libertarians. And the
data backs up my anecdotal observation – Ron Paul was highly popular among active-duty military members and their families. A
progressive foreign policy alliance with the libertarian wing of Republicans and Independents would sell better with these such voters
both in and out of uniform. You know the type: sick of war but just as sick of stereotypical liberal snowflakes.
So here's a plea to the "opposition" such at it is: avoid the usual mistakes – don't cede foreign affairs to the Trump and the
Republicans; don't nominate anyone remotely resembling Joe Biden; don't alienate libertarians and independents with wonky or muddled
international policy.
Try something new. Like winning
* * *
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to antiwar.com
. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet
.
This article is a death sentence for Trump. Now he he win only on pure demagogy, which might not work.
Notable quotes:
"... Still, an extra $700 billion flowing into the economy in a year is hardly chicken feed. So, has the money being used to create more jobs as Trump hoped? Hardly. The evidence suggests that majority of that cash has simply found its way into buybacks with minimal discernible impact on investments. It's probably not a coincidence that the generous tax cut has been followed by record buybacks, with companies repurchasing more than a trillion dollars-worth of their own shares last year. ..."
"... Ironically, Congress now wants to tame the monster it has helped create by reining in on buybacks. But with fears that a market top could be near, the timing would be wrong since buybacks provide a large source of demand for shares. ..."
"... "Congress failed to anticipate a major loophole" Huh? Its not a bug, its a feature. ..."
"... "With their enormous complexity and high-stakes, tax issues are the buffet that keeps Washington's swamp creatures fed," Public Citizen said in the conclusion of its report. " ..."
"... "But the success of the nation's largest corporations and wealthiest interests in shaping the current tax legislation to suit their interests shows that bankrolling the lobbyists' unending feast is a small bill to pay in the big scheme of things -- because it is a very big scheme, indeed." ..."
"... How would an open, globalised world work against the West and in favor of the East? The 1% would get better returns from investing their capital in the rapidly growing Asian economies than the mature economies of the West. Multi-national corporations could make higher profits in Asia due to the low cost of living that they had to cover in wages. ..."
"... Richard Koo explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwxhT8e7xQ Higher returns on capital are affecting their economies as they off-shore to places where they can pay lower wages for higher profits. ..."
"... Richard Koo asked American firms where they are expanding their capacity. They said it was in Mexico as it's cheaper and they can make more profit. Do the maths. To maximise profit you need to minimise labour costs, i.e. wages. Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living). The minimum wage leaves no disposable income. Minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living ..."
"... The American people should be screaming about the fact most of these corporations barely pay any taxes at all to keep this country running. But silence. Why is there such slavish loyalty to corporations by Americans when most aren't even employed by them? ..."
"... Well that is twice now that corporate America has repatriated hundreds of billions from overseas and each time, so far as I know, it was used for stock buybacks, executive bonuses, vanity projects, etc. Not for investment, not for research, not for up-skilling their workforce or expanding their operations but just playing Wall Street games. ..."
"... By my calculations, Jeff Bezos thus owes the US government $2,352,000,000 in taxes. I'm sure that a cheque from him would do just fine. ..."
Last year, drugmaker Abbvie Inc. told shareholders that its tax rate would fall to just 9
percent from 22 percent previously due to a change in the territorial system. Abbvie happens to
be a grandmaster when it comes to shielding its profits in tax havens, routinely reporting zero
profits in the US despite most of its research facilities being based in the country.
Pfizer, Boston Scientific Corp. ,Microsoft Inc. Synopsis and Expedia Group are all pros at
the game, too.
This bunch, however, have nothing on Amazon Inc. The ecommerce giant not only
managed to pay zero tax on its massive $11.2 billion corporate income for 2018, but was
even able to claim $129 million in rebates thanks to loopholes in the new tax law. Video
streaming company, Netflix Inc ., also managed to get away scot free despite posting a record
profit of $858 million.
More Buybacks
Still, an extra $700 billion flowing into the economy in a year is hardly chicken feed.
So, has the money being used to create more jobs as Trump hoped? Hardly. The evidence suggests
that majority of that cash has simply found its way into buybacks with minimal discernible
impact on investments. It's probably not a coincidence that the generous tax cut has been
followed by record buybacks, with companies repurchasing more than a trillion dollars-worth of
their own shares last year.
Ironically, Congress now wants to tame the monster it has helped create by reining in on
buybacks. But with fears that a market top could be near, the timing would be wrong since
buybacks provide a large source of demand for shares.
In an article by Mehan R. Wislon in "The Hill" (12/01/17) one can read that:
"With their enormous complexity and high-stakes, tax issues are the buffet that keeps
Washington's swamp creatures fed," Public Citizen said in the conclusion of its report. "
"But the success of the nation's largest corporations and wealthiest interests in shaping
the current tax legislation to suit their interests shows that bankrolling the lobbyists'
unending feast is a small bill to pay in the big scheme of things -- because it is a very big
scheme, indeed."
American companies are trying to tell us they are demand driven and they won't invest in
expansion until they can see the demand in the system to make it worth their while.
How would an open, globalised world work against the West and in favor of the East? The 1% would get better returns from investing their capital in the rapidly growing Asian
economies than the mature economies of the West. Multi-national corporations could make higher profits in Asia due to the low cost of
living that they had to cover in wages.
(Employees get their money from wages, so the employer pays through wages.)
The West never did work out what was going on, but now the more developed Eastern
economies are seeing the same thing and are looking into it.
Richard Koo explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwxhT8e7xQ Higher returns on capital are affecting their economies as they off-shore to places where
they can pay lower wages for higher profits.
Richard Koo asked American firms where they are expanding their capacity.
They said it was in Mexico as it's cheaper and they can make more profit. Do the maths. To maximise profit you need to minimise labour costs, i.e. wages. Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living). The minimum wage leaves no disposable income. Minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living
The cost of living = housing costs + healthcare costs + student loan costs + food + other
costs of living
Employees get their money from wages and employers have to pay the US cost of living in
wages unless they off-shore to somewhere cheaper, like Mexico.
The developed Eastern economies are now finding they are in same situation as the West has
been for the last few decades and they are coming up with explanations and solutions, unlike
our own experts.
The American people should be screaming about the fact most of these corporations barely
pay any taxes at all to keep this country running. But silence. Why is there such slavish loyalty to corporations by Americans when most aren't even
employed by them?
Well that is twice now that corporate America has repatriated hundreds of billions from
overseas and each time, so far as I know, it was used for stock buybacks, executive bonuses,
vanity projects, etc. Not for investment, not for research, not for up-skilling their
workforce or expanding their operations but just playing Wall Street games.
I would judge
that before trying to go after all this money overseas, that it will be necessary to impose a
working taxation system on corporate America first. To earn over $11.2 billion in tax but to
not only not get taxed but to earn a rebate illustrates how broken the system is.
At the
moment, the corporate tax rate is supposed to be 21% so perhaps they can bring out a tax on
gross corporate income of 21% – but with no rebates or anything at all that can be
taken from this amount. Just a flat out tax.
By my calculations, Jeff Bezos thus owes the US
government $2,352,000,000 in taxes. I'm sure that a cheque from him would do just fine.
At CNN's town hall
event on Monday, the American people saw something we'd been told was impossible: Elizabeth
Warren winning over a crowd.
The Massachusetts senator took aim at a variety of subjects: the Electoral College,
Mississippi's racist state flag, the rise of
white nationalism . Always, she was met with thunderous applause. Even a simple Bible verse
-- from Matthew 25:35–40, about moral obligation to the poor and hungry -- prompted
cheers so loud and prolonged that Warren had to pause and repeat herself in order to make her
voice heard over the noise. Yet this was the same woman the media routinely frames as too
wonky, too nerdy, too socially stunted. But then, Warren has always been an exceptionally
charismatic candidate. We just forget that fact when she's campaigning -- due, in large part,
to our deep and lingering distrust for female intelligence.
Warren is bursting with what we might call "charisma" in male candidates: She has the folksy
demeanor of Joe Biden, the ferocious conviction of Bernie Sanders, the deep intelligence of
fellow law professor Barack Obama. But Warren is not a man, and so those traits are framed as
liabilities, rather than strengths. According to the media, Warren is an uptight schoolmarm, a
" wonky
professor ," a scold, a wimpy Dukakis, a wooden John Kerry, or (worse) a nerdier Al
Gore.
The criticism has hit her from the left and right. The far-right Daily Caller accused
her of looking
weird when she drank beer ; on social media, conservatives spread vicious (and viciously
ableist) rumors that Warren took antipsychotic drugs that treated "irritability caused by
autism ." On the other end
of the spectrum, Amber A'Lee Frost, the lone female co-host of the socialist podcast Chapo
Trap House , wrote for The Baffler (and, when The Baffler retracted her
article, for Jacobin) that Warren was "
weak " and "
not charismatic ." Frost deplored the "Type-A Tracy Flicks" who dared support "this Lisa
Simpson of a dark-horse candidate."
Casting Warren as a sheltered, Ivory Tower type is odd, given that her politics and diction
are not exactly elitist. Yet none of this is new; the same stereotypes were levied against
Warren in 2011, during her Senate campaign.
Strangely, the first nerdification of Warren was a purely local phenomenon -- one which
happened even as national media was falling in love with her. Jon Stewart publicly
adored her , and her ingenuity in proposing the creation of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau a few years prior earned her respect among the rising populist wing of the
party. Her fame was further catapulted when a speech -- a video of Warren speaking, seemingly
off-the-cuff , in a constituent's living room -- went viral. "Nobody in this country got
rich on his own, nobody," Warren proclaimed, pointing up the ways entrepreneurs benefit from
publicly funded services like roads and schools and fire departments.
"First-time candidates don't usually articulate a progressive economic message quite this
well," the Washington
Monthly declared . The New Yorker called it " the most important political
speech of this campaign season. " That enthusiasm continued throughout Warren's first
Senate bid. Writing for the New York Times , Rebecca Traister noted
that "the early devotion to Warren recalls the ardor once felt by many for Obama." (Obama
himself famously echoed
Warren's message -- "you didn't build that" -- on the 2012 campaign trail.)
Locally, Warren prompted a much different discussion, with scores of Massachusetts analysts
describing her as stiff and unlikable. Boston-based Democratic analyst Dan Payne bemoaned her
"know-it-all style" and wished aloud she would " be more authentic I want her to
just sound like a human being, not read the script that makes her sound like some angry,
hectoring schoolmarm." In a long profile for Boston magazine, reporter Janelle Nanos
quoted Thomas Whalen, a political historian at Boston University, who called Warren a "flawed
candidate," someone who was " desperately
trying to find a message that's going to resonate. " In that same article, Nanos asked
Warren point-blank about her "likability problem." Warren's response seemed to stem from deep
frustration: "People tell me everywhere I go why they care that I got in this race," she said.
"I can't answer the question because I literally haven't experienced what you're talking
about."
By demanding that Warren disguise her exceptional talents, we are asking her to lose.
Thankfully, she's not listening.
There's an element of gaslighting here: It only takes a reporter a few sources -- and an
op-ed columnist a single, fleeting judgment -- to declare a candidate "unlikable." After that
label has been applied, any effort the candidate makes to win people over can be cast as
"inauthentic." Likability is in this way a self-reinforcing accusation, one which is amplified
every time the candidate tries to tackle it. (Recall Hillary Clinton, who was asked about her
"likability" at seemingly
every debate or
town hall for eight straight years -- then furiously accused of pandering every time she
made an effort to seem more "approachable.")
It's significant that the "
I hate you; please respond" line of political sabotage only ever seems to be aimed at
women. It's also revealing that, when all these men talked about how Warren could win them
over, their "campaign" advice sounded suspiciously close to makeover tips. In his article,
Payne advised Warren to "lose the
granny glasses," "soften the hair," and employ a professional voice coach to "deepen her voice,
which grates on some." Payne seemed to suggest that Elizabeth Warren look like a model and
sound like a
man -- anything to disguise the grisly reality of a smart woman making her case.
Warren won her Senate race, and the "schoolmarm" stereotype largely vanished as her national
profile grew. By 2014, grassroots activists were begging her to run for president; by mid-2016,
CNN had named her " Donald Trump's chief antagonist ." She's
since given a stream of incendiary interviews and handed the contemporary women's movement its
most popular
meme . All this should be enough to prove any candidate's "charisma." Yet, now that she's
thrown her hat into the presidential ring, the firebrand has become a Poindexter once
again.
The digs at Warren's "professorial" style hurt her because, on some level, they're true.
Warren really is an intellectual, a scholar; moreover, she really is running an exceptionally
ideas-focused campaign, regularly turning out detailed and exhaustive policy proposals at a
point when most of the other candidates don't even have policy sections on their websites.
What's galling is the suggestion that this is a bad thing.
Yes, male candidates have suffered from being too smart -- just ask Gore, who ran on climate
change 20 years before it was trendy. But just as often, their intelligence helps them. Obama's
sophistication and
public reading lists endeared him to liberals. And just a few days ago, Indiana Mayor Pete
Buttigieg was widely praised for learning
Norwegian in order to read an author's untranslated works. Yet, Warren is dorky, a teacher's
pet, a try-hard Tracy Flick, or Lisa Simpson. A "know-it-all."
The "schoolmarm" stereotype now applied to Warren has always been used to demean educated
women. In the Victorian era, we called them "bluestockings" -- unmarried, unattractive women
who had dared to prioritize intellectual development over finding a man. They are, in the words
of one contemporary writer, "
frumpy and frowly in the extreme, with no social talents ." Educators say that 21st century
girls are still afraid to talk in class because of "sexist bullying" which sends the message
that smart girls are unfeminine: "For girls, peers tell them 'if you are swotty and clever and
answer too many questions, you are not attractive ,'" claims Mary
Bousted, joint general-secretary of the U.K.'s National Education Union. Female academics still
report being made to feel " unsexual, unattractive, unwomanly, and
unnatural. " We can deplore all this as antiquated thinking, but even now, grown men are
still demanding that Warren ditch her glasses or "soften" her hair -- to work on being prettier
so as to make her intelligence less threatening.
Warren is cast as a bloodless intellectual when she focuses on policy, a scolding lecturer
when she leans into her skills as a rabble-rouser; either way, her intelligence is always too
much and out of place. Her eloquence is framed, not as inspiring, but as "angry" and
"hectoring." Being an effective orator makes her "strident." It's not solely confined to the
media, but reporters seem anxious to signal-boost anyone who complains: Anonymous male
colleagues call her "irritating," telling Vanity Fair that "she projects a 'holier than
thou' attitude" and that "
she has a moralizing to her. " That same quality in male candidates is hailed as moral
clarity.
Warren is accused, in plain language, of being uppity -- a woman who has the bad grace to be
smarter than the men around her, without downplaying it to assuage their egos. But running in a
presidential race is all about proving that you are smarter than the other guy. By demanding
that Warren disguise her exceptional talents, we are asking her to lose. Thankfully, she's not
listening. She is a smart woman, after all.
OMG! How far the mighty MSM doyen The Washington Post has fallen. Those halcyon days of
Woodward and Bernstein are now but a distant memory. The shinning victory of driving the
hated President Richard Nixon from high office ... a ... myth ... morons ... We the people
...
Grey prostitute usually adopts pro-isreal position as for Iran deal. no suprose here. Why
Trump admnistration did the same is an interesting question. Is this Kushner influnce? is this
Trump jewesh ficnacier influnce? or Both?
Notable quotes:
"... As a nonproliferation agreement, the JCPOA continues to work as intended despite the active sabotage of the Trump administration. That is a testament to the value of the agreement and to the overwhelming international consensus in favor of it. The U.S. has stupidly and unnecessarily broken with that consensus for the sake of its obsession with hostility towards Iran. ..."
tries to claim
that reneging on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has been good for the U.S.:
It's been nearly a year since Donald Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Iran
nuclear deal, to loud cries that it would bring nothing but woe to the United States and our
interests in the Middle East.
So far, the result has been closer to the opposite.
Nuclear deal opponents always argue in bad faith, and Stephens' latest column is no
exception. For starters, virtually no one said that reneging on the deal would bring "nothing
but woe." It was nonetheless an irrational, costly decision whose costs continue to add up as
time goes by. Some of the worst-case scenarios have not yet happened, but reneging on the deal
has done nothing but harm U.S. interests and our relations with major allies. No one can point
to any real gains for the U.S., and even by the Trump administration's own standards their Iran
policy has failed to achieve anything. U.S. relations with European allies have come under
significant strain, and their determination to sustain the deal has led them to create
workarounds to allow legitimate trade with Iran to continue. Pressuring Iraq to join the
anti-Iran sanctions has likewise strained relations with Baghdad and contributed to the
backlash against the U.S. there.
Stephens applauds the damage that the reimposition of U.S. sanctions is doing to Iran's
economy, but inflicting pain for its own sake is pointless cruelty. The U.S. gains nothing from
this, and it imposes enormous costs on the Iranian people who bear most of the burden. The
sanctions were originally created to pressure Iran into making the concessions on the nuclear
issue that they have made. The sanctions cannot do anything except inflict damage on Iran's
economy because Iran's government is already doing the things that were required to get them
lifted. Strangling Iran's economy doesn't make the U.S. any safer, but it does make us seem
treacherous and underhanded in our dealings with other states. Reneging on the JCPOA has
inflicted diplomatic and political costs on the U.S. that make it more difficult for any other
government to trust ours to honor its side of agreements, and it has made a mockery of our
government's commitment to nonproliferation.
It needs to be emphasized here that all of the costs of reneging on the deal are purely
self-inflicted. The president pandered to the ideologues and hard-liners that hated the deal
from the beginning and made an unnecessary, irresponsible decision to give up on a successful
agreement. Meanwhile, the vast majority of arms control and nuclear experts opposed the
decision. All that the U.S. had to do to keep faith with Iran and the other parties was to lift
sanctions and keep them lifted. It cost us nothing to do this, and it created an opening for
reduced tensions and improved relations with Iran that stood to benefit both of our countries
and the surrounding region. Throwing that away has gained the U.S. nothing, and it has isolated
the U.S. internationally from almost all other governments that support the agreement. Any fair
and honest reckoning of the costs and benefits of Trump's decision to renege would show that
the U.S. is now in a worse and weaker position than it was before that decision. It is the
definition of a foreign policy fiasco.
U.S. withdrawal has not caused the agreement to collapse yet, but that is only because all
of the other parties to it have made concerted efforts to keep it alive in spite of completely
unwarranted sanctions. Contrary to hawkish predictions that Iran would cheat on the agreement,
Iran has fulfilled its obligations to the satisfaction of the IAEA for more than three years.
Even though Iran has received very few of the promised benefits for complying with the
agreement, Iran has done what it said it would do. That doesn't line up very well with the Iran
hawks' usual picture of a fanatical government hell-bent on acquiring a nuke.
As a
nonproliferation agreement, the JCPOA continues to work as intended despite the active sabotage
of the Trump administration. That is a testament to the value of the agreement and to the
overwhelming international consensus in favor of it. The U.S. has stupidly and unnecessarily
broken with that consensus for the sake of its obsession with hostility towards Iran.
This bit may be the least credible part of Stephens' column:
The point isn't to punish Iran for punishment's sake. It's to create leverage for a better
nuclear deal.
If unjustly reimposing sanctions on Iran was meant to "create leverage for a better nuclear
deal," it has completely failed. Iran has no interest in renegotiating the agreement that it
has honored from the start, and it has no reason to trust the government that just went back on
its word that it will obtain sanctions relief by offering more concessions. Quitting agreements
does not create additional leverage on the other parties to an agreement. It necessarily
weakens the U.S. position by making our promises seem worthless. A "better" deal isn't
possible, but then Iran hawks' interest in one has always been disingenuous. They have never
wanted a "better" deal. They have wanted Iranian capitulation. That is reflected in the
preposterous demands that Pompeo made last year. No Iranian government would ever agree to the
vast majority of those demands, and they amount to abandoning its foreign policy and its
nuclear program. Stephens marvels that "any of it should be controversial," which should tell
you how clueless he is.
It's worth noting here that Stephens has been and still is one of the most fanatical
opponents of the nuclear deal. When the P5+1 concluded the interim nuclear deal, the Joint Plan
of Action (JPOA), in 2013, he asserted
that forerunner to the JCPOA was "worse than Munich." Anyone who invoked Nazi appeasement in
the context of negotiations for a nonproliferation agreement has no credibility to chide anyone
else about anything related to foreign policy.
Stephens declares:
Non-nuclear states that sponsor terrorism and subscribe to millenarian ideologies should
never have access to any part of the nuclear fuel cycle, ever.
Here he is falling back on an old, discredited trope of Iran as a "martyr-state" to
support his fanatical position that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear program at all. Not only is
the Iranian government not filled with "millenarian" zealots (they are interested in
self-preservation and staying in power just like any regime), but Stephens ignores that Iran is
entitled to possess and develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). If the U.S. seeks to deprive them of that access, they might
end up choosing to go the North Korea route by leaving the treaty and developing nuclear
weapons. That isn't the most likely outcome right now, but the more that the U.S. pressures
Iran the greater their incentive to acquire a nuclear deterrent becomes.
Stephens concludes:
The Trump administration has succeeded in dramatically raising the costs to Iran for its
sinister behavior, at no cost to the United States or our allies.
U.S.-European relations are frayed and probably worse than at any time since the Iraq war
debate, and those strains have mostly been caused by the administration's bankrupt Iran policy.
Our government has violated the JCPOA and the Security Council resolution that endorsed it, and
that has both left the U.S. isolated on this issue and weakened our position internationally.
Our allies have been forced to defend themselves against U.S. sanctions, and their efforts to
circumvent the sanctions will have longer term negative consequences for U.S. foreign policy.
The Iranian government's behavior has not changed significantly, and the costs borne by the
Iranian people are very high. Our government is inflicting collective punishment of an entire
nation for no good reason, and we are teaching another generation of Iranians to loathe and
distrust us. Stephens can ignore reality if he wants, but the costs to the U.S. and our allies
are real and growing.
Reneging on the nuclear deal was a destructive and stupid move, and the U.S. will be paying
for it for years to come. If it hasn't led to the worst possible outcomes yet, that doesn't
change the fact that it has been a colossal blunder and a huge own goal by the Trump
administration. It isn't surprising that a hardened ideologue like Stephens defends such a bad
decision, but his readers are poorly served by his propaganda masquerading as
analysis.
If the anti-deal hawks got their way, Iran would have the bomb by now
How this isn't obvious to them is beyond me, it makes me wonder if their actual plan was
to ratchet up tensions so they would have no choice but to invade to stop Iran from getting
the bomb. They would get to accomplish their true goal, regime change.
You also have those outraged that Obama 'gave' the Iranians billions. First off Obama gave
them nothing, it was their money. Many of them know this but it sounds better to pretend it
was US taxpayer dollars instead of Iranian money in frozen accounts. Then it seems they don't
know how deals are supposed to work, you can't expect to get something it you offer nothing
in return.
"... I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode. ..."
"... The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state and the oligarchs ..."
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
"... the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense ..."
"... Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted. Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered, hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent. ..."
"... The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump, and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya. ..."
Thaks b, now that is a delightful question to pose on the eve of April fool's day.
My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the yankee imperial
machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the
results. They are panicked!
I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many
people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the
entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode.
The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state
and the oligarchs. Do any of our comrades have a handle on this type of research and the
implication for voter attitudes?
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
"... "Now is the Time for Better Relations With Russia" – Yes it is. Much good could come from a second detente with Russia. However, this is only viable if our representatives and negotiators are not corrupt and are working in the interests of America. Their motives must not include personal enrichment. ..."
"... The next president should attempt a reset with Russia. There is much potential benefit for both countries and their citizens. Unfortunately President Trump has poisoned the well, so to speak, for better Russian relations while he is in office. Just another reason to vote him out in 2020. ..."
"... Trump is now fully enclosed in a neocon bubble. There will be no re-approaching Russia unless it suits Israel for some reason, and that seems unlikely. ..."
"... Face it. The only way out of the Israel-centric foreign policy black hole we're in now is to kick him out. Maybe the Democrat candidate will be able to do what Trump wanted to do back during the campaign. Trump himself can't. ..."
"... However, it is not a vassal and it serves the purpose of a fabricated enemy to support the gargantuan spending on the military/industrial/intelligence complex. ..."
"... The best we can hope for at this point is that we avoid a catastrophic mistake that would lead to a war with Russia that would end the existence of the US if not civilization. ..."
"Now is the Time for Better Relations With Russia" – Yes it is. Much good could come
from a second detente with Russia. However, this is only viable if our representatives and
negotiators are not corrupt and are working in the interests of America. Their motives must
not include personal enrichment.
The process must be bipartisan and as open as possible.
When candidate Trump initially opined that better relations with Russia were a good goal,
I strongly agreed. Even though I was aware, and wary of, his real estate and business
dealings with Deutsche Bank, Russian oligarchs and other very wealthy Russians. I was also
aware, and wary of, his shady business practices and history.
Now, unfortunately, it has become crystal clear that Trump was operating to benefit his
personal interests, and maybe somewhat, coincidentally, the interests of America.
The next president should attempt a reset with Russia. There is much potential benefit for
both countries and their citizens. Unfortunately President Trump has poisoned the well, so
to speak, for better Russian relations while he is in office. Just another reason to vote
him out in 2020.
Why do you bother to suggest what Trump "should" do? We know who he is. He's Hillary in an
orange wig. You could validly suggest what a sane President "would" do, but we'll never have
a sane President, so it's a moot point.
Black Card, March 28, 2019 at 7:19 pm
Too late, I'm afraid. Trump is now fully enclosed in a neocon bubble. There will be no re-approaching Russia unless it
suits Israel for some reason, and that seems unlikely.
Face it. The only way out of the Israel-centric foreign policy black hole we're in now is to kick him out. Maybe the
Democrat candidate will be able to do what Trump wanted to do back during the campaign. Trump himself can't.
SteveK9, March 29, 2019 at 7:19 am
Russia did not 'interfere' in the US election in any way at all. It is not an enemy.
However, it is not a vassal and it serves the purpose of a fabricated enemy to support the gargantuan spending on the
military/industrial/intelligence complex.
It also served the purpose of the Democratic Party to deflect attention from the deep corruption of the leadership of the
party and the fact that it no longer represents the working-class in any meaningful way.
The relationship with Russia has been poisoned to such a degree by a tidal wave of US propaganda that it's unlikely there
will be any real improvement in relations in the near or even distant future. Too many people have swallowed the nonsense
about Russia at this point, and it has become a core 'belief' for Democrats as part of their 'resistance' to Trump. It
matters not in the least that Trump has taken relations with Russia to a new low in fact there is no logic in any of it.
The best we can hope for at this point is that we avoid a catastrophic mistake that would lead to a war with Russia
that would end the existence of the US if not civilization.
Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National
Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an
effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks
that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among
us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials
who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this
issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.
Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National
Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an
effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks
that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among
us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials
who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this
issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.
"... Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House next week ahead of his April 9 re-election vote. While he's officially coming for the AIPAC conference, an annual pro-Israel policy gathering, his visit will serve up excellent campaign material back home. He's certain to be photographed meeting Trump while his speech, delivered in his American-accented baritone, will get plenty of airtime in Israel. ..."
"... "What Trump is doing is totally gratuitous," said Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Bill Clinton. "He is intervening in an Israeli election for the sake of his friend Bibi Netanyahu, and in the process undermining Israel's chances of achieving peace with its neighbor Syria." ..."
"... Asked about the report, which dropped the previous use of the word "occupied" in reference to the Golan Heights, West Bank, and Gaza, Pompeo said the change in language was intentional. "It wasn't a mistake; it wasn't an error. It was done knowingly. We believe it's the most factual description that was appropriate for the report," he said. ..."
"... "I can say that all of you can imagine what would have happened if Israel were not in the Golan," Netanyahu said. "I think it's time the international community recognizes Israel's stay in the Golan, the fact that the Golan will always remain part of the state of Israel." ..."
"... Pompeo told reporters at a briefing in Kuwait on Wednesday that there had been no change in U.S. policy toward the Golan Heights. In a media roundtable on Thursday, he declined to say whether the U.S. was weighing whether to recognize Israel's annexation of the Golan. ..."
Trump Supports Israel Sovereignty Over Golan, Aiding Netanyahu
Netanyahu to visit Trump next week ahead of tough re-election
Move would be at odds with longstanding international policy
President Donald Trump said it's time for the
U.S. to "fully recognize" Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, a political gift to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just
weeks before a tough re-election vote.
The remark -- which would break with decades of U.S. policy -- could prove decisive in swaying Israeli voters just as Netanyahu
faces corruption allegations that have marred his campaign. It is also likely to draw a rebuke from the international community,
which never recognized Israel's sovereignty over the territory it captured in 1967.
"The message that President Trump has given the world is that America stands by Israel," Netanyahu said Thursday after Trump's
tweet.
Trump's message came a day after Netanyahu, in a press briefing with Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in Jerusalem, called for
the U.S. and the rest of the world to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Israel extended its law to the area in
1981.
The future of the plateau, a scenic area containing important water sources, had long been considered a subject for negotiation
in any potential peace agreement with Syria. Now, with Syria wracked by a civil war that includes support from Iran, Israel wants
its control over the area to be recognized worldwide.
"I've been thinking about doing that for a long time," Trump said in an interview to be broadcast Friday on Fox Business Network's
"Mornings With Maria." "It's been a very hard decision for every president, no president has done it. This is very much like Jerusalem,
moving the embassy to Jerusalem -- I did that."
While the news was welcomed by most Israelis, some saw it as a cynical ploy to interfere in their election and help Netanyahu
at a time when he's facing increasing scrutiny in a sprawling corruption probe. Merav Michaeli, a member of the opposition Labor
party, said there's little national debate that the Golan should stay in Israeli hands.
It "only helps public opinion for Netanyahu," she added. "That's why it came now. And so it doesn't really benefit Israel now,
it benefits Netanyahu."
Netanyahu is scheduled to visit the White House next week ahead of his April 9 re-election vote. While he's officially coming
for the AIPAC conference, an annual pro-Israel policy gathering, his visit will serve up excellent campaign material back home. He's
certain to be photographed meeting Trump while his speech, delivered in his American-accented baritone, will get plenty of airtime
in Israel.
"What Trump is doing is totally gratuitous," said Martin Indyk, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel under President Bill Clinton.
"He is intervening in an Israeli election for the sake of his friend Bibi Netanyahu, and in the process undermining Israel's chances
of achieving peace with its neighbor Syria."
Trump's move may also give the president a political boost as he courts Jewish voters in the U.S.
The U.S. had signaled strongly in recent weeks it was ready to accept Israeli sovereignty. In an annual report on human rights
released last week, the State Department referred to the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza as "Israeli-controlled," not "Israeli-occupied."
Asked about the report, which dropped the previous use of the word "occupied" in reference to the Golan Heights, West Bank, and
Gaza, Pompeo said the change in language was intentional. "It wasn't a mistake; it wasn't an error. It was done knowingly. We believe it's the most factual description that was appropriate
for the report," he said.
American support for Israel has strengthened under Trump, who moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018 and backed
out of the nuclear agreement his predecessor Barack Obama negotiated with Iran, a cherished goal of Netanyahu.
Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official, said Trump's move would destabilize the region.
"I can say that all of you can imagine what would have happened if Israel were not in the Golan," Netanyahu said. "I think it's
time the international community recognizes Israel's stay in the Golan, the fact that the Golan will always remain part of the state
of Israel."
The U.S. recognition underscores the changing reality on the ground, as the chances of Israel returning the northern territory
to Syria diminished.
Pompeo told reporters at a briefing in Kuwait on Wednesday that there had been no change in U.S. policy toward the Golan Heights.
In a media roundtable on Thursday, he declined to say whether the U.S. was weighing whether to recognize Israel's annexation of the
Golan.
"The administration's considering lots of things always, and I try to make sure we get to answers before we talk
That was written in March 2017. Looks like Paul Craig Roberts was completely detached from reality
Notable quotes:
"... By standing up for Americans, Trump alienated the global corporations, their executives and shareholders, all of whom benefit from stealing the economic life of Americans and producing abroad where labor and regulatory costs are lower. Neoliberal junk economists describe this labor arbitrage, which reduces the real incomes of the American labor force, as the beneficial working of free trade. ..."
"... These offshoring firms not only have destroyed the economic prospects of millions of Americans, but also have destroyed the payroll tax base of Social Security and Medicare, and the tax base of local and state governments, with the consequence that numerous pension systems are on the verge of failure. The New York Teamsters Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund has just failed. This failure, experts predict, is the beginning of a tsunami that will spread into municipal and state pension systems. ..."
"... Once Trump put Flynn's blood in the water, he set the situation for the sacrifice of other of his appointees, ending with himself. At the present time, "the Russian connection" black mark is operating against Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. If Sessions falls, Trump is next. ..."
"... Despite the facts, the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and all the rest of the CIA's media whores are consciously and intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Americans do not need any more evidence that the entirety of the American media is totally devoid of integrity and respect for truth. The American media is a collection of whores who lie for a living. The presstitutes are despicable, the scum of the earth. ..."
"... The real question is how has contact with Russian government officials become criminalized, grounds for removing a National Security Adviser, an Attorney General, and impeaching a President himself. President John F. Kennedy had ongoing contact with Khrushchev, the head of the Soviet government, in order to resolve the Cuban/Turkish missile crisis without nuclear war. President Nixon had ongoing contact with the Russians in order to achieve SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. President Carter had ongoing contact with Russians in order to achieve SALT II. President Reagan worked with the Russian leader in order to end the Cold War. I know. I was there. ..."
"... Dear reader, ask yourself, how did communications with Russians in the interest of peace and the reduction of tensions become a criminal act? Have laws been passed that it is forbidden for US officials to speak with Russian officials? Are you so utterly stupid that a presstitute media that has never in your entire life told you anything that was truthful can convince you that those who seek to avoid a conflict between thermo-nuclear powers are "Russian agents"? ..."
"... The entirety of the world has been put on the knife edge of existence by the arrogance, stupidity, and hubris of the neoconservative pursuit of American world hegemony. The neoconservative ideology is perfect cover for the material interest of the military/security Deep State that is driving the world to destruction. ..."
"... W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?" HW Bush: "You want names or description?" W: "Description." HW: "Israel." ..."
"... "To see who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." -Voltaire ..."
"... Hint: If you criticize them, you're called an anti-Semite. And they're not even Semites. ..."
"... Insouciant is merely Paul Craig Roberts way of registering his extreme disgust, being a gentlemen, unlike me, he doesn't use other, more crude adjectives .. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is calculated, but is driven by desperation.. Trump has resources now that he did not have as a candidate, and he is using them. Yes, it is taking longer than we hoped, but the progressives are doing everything possible to slow if not stop him. I seriously doubt any president has faced such resistance before. We still don't know the story behind Flynn. He surely knew his phones were tapped and is surely smart enough to know they would leak it. And, while he lost his title, he is still there with his team. ..."
"... No, because if he gets too close to anything important his family members start dropping dead. He knows this... he knew it before he ran. If he goes after the rothchild-backed cabal he gets dead. ..."
"... It's war and there is no going back. Trump has the will and the resources, so all we can do is support where possible....and hope. ..."
"... The public does know what is going on. Nobody is being fooled. The problem is that the press presents the narrative (often implicitly) that gives the impression PCR is conveying here. ..."
The question in the title is V.I. Lenin's question. His answer was to create a revolutionary "vanguard" to spread
revolutionary ideas among the workers, the economic class that Karl Marx had declared to be the class rising to the ascendency of
political power. Finally, democracy, frustrated by upper class interests in its earlier manifestations, would become reality. The
workers would rule.
Given the presence of evil and human failing, it did not work out in that way. But Lenin's question remains a valid one.
Americans whose economic life and prospects for their children have been destroyed by the offshoring of American manufacturing and
tradable professional skills jobs, such as software engineering, answered the question by electing Donald Trump.
The Americans, dispossessed by the offshoring corporations, elected Trump, because Trump was the only American running for a political
office who called attention to the problem and declared his intention to fix it.
By standing up for Americans, Trump alienated the global corporations, their executives and shareholders, all of whom benefit
from stealing the economic life of Americans and producing abroad where labor and regulatory costs are lower. Neoliberal junk economists
describe this labor arbitrage, which reduces the real incomes of the American labor force, as the beneficial working of free trade.
These offshoring firms not only have destroyed the economic prospects of millions of Americans, but also have destroyed the
payroll tax base of Social Security and Medicare, and the tax base of local and state governments, with the consequence that numerous
pension systems are on the verge of failure. The New York Teamsters Road Carriers Local 707 Pension Fund has just failed. This failure,
experts predict, is the beginning of a tsunami that will spread into municipal and state pension systems.
When you add up the external costs of jobs offshoring that are imposed on Americans, the costs far exceed the value of the profits
that flow to the One Percent. Clearly, this is an intolerable situation.
Dispossessed Americans rose up. They ignored the presstitute media, or perhaps were driven to support Trump by
the hostility of the media. Trump was elected by dispossessed America, by the working class.
The working class is out of favor with the elite liberal/progressive/left which abhors the working class as racist, misogynist,
homophobic, gun nuts who oppose transgendered toilet facilities. Thus, the working class, and their chosen representative,
Donald Trump, are under full assault by the presstitutes. "Trump Must Go" is their slogan.
And well he might. Trump, in a fit of stupidity, dismissed his National Security Advisor, Gen. Flynn, because Flynn did what he
should have done and spoke with the Russian ambassador in order to avoid a Russian response to Obama's provocation of expelling Russian
diplomats at Christmas.
Russians have been demonized and ascribed demonic powers. If you speak to a Russian, you fall under suspicion
and become a traitor to your country. This is the story according to the CIA, the Democratic Party, the military/security complex,
and the presstitute media.
Once Trump put Flynn's blood in the water, he set the situation for the sacrifice of other of his appointees, ending with himself.
At the present time, "the Russian connection" black mark is operating against Trump's Attorney General, Jeff Sessions. If Sessions
falls, Trump is next.
Let's be clear. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sessions met with the Russian ambassador, just as he met with
a number of other countries' ambassadors. There is nothing unusual or surprising about a US senator meeting with foreign diplomatic
representatives.
Those who accuse Sessions of lying are misrepresenting the facts. Sessions met with ambassadors in his capacity
as a US Senator, not in his capacity as a Trump representative. As a former US Senate staffer, I can attest that it is perfectly
normal for US Senators to meet with diplomats. John McCain and Lindsey Graham even fly to the Middle East to meet with terrorists.
Despite the facts, the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and all the rest of the CIA's media whores are consciously and
intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Americans do not need any more evidence that the entirety of the American media is totally
devoid of integrity and respect for truth. The American media is a collection of whores who lie for a living. The presstitutes are
despicable, the scum of the earth.
The real question is how has contact with Russian government officials become criminalized, grounds for removing a National
Security Adviser, an Attorney General, and impeaching a President himself. President John F. Kennedy had ongoing contact with Khrushchev,
the head of the Soviet government, in order to resolve the Cuban/Turkish missile crisis without nuclear war. President Nixon had
ongoing contact with the Russians in order to achieve SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. President Carter had ongoing
contact with Russians in order to achieve SALT II. President Reagan worked with the Russian leader in order to end the Cold War.
I know. I was there.
But if President Trump wants to defuse the extremely dangerous tensions that the reckless Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes
have resurrected with a powerful thermo-nuclear state that only wants peace with the US, President Trump and any of his appointees
who spoke to a Russian are unfit for office! This madness is the position of the idiot liberal/progressive/left, the CIA,
the Democratic Party, the right-wing morons of the Republican Party such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, and the two-bit whores
that comprise the Western media.
Dear reader, ask yourself, how did communications with Russians in the interest of peace and the reduction of tensions become
a criminal act? Have laws been passed that it is forbidden for US officials to speak with Russian officials? Are you so utterly stupid
that a presstitute media that has never in your entire life told you anything that was truthful can convince you that those who seek
to avoid a conflict between thermo-nuclear powers are "Russian agents"?
I have no doubt that the vast bulk of Western populations are insouciant. But if there is no intelligence and
awareness left anywhere in the population, and most certainly there is none whatsoever in the governments of the West or in the Western
media or the Identity Politics of the liberal/progressive/left, then don't expect to be alive much longer.
The entirety of the world has been put on the knife edge of existence by the arrogance, stupidity, and hubris of the neoconservative
pursuit of American world hegemony. The neoconservative ideology is perfect cover for the material interest of the military/security
Deep State that is driving the world to destruction.
Trump needs to tighten up. Get even tougher than he is now. Go out and do more speeches. Take the message STRAIGHT to the masses.........unfiltered.
LET the MSM "fake" that.
W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?" HW Bush: "You want names or description?" W: "Description." HW: "Israel."
The neocons are Israel-first fanatics. They did 9/11 and support all terrorist groups. And because Russia came to Syria's aid,
they're after Russia as well.
In Dr Strangelove, the mindblowingly stupid response of the characters played by the generals saying "attack Russia no matter
what they do" was portrayed as a joke, and the audience got it. Nobody could be that stupid, so it looked funny.
We are in desperately sick times when the attitude displayed by those comedically-stupid characters has become our official
policy and our propaganda.
Let's pray the American people are not yet completely stupid, and that there are still enough who see this insanity for the
immediate and extreme danger that it is.
The purpose of all of this "RussiaDidIt" bollocks has long been postulated as having the purpose of starting the Last War.
The question arises: "Who benefits?" (Ordinarily, no-one 'benefits' and only morons think that a 'benefit' could arise)
But, just for a moment, turn it on its head and ask the counter-question: "Who benefits the least ?"
Pretty obviously, the USA and the Russian Federation come out badly. Assume the impossible: that it doesn't spread out and
result in planetdeath.
Who just (quite coincidentally - of course) had its main rivals effectively eliminated? Quietly. Efficiently. Anonymously...
Who, currently quietly colonizing Africa for its resorce base, might now divert their attentions to the (much greater and closer)
resource base to their North, West and East, ostensibly in the name of "reconstruction?"
Naturally, it's just a coincidence that a large slice of Global Manufacturing has recently been transferred to that country
(recent decades)
So congrats are due to the DemoCrud skum who perpetrated this crime against humanity as the willing "useful idiots" of the
PuppetMasters. Burn in Hell you motherfukkerz.
The only way to "drain the swamp" is to eliminate the brainwashed masses who enable the warmongering globalist neocons. Without
the democratic partys' tens of million sheeple, the power hungry devils like Soros, the Clintons, McCain, Pelosi, Feinstein, and
the rest of the "perverted elite" would have no power.
Having considered this FACT, I have decided not to oppose their quest to start a global thermonuclear war with Russia. I saw
war up close and personal in Viet-Nam. I am 71 years old, so not much time remaining to waste in a political battle against the
snowflakes here in Californicate. I feel confident that I have a better chance of surviving than they do.
I have also decided to sit back, with my personal defenses in hand, and watch them experience, up close and personal for themselves,
the horrors of war like they are presently inflicting on the mid-eastern countries. The children of these despots, if they survive,
will finally witness proof that their parents are the cause of their misery.
Then, and only then, will the survivors be able to reconstruct toward a peaceful world.
1. free from concern, worry, or anxiety; carefree; nonchalant.
I agree, we're way past that ... Robert's knows this , all too well ..
Insouciant is merely Paul Craig Roberts way of registering his extreme disgust, being a gentlemen, unlike me, he doesn't
use other, more crude adjectives ..
I cut him slack on his overuse of the word insouciant, because it would just seem so out of place substituting instead, "fucking
assholes," for every place it is prominently used in his writing.
I mean can you imagine?
No, I'm glad he's more refined than me. Makes for a more interesting and gentile world.
Hahaa Dr Strangelove. Strange movie, for even stranger times
"They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist
infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all
of our precious bodily fluids."
What we are witnessing is calculated, but is driven by desperation.. Trump has resources now that he did not have as a
candidate, and he is using them. Yes, it is taking longer than we hoped, but the progressives are doing everything possible to
slow if not stop him. I seriously doubt any president has faced such resistance before. We still don't know the story behind Flynn.
He surely knew his phones were tapped and is surely smart enough to know they would leak it. And, while he lost his title, he
is still there with his team.
Everything is obvious now and I think this is what Trump has been goading them into. Putting blood in the water to draw the
sharks to the surface. We will see.
i hope you're right. i keep wanting to think he's a clever fox but the acceleration of events is mind-boggling. the liberal
onslaught is from all directions and relentless. i pray he's able to withstand their attacks and counter with an epic T-Day rout--one
for the history books--that exposes and annihilates the seditious traitors in the world of public opinion, giving him political
capital to rid our nation of the unconstitutional Patriot Act and Big Brother's illegal 4th Amendment violations of illegal search
and seizure.
it's hard to keep the faith right now... i wanna believe he's got the wherewithall to pull this off. if i get weak and shout
for quick solutions, just downvote my stupid butt bigly.
No, because if he gets too close to anything important his family members start dropping dead. He knows this... he knew
it before he ran. If he goes after the rothchild-backed cabal he gets dead.
Give up guys... there's no winning this. The sooner we accept this the sooner we can maybe fucking DO something.
i think you are suggesting first touch/listen of utah spying. if true, step one. step 2 is to take down the main operatives
and bring them down with all the resources of the justice dept.
this is assuming that all parties stay in the confines of law...hmmm
Exactly, Trump needs to go on TV and speak plainly, layout the thesis as outlined in this article. Make sure the country knows
EXACTLY what is going on and what the stakes are. Most libtards don't have one fucking clue how they are being used by these sick
fucks. Get everything he knows and what he SUSPECTS, even with no direct evidence out into the general public. Time is running
short.
I don't twit. I don't even 'follow' a twit. I don't know how.
But I'm pretty sure this sort of message would take a hell of a lot more characters than, what is it, 140?
That means he would need some other means to deliver a complicated message that by-passes an inherently hostile media yet still
gets viewed by tens of millions.
Couldn't agree more. I fail to fathom how meeting with Russian diplomats constitutes any type of crime. That's what diplomats
do for God's sake. Wake up people before it's too late.
Ah, but everything PCR says is true. It's what he doesn't say that gives away the lie.
All of his articles demonize the west (and he's right). But he's deliberately not looking at the higher dynamics of this globalist,
central bank-led kabuki theater.
I think he's a 'gatekeeper' who's job is to point out the evils of the west and make the east look good in comparison, so that
when the 'reset' comes people will buy into the globalist one world currency that will be offered.
I've never seen him talk disparagingly about either China or Russia or the BRICS. Certainly he has mentioned the FED and the
IMF, but not the big one - the BIS - that I have seen. And until he does, he's just another Rothschild/Rockefeller plant to me.
he takes on the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, NATO, liberals, Ruling Establishment, Obama the War Criminal Butcherer of
Women and Children, Kissinger, pretty much everybody. i agree he's not a Russiaphobe, thankfully someone's got a balanced position.
anyway... we'll have to agree to disagree. i believe he's a patriot true blue... errr, red. nope. red, white and blue.
it's nothing to me and i'm not trying to defend him. i just think he's not what you suggest. professionals feel responsible
for their words and only write about what they know. we can all speculate about 9/11 but without launching our own investigation,
it's just "talk." and at PCR and Stockman's level, they refrain from flapping their lips to hear themselves speak, metaphorically.
> "He is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy.
> He is a former editor at the Wall Street Journal.
> He was the "first occupant of the William E. Simon Chair for Economic Policy at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies [CSIS], then part of Georgetown University." It's worth noting that Georgetown is a Jesuit institution, and the Board
of Trustees of CSIS includes Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and representatives of Exxon Mobil, Boeing, Coca Cola, AIG,
GlaxoSmithKline, and Morgan Stanley (to name a few).
Looking at the high positions this guy has held in the Washington/Wall Street Establishment, ask yourself this: "Is PCR really
going against all of his lifelong associates or is he simply carrying water for them like he always has?" "
i consider myself open-minded and reviewed your link.
as far as the 3 bullet points the author suggests condemn PCR:
Austrian economics are largely followed by most conservative economists as opposed to Keynesian.
I would also argue the American govt pursues global hegemony, i.e., an American empire
Who among us would not believe there is widespread incompetence in DC? Would anyone use the term "competent" with Obama,
other than describing his knack for telling untruths and perhaps killing innocent Near East women and children?
He was former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under Reagan
A strong critic of the Bush (and later
Obama ) administrations' handling of the
War on Terror , he has taken positions strongly at odds
with mainstream politicians: harshly criticising the ineffectiveness, severity and high rates of incarceration associated with
the War on Drugs , excessive police violence and use
of SWAT teams against civilians. He has criticised the
law and order politics and congressional
approval of increased government surveillance associated with the
War on Terror age, which he views as fundamental threats
to the civil liberties and Right to Privacy enshrined
in the US constitution, opening the way for an oligarchic
police state to be imposed upon the US population... --
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts
sorry, i just don't see it. as far as his association with the WSJ and Georgetown Univ, that would pretty much be the aspirations
of most journalists. and lastly, here are the closing statements from his newsletter yesterday:
The voice here at this website, my voice, provides perspectives that permit escape from the Matrix, but it depends on your
support. As March is upon us, so is my quarterly request for your support. So far, we have both kept our word. You have supported
the site, and I have continued to ruin my reputation in Washington by writing explanations that are unpopular in the ruling circles.
but even more than that, i read his articles and take what i want and discard the rest. no one is mind controlling me. can't
be brainwashed. got to have a brain first. (;
"I have no doubt that the vast bulk of Western populations are insouciant. But if there is no intelligence and awareness left
anywhere in the population, and most certainly there is none whatsoever in the governments of the West or in the Western media
or the Identity Politics of the liberal/progressive/left, then don't expect to be alive much longer."
The public does know what is going on. Nobody is being fooled. The problem is that the press presents the narrative (often
implicitly) that gives the impression PCR is conveying here.
he actually never fought any war. He was under influence of Israel lobby from the very beginning (Kushner). Ao it was only natural
that Trump folded immediately after the election, not in April 2017 when he bombed Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn got kicked out of office for talking with Russian officials. Such talks were completely inline with Trump's declared policies of détente with Russia. (I agree that Flynn should have never gotten the NSA job. But the reasons for that have nothing to do with his Russian connections.) ..."
"... With Flynn out, the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the "serious people" in Washington DC, had the second most important person out of the way that would probably hinder their plans. ..."
"... They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian hawk ..."
"... He is the main author of an Army study on how to militarily counter Russia. McMaster is likely to "resist" when President Trump orders him to pursue better relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Trump has now been boxed in by hawkish, anti-Russian military in his cabinet and by a hawkish Vice-President. The only ally he still may have in the White House is his consigliere Steve Bannon. The next onslaught of the "serious people" is against Bannon and especially against his role in the NSC . It will only recede when he is fired. ..."
Trump is losing the war with the "deep state". Badly...
President Trump's first National Security Advisor Mike Flynn got kicked out of office for talking with Russian officials.
Such talks were completely inline with Trump's declared policies of détente with Russia. (I agree that Flynn should have never gotten
the NSA job. But the reasons for that have nothing to do with his Russian connections.)
Allegedly Flynn did
not fully inform Vice-President Pence about his talk with the Russian ambassador. But that can not be a serious reason. The talks
were rather informal, they were not transcribed. The first call is said to have reached Flynn on vacation in the Dominican Republic.
Why would a Vice-President need to know each and every word of it?
With Flynn out, the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the "serious people" in Washington DC, had the second most
important person out of the way that would probably hinder their plans.
They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian
hawk :
In a 2016 speech to the Virginia Military Institute
, McMaster stressed the need for the US to have "strategic vision" in its fight against "hostile revisionist powers" - such as
Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran - that "annex territory, intimidate our allies, develop nuclear weapons, and use proxies
under the cover of modernized conventional militaries."
General McMaster, the new National Security Advisor, gets sold as a somewhat rebellious, scholar-warrior wunderkind . When the
now disgraced former General Petraeus came into sight he was sold with the same marketing profile.
Petraeus
was McMaster's boss. McMaster is partially his creature:
He was passed over for brigadier general twice, until then-Gen. David Petraeus personally flew back to Washington, D.C., from
Iraq to chair the Army's promotion board in 2008.
When Petraeus took over in the war on Afghanistan he selected McMaster as his staff leader for strategy. McMaster was
peddled to the White House by Senator Tom Cotton, one of the
most outlandish
Republican neocon war hawks.
McMaster's best known book is "
Dereliction of Duty
" about the way the US involved itself into the Vietnam War. McMaster criticizes the Generals of that time for not having resisted
then President Johnson's policies.
He is the main
author of an Army study on how to militarily counter Russia. McMaster is likely to "resist" when President Trump orders him to
pursue better relations with Moscow.
Trump has now been boxed in by hawkish, anti-Russian military in his cabinet and by a hawkish Vice-President. The only ally
he still may have in the White House is his consigliere Steve Bannon. The
next onslaught of the "serious people" is
against Bennon and especially
against his role in the NSC . It will only recede when he is fired.
It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder
if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic development and have a strategy against it.
"... Even though Western Europe has lined up in opposition to any future conflict with Iran, even though Russia and China would rail against it, even though most Washington foreign policy experts would be horrified by the outbreak of such a war, it could happen. ..."
"... Despite growing Trump administration tensions with Venezuela and even with North Korea, Iran is the likeliest spot for Washington's next shooting war. Years of politically charged anti-Iranian vituperation might blow up in the faces of President Trump and his two most hawkish aides, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, setting off a conflict with potentially catastrophic implications. ..."
"... With Bolton and Pompeo, both well-known Iranophobes, in the driver's seat, few restraints remain on President Trump when it comes to that country. ..."
"... On the roller coaster ride that is Donald Trump's foreign policy, it's hard to discern what's real and what isn't, what's rhetoric and what's not. When it comes to Iran, it's reasonable to assume that Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo aren't planning an updated version of the unilateral invasion of Iraq that President George W. Bush launched in the spring of 2003. ..."
"... Yet by openly calling for the toppling of the government in Tehran, by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement and reimposing onerous sanctions to cripple that country's economy, by encouraging Iranians to rise up in revolt, by overtly supporting various exile groups (and perhaps covertly even terrorists ), and by joining with Israel and Saudi Arabia in an informal anti-Iranian alliance , the three of them are clearly attempting to force the collapse of the Iranian regime, which just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution. ..."
"... Until now, the Iranian leadership has avoided a direct response that would heighten the confrontation with Israel, just as it has avoided unleashing Hezbollah, a well-armed, battle-tested proxy force. That could, however, change if the hardliners in Iran decided to retaliate. Should this simmering conflict explode, does anyone doubt that President Trump would soon join the fray on Israel's side or that congressional Democrats would quickly succumb to the administration's calls to back the Jewish state? ..."
The Trump Administration Is Reckless Enough to Turn the Cold War With Iran Into a Hot
One
Here's the foreign policy question of questions in 2019: Are President Donald Trump, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, all severely
weakened at home and with few allies abroad, reckless enough to set off a war with Iran? Could
military actions designed to be limited -- say, a heightening of the Israeli bombing of Iranian
forces inside Syria, or possible U.S. cross-border attacks from Iraq, or a clash between
American and Iranian naval ships in the Persian Gulf -- trigger a wider war?
Worryingly, the answers are: yes and yes. Even though Western Europe has lined up in
opposition to any future conflict with Iran, even though Russia and China would rail against
it, even though most Washington foreign policy experts would be horrified by the outbreak of
such a war, it could happen.
Despite growing Trump administration tensions with Venezuela and even with North Korea, Iran
is the likeliest spot for Washington's next shooting war. Years of politically charged
anti-Iranian vituperation might blow up in the faces of President Trump and his two most
hawkish aides, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton,
setting off a conflict with potentially catastrophic implications.
Such a war could quickly spread across much of the Middle East, not just to Saudi Arabia and
Israel, the region's two major anti-Iranian powers, but Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and the
various Persian Gulf states. It might indeed be, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
suggested last year (unconsciously echoing Iran's
former enemy, Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein) the "mother of all wars."
With Bolton and Pompeo, both well-known Iranophobes, in the driver's seat, few restraints
remain on President Trump when it comes to that country. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly,
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, President Trump's
former favorite generals who had urged caution, are
no longer around . And though the Democratic National Committee passed a resolution last month
calling for the United States to return to the nuclear agreement that President Obama signed,
there are still a significant number of congressional Democrats who believe that Iran is a
major threat to U.S. interests in the region.
During the Obama years, it was de rigueur for Democrats to support the president's
conclusion that Iran was a prime state sponsor of terrorism and should be treated accordingly.
And the congressional Democrats now leading the party on foreign policy -- Eliot Engel, who
currently chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin, the two
ranking Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- were opponents of the 2015
nuclear accord (though all three now claim to have
changed their minds ).
Deadly Flashpoints for a Future War
On the roller coaster ride that is Donald Trump's foreign policy, it's hard to discern
what's real and what isn't, what's rhetoric and what's not. When it comes to Iran, it's
reasonable to assume that Trump, Bolton, and Pompeo aren't planning an updated version of the
unilateral invasion of Iraq that President George W. Bush launched in the spring of 2003.
Yet by openly calling
for the toppling of the government in Tehran, by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement
and reimposing onerous sanctions to cripple that country's economy, by
encouraging Iranians to rise up in revolt, by overtly supporting
various exile groups (and perhaps covertly even
terrorists ), and by joining with Israel and Saudi Arabia in an informal
anti-Iranian alliance , the three of them are clearly attempting to force the collapse of
the Iranian regime, which just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic
revolution.
There are three potential flashpoints where limited skirmishes, were they to break out,
could quickly escalate into a major shooting war.
The first is in Syria and Lebanon. Iran is deeply involved in defending Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad (who only recently returned from a visit
to Tehran) and closely allied with Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite political party with a potent
paramilitary arm. Weeks ago, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu openly boasted
that his country's air force had successfully taken out Iranian targets in Syria. In fact,
little noticed here, dozens of such strikes have taken place for more
than a year , with mounting Iranian casualties.
Until now, the Iranian leadership has avoided a direct response that would heighten the
confrontation with Israel, just as it has avoided unleashing Hezbollah, a well-armed,
battle-tested proxy force. That could, however, change if the hardliners in Iran decided to
retaliate. Should this simmering conflict explode, does anyone doubt that President Trump would
soon join the fray on Israel's side or that congressional Democrats would quickly succumb to
the administration's calls to back the Jewish state?
Next, consider Iraq as a possible flashpoint for conflict. In February, a blustery Trump
told
CBS's Face the Nation that he intends to keep U.S. forces in Iraq "because I want to be
looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is the real problem." His comments did not exactly go
over well
with the Iraqi political class, since many of that country's parties and militias are
backed by Iran.
Trump's declaration followed a Wall Street Journalreport
late last year that Bolton had asked the Pentagon -- over the opposition of
various generals and then-Secretary of Defense Mattis -- to prepare options for "retaliatory
strikes" against Iran. This roughly coincided with a couple of small rocket attacks
against Baghdad's fortified Green Zone and
the airport in Basra, Iraq's Persian Gulf port city, neither of which caused any
casualties.
Writing in Foreign Affairs , however, Pompeo blamed Iran for the attacks, which he
called "life-threatening," adding, "Iran did not stop these attacks, which were carried out by
proxies it has supported with funding, training, and weapons." No "retaliatory strikes" were
launched, but plans do undoubtedly now exist for them and it's not hard to imagine Bolton and
Pompeo persuading Trump to go ahead and use them -- with incalculable consequences.
Donald Trump's unorthodox US presidential transition continued on Monday when he held talks with one of the most prominent supporters
of leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders.
The president-elect's first meeting of the day at Trump Tower in New York was with Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic maverick who endorsed
the socialist Sanders during his unsuccessful primary battle with Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
At first glance Gabbard, who is from Hawaii and is the first Hindu member of the US Congress, seems an unlikely counsellor. She
resigned from the Democratic National Committee to back Vermont senator Sanders and formally nominated him for president at the party
convention in July, crediting him with starting a "movement of love and compassion", although by then Clinton's victory was certain.
But the Iraq war veteran has also expressed views that might appeal to Trump, criticising Obama, condemning interventionist wars
in Iraq and Libya and taking a hard line on immigration. In 2014, she called for a rollback of the visa waiver programme for Britain
and other European countries with what she called "Islamic extremist" populations.
In October last year she tweeted: "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won't bomb them in Syria. Putin did.
#neverforget911." She was then among 47 Democrats who joined Republicans to pass a bill mandating a stronger screening process for
refugees from Iraq and Syria coming to the US.
Warren supported Hillary that the;s a huge black spot on her credentials. She also king of a hawk in forign policy diligitly repeated
stupid Depart of State talking points and making herself a fool. I especially like here blabbing about authoritarian regimes. From former
Harvard professor we should expect better that this.
To a certain extent he message about rigged system is authentic as She drive this horse for a long time. But that does
not means that she can't betray here electorate like Trump or Obama. She perfectly can. And is quite possible. Several details of her
biography suggest that she is a female careerist -- using dirty tricks to be promoted and paying her gender as an offensive weapon
(looks also at her use of Cherokee heritage claim)
But there is no ideal people and among establishment candidates she is the most electable despite all flows of her foreign
policy positions.
Notable quotes:
"... Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Trump is disingenuous. Trump is just ranting and defensive, without any evidence to back up his claims. What Elizabeth Warren is saying is just a matter of paying attention. ..."
"... This analysis completely ignores the outrageous, overarching influence of money and financial privilege over American politics. Equating Bill Clinton's dalliance with Trump's disrespect for all norms of decency and the truth? Please. Warren is right. Just look at the legislative obscenity of the recent tax bill and then try and equivocate they left and the right. I am not buying this false equivalency. ..."
"... Please, Elizabeth Warren is nothing like Trump. She's a brilliant, honest, tireless fighter for ordinary Americans. She wants a fair shake for them, just as FDR wanted a fair shake -- a "New Deal" -- for our Country. ..."
"... The so-called "left" in America (moderates anywhere else on the globe) have never varied from saying that money = power. They still say that today, and raise money like crazy for candidates thereby proving their own point. ..."
"... Conservatives in America (far-right extremists anywhere else on the globe) are much quieter about the influence of dough, but raise money like crazy for candidates thereby proving the "left's" point. ..."
The president and the senator both want you to know that our system is "rigged."
... ... ...
For decades, the left sought to dethrone the idea of truth. Truth was not an absolute. It was a matter of power. Of perspective.
Of narrative. "Truth is a thing of this world," wrote Michel Foucault. "Each society has its regime of truth, its 'general politics'
of truth: that is, the types of discourse which it accepts and makes function as true."
Then Kellyanne Conway gave us "alternative facts" and Rudy Giuliani said, "
Truth isn't truth"
-- and progressives rushed to defend the inviolability of facts and truth.
For decades, the left sought to dethrone reverence for the Constitution. "The Constitution," wrote progressive historian Howard
Zinn, "serves the interests of a wealthy elite" and enables "the elite to keep control with a minimum of coercion, a maximum of law
-- all made palatable by the fanfare of patriotism and unity."
Then
Donald Trump attacked freedom of the press and birthright citizenship, and flouted the emoluments clause, and assailed the impartiality
of the judiciary. And progressives rediscovered the treasure that is our Constitutional inheritance.
... ... ...
To an audience of nearly 500 new graduates and their families at the historically black college, the Massachusetts senator laid
out a bleak vision of America. "The rules are rigged because the rich and powerful have bought and paid for too many politicians,"
she said. "The rich and powerful want us pointing fingers at each other so we won't notice they are getting richer and more powerful,"
she said. "Two sets of rules: one for the wealthy and the well-connected. And one for everybody else," she said.
"That's how a rigged system works," she said.
It was a curious vision coming from a person whose life story, like that of tens millions of Americans who have risen far above
their small beginnings, refutes her own thesis. It was curious, also, coming from someone who presumably believes that various forms
of rigging are required to un-rig past rigging. Affirmative action in college admissions and aggressive minority recruitment
in corporations are also forms of "rigging."
But however one feels about various types of rigging, the echo of Trump was unmistakable. "It's being proven we have a rigged
system," the president said
at
one of his rallies last year . "Doesn't happen so easy. But this system -- gonna be a lot of changes. This is a rigged system."
Trump's claim that the system is rigged represents yet another instance of his ideological pickpocketing of progressives. From
C. Wright Mills ("The Power Elite") to Noam Chomsky ("Manufacturing Consent"), the animating belief of the far left has been, as
Tom Hayden put it, that we live in a "false
democracy," controlled by an unaccountable, deceitful and shadowy elite. Trump has names for it: the globalists; the deep state;
the fake news. Orange, it turns out, is the new red.
Of course, Warren and Trump have very different ideas as to just who the malefactors of great wealth really are. Is it Sheldon
Adelson or George Soros? The Koch brothers or the Ford Foundation? Posterity will be forgiven if it loses track of which alleged
conspiracy to rig the system was of the far-right and which was of the far left.
What it will remember is that here was another era in which a president and one of his leading opponents abandoned the prouder
traditions of American politics in favor of paranoid ones. Compare Warren's grim message to Bill Clinton's sunny one from his first
inaugural: "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."
At some point, it will be worth asking Senator Warren: Rigged compared to when? A generation ago a black president would have
been unthinkable. Two generations ago, a woman on the Supreme Court. And rigged compared to what? Electoral politics in Japan, which
have been dominated by a single party for decades? The class system in Brazil, dominated by a single race for centuries?
Bret L. Stephens has been an Opinion columnist with The Times since April 2017. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary at
The Wall Street Journal in 2013 and was previously editor in chief of The Jerusalem Post.
Warren is saying the system is rigged to suppress the middle class and poor in favor of the wealthy, which is easy to substantiate.
Trump is saying the system is rigged to suppress the white right, which is easy to refute. One statement is an economic fact,
the other is a racist trope. There is no equivalence here. ScottW Chapel Hill, NC Dec. 20, 2018
Sen. Warren supports Medicare for All, meaningful banking/financial regulations, regulations that benefit consumers, a living
wage, etc. Trump supports none of these policies--not a one. Trying to equate Trump with Warren is just stupid.
Comparing Elizabeth Warren to Trump is disingenuous. Trump is just ranting and defensive, without any evidence to back up his
claims. What Elizabeth Warren is saying is just a matter of paying attention. I don't need to list all the ways in which money
buys everything in politics. It's always a matter of following the money. Bret Stephens conveniently avoids looking at economics.
His supposed counterexamples are at best irrelevant to the issue: We've had a black President. We have women on the Supreme Court.
How are those examples proof that the system isn't rigged in favor of the wealthy and corporations? No doubt he thinks Plutocracy
is part of the natural order of things. He should go back to the Wall Street Journal where his myopia is more appropriate. MarnS
Nevada Dec. 20, 2018 Times Pick
Unfortunately Bret there are no "optimists" in the GOP, including yourself being one who has bounced back and forth in your
positions regarding the Trump presidency. Though you have found your way on CNN or MSNBC spouting your disappointments about the
state of the nation, the fact remains is that your a hardened, right wing opinion writer who may have less of an ideal when it
comes to America being a democratic nation. No, you can conveniently ignore the actions of your conservative party in there gerrymandering,
in their changing the rules for governors of the Democrat persuasion, or gross deliberate voter suppression that has placed your
party in power positions by, in effect, stealing elections. You are a writer with a forked tongue trying, at times in a passive
manner, to separate yourself from Trump, and the evilness of the current GOP Party without understanding that the definition of
"conservative" has changed to the radical. And that is documented by your writings in the WSJ. Yet, you cannot even dream about
truly being on the left side of an argument other than beating your breast with the fact that the GOP has disappeared, as we have
known it, in the hands of radicalism (which prior to Trump you participated in the escalation of radical conservatism), and your
party can never be revived as it once was...and we all pray it never will be so.
This analysis completely ignores the outrageous, overarching influence of money and financial privilege over American politics.
Equating Bill Clinton's dalliance with Trump's disrespect for all norms of decency and the truth? Please. Warren is right. Just
look at the legislative obscenity of the recent tax bill and then try and equivocate they left and the right. I am not buying
this false equivalency.
FYI, Foucault was offering critiques of "regimes of truth," not of truth itself. That's very different. Like most historians,
he spent an impressive amount of time in archives where he collected evidence in order to write books that give truthful accounts
of the past. You make a caricature of Foucault, and then of the entire left.
Rich Casagrande Slingerlands, NY Dec. 20, 2018 Times Pick
Please, Elizabeth Warren is nothing like Trump. She's a brilliant, honest, tireless fighter for ordinary Americans. She wants
a fair shake for them, just as FDR wanted a fair shake -- a "New Deal" -- for our Country. While much of the rest of the world was
turning to communism or fascism, FDR saved American capitalism by shaking it up. Oh how we could use a large dose of that today.
Whoa! Line by line, Mr Stephens offers statements that are way off base and should be refuted. Are you saying you disagree
with Warren? Do you think the "system" in America for the last 400 years has not been generally "rigged" against African-Americans?
But the gist of his column, and the main argument of conservatives these days, is that the left and the right are equally out
of line; that what the right says and does may be bad, but the left does the same sort of thing and is just as bad. This is not
true Bret, and you know it. The left desperately tries to find the high road, and anyone who supports Trump these days or believes
in most of his policies is either someone who has abandoned morality or is a fool. And that is the truth, Bret.
Calling out our system as "rigged" is nothing new for Sen. Warren. She's been stating that publicly since being a regular Bill
Moyer's guest on his PBS program 20 years ago -- and clearly already on a "prep for national politics" stump. What undercuts her
own integrity regarding "rigged" is that she chose, after much wait & anticipation, to throw her support to Hillary Clinton in
the summer of 2016. Not Bernie Sanders. She knew HRC had little integrity. And it's highly likely she knew the DNC primary was
rigged in favor of Clinton -- as it's widely been proven.
My point here highlights one of several reasons why Sen. Warren is unelectable
in the 2020 presidential general election. This is not to compare her in any way to Trump -- he's a venal, disturbed & dangerous
traitor to our country. However, if winning the WH in 2020 is the goal, Elizabeth Warren ain't got the goods to get the necessary
votes across our Republic.
There's a good case to be made that the far left exists in two separate dimensions. I offer myself in evidence. Among the policies
and social changes I advocate: Medicare for all Aggressively progressive taxation.
I don't recognize any freedom to corner as much wealth as one can while other people must labor at two or three jobs just to
feed their families on peanut butter.
I do think there's a bit of rigging afoot. Restrictions on the ownership of firearms comparable to those in Japan.
A society free from all forms of identity discrimination or prejudice. I'm bitterly opposed to racism, anti-Semitism, sexism,
homophobia; any example you care to give, including those without short handles, such as prejudice against Muslims or transgender
people.
Yes, I know I have this in common with decent conservatives, but I'm thinking of partisan realities in the US today. I should
add that I don't mind the prospect of WASPS like me becoming just another minority.
But-- I can't picture myself as a socialist -- hair combed straight back, and all that.
The rigorously progressive personality type rubs me the wrong way. Leftist cant grates on every fiber of my being. Che Guevara
T-shirts make the lip curl. When my knee jerks, it jerks against things like that old leftist conceit that truth is what you make
it. I look at the far-left agenda and see a lot to like. I look at the far-left milieu and see didactic arrogance, frigidity,
and pat attitudes. I'm a Democrat in disarray.
The so-called "left" in America (moderates anywhere else on the globe) have never varied from saying that money = power. They
still say that today, and raise money like crazy for candidates thereby proving their own point.
Conservatives in America (far-right
extremists anywhere else on the globe) are much quieter about the influence of dough, but raise money like crazy for candidates
thereby proving the "left's" point.
Reality? Money in America is everything. Period. Just try to run for office, influence policy,
and/or change the direction of the country as a sole, intelligent, concerned poor person and see how far you get.
Interesting information about Cuban lobby and Trump
Notable quotes:
"... George W Bush and the ISRAEL FIRST Jews and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party and the Israel First faction in the Democrat Party led by Hillary Clinton all pushed for the Iraq War. ..."
"... The Iraq War debacle was designed to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel. The Iraq War was never about advancing the strategic foreign policy goals of the United States of America. ..."
"... The Iraq War debacle might have been used to increase the power of Iran in the region, in order to use the fact of increased Iranian influence -- caused by the Iraq War debacle -- to eventually attack and invade Iran. That might be overthinking the situation. ..."
Well now that most everyone knows Trump's ME policy on Iran is run by his Zionists.
We would be remiss in not mentioning the "other foreign lobby" .the Cuban exiles ..who are all very interested in Venezuela.
I challenge anyone to find anything done by congress or Trump that was done for average Americans.
I challenge anyone to find anyone involved in our foreign policy that isn't ethnically connected to a foreign country or paid
by a foreign country's supporters. Hell if you look at their bios half of them weren't even born in the US.
What triggered the escalation of US-Venezuela policy?
For two decades the US was powerless to alter the course of Venezuela's socialist rule. But, in recent weeks Trump has turned
the screws on the Maduro regime. So, what changed? How a casual meeting at Trump Tower and a photo op at the White House, dovetailed
with the evolving crisis inside Venezuela
Two days after taking office in January 2017 President Donald Trump surprised White House staff by asking for a briefing on
Venezuela. At the time, Fernando Cutz was on the National Security Council staff as the President's Director for South America.
"For whatever reason, and honestly I don't know what the reason was, but President Trump started on Day One, literally on Day
One, asking about Venezuela. So, it was a priority of his from the very start," Cutz told a forum at the Wilson Center, a Washington
think tank, after he left government last year.
Cutz didn't know, but the seed was planted a few days before Trump's inauguration during a casual meeting at Trump Tower in
New York. Trump had invited some South Florida friends to pay him a visit, among them Freddy Balsera, a Cuban American Democrat,
who represented the real estate mogul on several South Florida golf projects.
During the meeting, Trump asked Balsera for some advice on what South Floridians would like to see from his presidency, according
to witnesses. Balsera mentioned taking a tougher line on the Maduro regime in Venezuela, adding it would have bipartisan support
and could make for a good foreign policy victory
The president's son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner, was in the room and his ears picked up, the sources said. Balsera
told Trump and Kushner about Venezuela's most famous political prisoner: Leopoldo Lopez. And he had a suggestion: "You should
meet with his wife, Lilian Tintori," he said.
That's precisely what happened a few weeks later, courtesy of another Cuban American – a Republican this time – Senator Marco
Rubio
Rubio's influence has also grown since that White House visit with Lilian Tintori. Despite calling him 'Little Marco' during
the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump has now taken to heaping President Donald Trump has lately taken to heaping praise on his
former presidential rival
"I do listen a lot to Senator Rubio on Venezuela, it's close to his heart," Trump told a small group of reporters representing
regional news outlets last month.
Rubio was also instrumental in bringing into the government some key Cuban Americans; Mauricio Claver-Carone at the NSC. Another
John Barsa, is awaiting confirmation to lead USAID's operations in Latin America. Claver-Carone is a longtime activist on Cuba
policy and staunch backer of the economic embargo against Havana's communist government]
Otto Reich, another conservative Cuban American and former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela says the Trump administration clearly
has Cuba in its sights.
"I think that what they are preparing in the government is first of all to use the fall of the Venezuelan dictatorship that has
financed so much violence and subversion in the hemisphere, to later bring about changes, transitions in Cuba and Nicaragua,"
White House to appoint Cuba hardliner to head Latin America policy Mauricio Claver-Carone, a vocal critic of the Obama administration's
engagement with Cuba, is taking over as the National Security Council's influential director for Latin America policy.
I challenge anyone to find anything done by congress or Trump that was done for average Americans.
Well, 'we' got a tax cut. And 'we' are going to have mandated vaccinations from companies exempt from liability. And 'we' will
get the joys of subsidizing the 5G rollout for total internet connectivity from the toilet to the grave. 'We' get total surveillance,
too, so there is that.
I challenge anyone to find anyone involved in our foreign policy that isn't ethnically connected to a foreign country or
paid by a foreign country's supporters. Hell if you look at their bios half of them weren't even born in the US.
But we're a nation of immigrants, so we celebrate all those hyphenated pseudo-Americans hijacking our country for foreign benefit.
Why, I think one of the reasons President Kushner wants immigrants in the largest numbers ever is to provide more boots for all
of our wars. Syria, Iran, Ukraine, Yemen, Venezuela, reduxes on Iraq and Lebanon? Adventures in Africa? Wheel of fortune, who
hurts Ivanka's feelings first?
@chris Two-fer? I don't think so. Trump
will be a popular wartime president . The media has already changed its tone. No, Trump is completely housebroken, a useful
fool. He's good for more than one war, so will probably be re-elected. How many wars do you think we're good for before total
collapse?
President Trump is a complete and total whore for Jew billionaire Shelly Adelson.
Shelly Adelson is an ISRAEL FIRST Jew who wants to use the US military as muscle to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle
East and West Asia.
Shelly Adelson wants to flood more mass legal immigration into the United States.
Shelly Adelson wants to give amnesty to upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.
Shelly Adelson demanded 4 things from Trump:
1) Adelson wanted the US military to attack and invade Iran.
2) Adelson wanted the US military to detonate a nuclear weapon in Iran as a demonstration of resolve and power.
3) Adelson wanted the US embassy moved to Jerusalem.
4) Adelson wanted the Iran nuclear deal killed and buried.
Trump has killed the Iran nuclear deal and Trump has moved a satellite branch of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Trump and the
US military have refused to detonate a nuclear weapon in Iran. Trump and the US military have refused to attack and invade Iran.
If Trump continues on his whorish course and attempts to accede to all Adelson's demands, I hope there are enough generals
and admirals with guts and balls to tell Trump and Adelson to go to Hell.
@Charles PewittIf Trump continues
on his whorish course and attempts to accede to all Adelson's demands, I hope there are enough generals and admirals with guts
and balls to tell Trump and Adelson to go to Hell.
Sorry but there is not one US general who will act against Israel – period.
@Talha If Jews want to live in Palestine
there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But they have to live as the locals do and without any special favors.
What is BS is the special favors the USA gives them. They even have the gall to say that our giving $5 billion in military
aid to them is a favor to us.
George W Bush and the ISRAEL FIRST Jews and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative faction in the Republican Party and the Israel
First faction in the Democrat Party led by Hillary Clinton all pushed for the Iraq War.
The Iraq War debacle was designed to advance the foreign policy interests of Israel. The Iraq War was never about advancing
the strategic foreign policy goals of the United States of America.
Trump went to a 2016 GOP presidential primary debate in South Carolina and said the US military was dragged into the Iraq War
debacle by George W Bush on false claims.
Trump:
He added, forcefully: "They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction – there were none. And they knew there
were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction."
The Iraq War debacle might have been used to increase the power of Iran in the region, in order to use the fact of increased
Iranian influence -- caused by the Iraq War debacle -- to eventually attack and invade Iran. That might be overthinking the situation.
"... There are no agency in the USA, and no one powerful enough, to prosecute a flagrant deviation or to stop a completely fraudulent activity intentionally done in violation of the election promises made and facts presented within the pre election candidate prospectus. What the elected do is so different from what the candidates promise..that.. ? ..."
"... Those elected have not just broken the international law, they have eliminated it. International law and domestic law no longer exist ..."
"... Americans need the power to appoint their own prosecutors, cut the middle man USA out, take the power to appoint the prosecutor away from the USA, and take the power to appoint judges (Article 3) away from the USA, and give that power to the governed Americans, ain't nothing going to change but the candidate names. ..."
"... Without enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and punishment there is no law capable to reach those who file a prospectus. just a long trail of broken promises and Palin type Caribou caucuses. ..."
Though I would agree that an SEC type full disclosure prospectus required of candidates could be useful. There are no agency
in the USA, and no one powerful enough, to prosecute a flagrant deviation or to stop a completely fraudulent activity intentionally
done in violation of the election promises made and facts presented within the pre election candidate prospectus. What the elected
do is so different from what the candidates promise..that.. ?
Those elected have not just broken the international law, they have eliminated it. International law and domestic law no
longer exist to those who are part of economic zionism (EZ); they use government to establish their monopolies not to prevent
them. Not only have the EZ eliminated International Law, they have given themselves, and each person they allow to be elected,
unlimited get out of jail free cards.
My question Captain Willard is: who would enforce the intentional misrepresentations, glaring omissions, hoax after hoax embedded
within the candidate prospectus you propose? Who who prosecute the lies? Who would prosecute the behaviors done contrary to the
promises made in the prospectus? Can't even get Trump to make public his Tax Returns and half the FBI can't publish an investigation
on el presidente.
Until governed Americans change the constitution to take the power to appoint the judges (article 3) and the Prosecutors that
can prosecute the EZ and the elected from the 450 Article I liars, and the 2 Article BoZoos nothing is going to change.
Americans need the power to appoint their own prosecutors, cut the middle man USA out, take the power to appoint the prosecutor
away from the USA, and take the power to appoint judges (Article 3) away from the USA, and give that power to the governed Americans,
ain't nothing going to change but the candidate names.
Without enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, and punishment there is no law capable to reach those who file a prospectus.
just a long trail of broken promises and Palin type Caribou caucuses.
This should be the end of the
Democratic party. This dismal state of affairs is their fault, from the content of the leaked emails to their handling of it.
They have had choices on the way to clean up their act but, they have blankly refused at every juncture. Not one thing has
changed since the emails revealed that the DNC rigs its primaries, and yet here we are in the middle of another fake primary
with everyone going along with it like it's a real thing. It's weird. In a healthy democratic republic the party would be dead
already, and a new one would've taken its place fueled by fresh energy and enthusiasm but the donor-class corruption is so
deeply entrenched that that possibility has seemed like a fantasy.
Gregory Herr , March 27, 2019 at 19:30
As an old-fashioned labor-lefty who used to call himself a Democrat, I'd say the
alienation continues unabated.
No illusions about who and what the party represents. Bad enough at home, but shit, they also
drop bombs like no tomorrow and spout lines from Langley and Likud like the back of their
hand.
As an armchair goof playing early guessing games, I'd say Sanders will pull at least the
weight he did last time as the uninspiring field of corporatists will split Hillary's wing
and the wild card Gabbard may draw support widely.
SteveK9 , March 28, 2019 at 10:03
Lifelong Democrat here that saw the writing on the wall, one year into Obama's first term (gave up on MSM during the runup
to the Iraq invasion). Although, I could hardly have imagined how low the Democratic leadership would sink with Russia-gate.
Gabbard is inspiring, but they are already starting to wear her down. I can't see anyone winning against imperial propaganda
at this point, but I will support her as much as I can.
Gregory Herr , March 28, 2019 at 18:40
I'm sending a small donation to help her get into the Dem debates.
"... Unfortunately, in every way that matters, RussiaGate has been a complete success. ..."
"... Though Trump says he is a Nationalist, his every move in foreign policy shows him to be toeing the line for the interests of the PNACers, and whenever he bucks their interests, he has shown that he can be brought to heel as long as they don't trample his ego. ..."
"... Tell them how utterly abhorrent and degenerate this war of terrorism against the Syrian people has been... ..."
"... I think there will be a major smear campaign against Bernie and Tulsi. Wikileaks has shown that the DNC had plans to smear Bernie as an atheist in 2016, among other things ..."
"... They will say that Socialism will bankrupt the Nation, and if we don't keep bombing everyone the "terrorists" will win. Divide and conquer is the game plan. ..."
"... They have retained the superdelegates for the second ballot, and they are running so many candidates that they are purposely aiming for a second ballot, where the oligarchs will once again decide for the people. ..."
"... Next step for the MSM propaganda machine? Probably assisting the CIA in whipping up war fever against Venezuela. ..."
"... They've pounded "Putin evil!" into the heads of their party fanatics long enough that shouting "Putin plus Maduro!" at them will have the most ardent Democrat voter screaming to massacre all of Caracas. ..."
I posted this on Medium when this article first came out.
Unfortunately, in every way that matters, RussiaGate has been a complete success. When
Donald Trump said "wouldn't it be great to get along with Russia" RussiaGate was born. The
thought of detente was his cardinal sin. That possibility has been completely demolished.
The
MIC and its trillions of wasted dollars are safe. The Evil Empire's Forever War continues
unabated, and even has new horizons in places such as Iran and Venezuela. Nuclear
brinksmanship keeps the R&D money flowing to Lockheed Martin and the other death dealers.
Though Trump says he is a Nationalist, his every move in foreign policy shows him to be
toeing the line for the interests of the PNACers, and whenever he bucks their interests, he
has shown that he can be brought to heel as long as they don't trample his ego.
The DNC/RNC theater will go on, and the MSM will seek to ensure that our choice for 2020
will be corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B.
... ... ...
The young people of today spend more time on the internet than they do watching network
television, and 42 percent of registered voters didn't bother to cast a ballot in 2016.
Therein lies our hope.
Gregory Herr , March 26, 2019 at 20:30
The time is ripe for leaving the Democrats, Skip. I think Tulsi should take your advice.
But I've a funny feeling she'll throw the support she builds to Bernie towards a VP slot on
the ticket.
Tulsi Gabbard is saying things fairly directly that Americans aren't used to hearing from
their politicians. I love hearing it. But I have to say I'm bothered by her handling of the
"Assad question". She could simply relate some of her experience in Syria, including her time
with Assad. She could, in point of fact, refer to Assad as the President of Syria.
She could
say that Syria's culture and political system are their own and that we would all do better
to seek understanding of that culture before we set about trying to destroy it by arming
terrorists.
She did say the CIA armed terrorists in Syria, didn't she? Come on Tulsi. Just part of the
truth isn't enough truth. Tell them they ought to go to Syria themselves. Tell them the
reporters aren't doing their jobs.
Tell them how utterly abhorrent and degenerate this war of terrorism against the Syrian
people has been...
Skip Scott , March 28, 2019 at 08:13
I think there will be a major smear campaign against Bernie and Tulsi. Wikileaks has shown
that the DNC had plans to smear Bernie as an atheist in 2016, among other things. They have
Bob Parry's "Mighty Wurlitzer" and a vast toolkit.
They will say that the progressives are
splintering the party, and that getting rid of Trump is all that matters, so you need to hold
you nose and choose warmonger from column B.
They will say that Socialism will bankrupt the
Nation, and if we don't keep bombing everyone the "terrorists" will win. Divide and conquer
is the game plan.
They have retained the superdelegates for the second ballot, and they are
running so many candidates that they are purposely aiming for a second ballot, where the
oligarchs will once again decide for the people.
That's why a real progressive needs to split
from the Dems in a dramatic fashion , go third party, and shoot for the 15% to make the
debates. In the end, that's the only venue that matters.
AelfredRex , March 26, 2019 at 06:31
Next step for the MSM propaganda machine? Probably assisting the CIA in whipping up war
fever against Venezuela.
They've pounded "Putin evil!" into the heads of their party fanatics
long enough that shouting "Putin plus Maduro!" at them will have the most ardent Democrat
voter screaming to massacre all of Caracas.
Zhu , March 26, 2019 at 01:44
US elections are like those in the Roman Empire: prestigious but meaningless.
Zhu , March 26, 2019 at 01:47
America. We are definitely a genocidal nation. In all ways we are to blame for your own
problems.
"... By many yardsticks, Israeli citizens enjoy higher living standards than US citizens. ..."
"... President Obama next week is scheduled to sign the most lavish foreign aid package in the country's history - $3.1 billion in military assistance to Israel - raising an urgent question: can the U.S. afford it? ..."
"... The United States already transfers $3.1 billion in taxpayer money to Israel every year, far more than any other country, but the deal that will be signed into law next week will guarantee foreign aid to the country until the year 2027, a decade after Obama has left office. ..."
By many yardsticks,
Israeli citizens enjoy higher living standards than US citizens. With more unemployed people than
at any time in U.S. history,
President Obama next week is scheduled to sign the most lavish foreign
aid package in the country's history - $3.1 billion in military assistance
to Israel - raising an urgent question: can the U.S. afford it?
The United States
already transfers $3.1 billion in taxpayer money to Israel every year, far more than any other country,
but the deal that will be signed into law next week will guarantee foreign aid to the country
until the year 2027, a decade after Obama has left office.
During 2016 election campaign: "On foreign policy Hillary is trigger happy" says Trump and he is right 100%... And he continued Hillary
policies.
And the he behaves as 100% pure militarist.
Notable quotes:
"... I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach ..."
"... Had the secretaries of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might have been politically impossible. ..."
"... Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to coalesce the angry populist vote. ..."
"... Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes. ..."
"... A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers, and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance complex; and harms the rest of us. ..."
"... Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization. ..."
"... Except it's recent US actions which have undermined the Middle East in general. From Saddam to Libya to ISIS etc etc. ..."
"... if you pay them enough. ..."
"... "We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated." ..."
"... Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is worse than Trump's ban. ..."
"... Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare. That would sure make things interesting. He could win. ..."
"... James Carville, astute handicapper that he is, has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary. ..."
"... even in comparison with Hillary Clinton ..."
"... "core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among veterans and active duty soldiers" ..."
"... "As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees, you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family, go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover" ..."
"... "We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home." ..."
"... "What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing is one of the real challenges." ..."
"... "There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it. What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand." ..."
"... You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman. He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man says or does. ..."
"... if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done ..."
"... Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it. ..."
"... Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left of basically all the other politicians today. ..."
There are good reasons to harbor serious reservations about The Donald, given that he changes
his position as frequently as most people change their clothes. But so far, he has been consistent
in making an argument that is sorely underrepresented in the media and in policy circles: that our
war-making in the Middle East has been a costly disaster with no upside to the US. Trump even cites,
without naming him, Joe Stiglitz's estimate that
our wars have cost at least $4 trillion.
As Lambert put it, "I hate it when Trump is right."
If you think Trump is overstating his case on Hillary's trigger-happiness, read this New York
Times story,
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk .
Mrs. Clinton's account of a unified European-Arab front powerfully influenced Mr. Obama. "Because
the president would never have done this thing on our own," said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy
national security adviser.
Mr. Gates, among others, thought Mrs. Clinton's backing decisive. Mr. Obama later told him
privately in the Oval Office, he said, that the Libya decision was "51-49."
"I've always thought that Hillary's support for the broader mission in Libya put the president
on the 51 side of the line for a more aggressive approach," Mr. Gates said. Had the secretaries
of state and defense both opposed the war, he and others said, the president's decision might
have been politically impossible.
Best assessment yet. This is a great speech bite from Donald but I have no idea if he means it.
(Though I don't agree with it just look at his Muslim Ban stance) Half the time he makes coherent
reasonable arguments, the other half the time I think he definitely is a Clinton Mole. I don't know
which Trump I'm getting hour to hour much less day to day.
Except for that last minute of Trump_vs_deep_states, I almost thought that was a Bernie speech. An interesting
general election plan is to take Bernie's ideas with a healthy dash of Trump spice in an attempt to
coalesce the angry populist vote. It'll be interesting to watch Hillary circle the wagons of the content,
elite center in an attempt to hold off the marginalized hordes of angry "savage plebs", especially if
the convention seems stolen. Still hoping for some miracle to pull Sanders through.
Miracle indeed, Sanders is the last hope to avoid total disaster. Maybe he can help mitigate HRC's
hawk stance in the ME. I think Israel is a lost cause though as the problem child with nukes.
In all seriousness, why is his Muslim ban idea bad? Or for that matter why would it, in principle,
be a bad idea to ban nearly all foreigners from entering the US? After all, it's not as if the US has
some actual need for foreigners to enter considering the large and growing desperately poor domestic
population. Especially considering that heretofore (let's be real here) both legal and illegal immigration
has been mainly exploited to destroy domestic labor conditions in the US.
This is a fact a lot of ostensibly good-hearted progressive and wealthy liberals conveniently ignore
(they'd probably cry themselves to sleep if they could no longer help to improve the lot of that below
minimum wage illegal immigrant maid they hired). Well, the working poor aren't ignoring it, and the
lid is going to blow soon if this keeps up. Donald Trump and the popularity of his Muslim ban is only
an early sign of the brewing discontent.
He didn't propose banning Muslims as a way to address our jobs and economic problems (which it isn't),
he proposed it as a way to address domestic terror (which it isn't). It's a political tactic to stir
up and implicitly sanction hate, prejudice, divisiveness, and violence.
Not arguing your point, however how are Trump supporters reading this? These people are already against
any immigrant coming into the US for economic reasons, and in all honesty they are looking for any excuse
whatsoever to view immigrants in a bad light.
Just to add to that a bit, it's also why immigrant crime is always being hyped up and exaggerated
by Trump supporters. The real issue deep down is that immigrants are threatening them economically,
and they'll use any justification whatsoever to get rid of them.
Is it right? I don't really know how to objectively answer that. But for the people doing it, this
could work out in economic terms for them. So at least from their perspective it's a good idea.
I think people are just so angry with how the squillionaries use "politically correct" proper thinking
about immigration to hide their illegal suppression of wages that even outrageous and outlandish statements
by The Donald will not dissuade his supporters – – after all, the supporters could ask why is this issue
of wage suppression, "by any means necessary", that affects FAR, FAR more people who ARE US citizens
so scrupulously IGNORED by the media (media owned by rich??? – of course). As disturbing as what The
Donald says, what is NOT SAID by the ENTIRE (except Sanders) US political establishment, is far more
disturbing, as I think it shows an utterly captured political caste. As well as the rank hypocrisy that
if any of these immigrants don't have health care after they arrive, the squillionaires couldn't care
less if they died in the streets – no matter how rich they are, they want to make more people poorer.
They are such an evil enemy that people will put up with The Donald.
It is a fact that these tech billionaires engaged in an illegal activity. It is a fact the US government
simply ignored enforcing laws and refuses to punish them.
Trump in my view will not be able to do even a quarter of some of this crap like banning Muslims
– laws do have to be passed. But the fact remains that Trump will probably be the only presidential
nominee (not presidential candidate, i.e., Sanders), and the last one in 40 years, to even merely talk
about these issues.
The fact that Trump succeeds just shows how famished people are to some challenge to the war mongering,
coddling of the rich that is passed off as something that the majority supports.
A political strategy based on xenophobia and divisiveness supports those who benefit from xenophobia
and divisiveness – those who exploit labor (including Trump who outsources jobs, hires H2-B workers,
and exploits workers domestically and overseas), and those who benefit from the military-industrial-security-serveillance
complex; and harms the rest of us.
It seems no more likely that Trump as president will actually promote policies that will "work out
in economic terms" for ordinary people as it was to think Obama would put on this "comfortable shoes"
and join a picket line (though I bought that one at the time).
Hillary basically won relatively well to do minorities who voted for her in 2008 just in smaller
numbers. Poorer minorities stayed home in Southern states where Internet access is less available and
progressive organizations are just churches. On the surface, Sanders sounds very much like the media
perception of President Hope and Change who isn't as popular as much as no one wants to admit the first
non white President was terrible or they actively applauded terrible policy.
Free college probably didn't appeal to people with junk degrees from for profit diploma mills. The
damage is done. People need jobs not school at this point or incomes. A green jobs guarantee act would
have been a better push front and center, but again, this is with hindsight. Many minority voters simply
didn't vote, and Hillary pushed that "you don't know Bernie" line to scare voters that Sanders was another
Obama.
Obama and the Democrats did everything they could to undermine and stamp out progressive organization.
Agree that jobs should be the focus (or income and meeting basic needs). Education as the focus appeals
to the under 25 years old college bound crowd, but not so much to anyone older having to survive out
there in the work world everyday.
I am a Trump supporter and I am not against immigrants or immigration. I am opposed to doing nothing
in the face of a broken immigration system. I do not think it is wise for any country to have millions
and millions of undocumented workers in its midst. I believe we should legalize those that are here.
Those that have committed crimes not related to immigrating or over staying visas should absolutely
be deported and lose the privilege of living in the US. I live in Spain, but am an American. If I broke
minor laws, such as drunk driving, assault or drug possession I would be deported too, seems fair to
me. I believe we have to revamp border security, though I don´t think a wall spanning the entire border
would be wise or effective I personally think Trump is speaking hyperbolically and symbolically about
the wall. Nonetheless, our elites sure do love living behind big walls and gated communities, with armed
security, maybe we should ask them why, walls are just racist anyways, no?
Immigrant crime is not some myth, its real and sometimes it is a very tragic consequence of a broken
immigration system. The fact that the cartels also exploit our broken border and immigration system
is not a myth either, it is reality.
And as for a temporary ban on Muslims coming from Syria, Libya and other locations that have been
devastated by the covert and overt wars of the US I support it totally, for no other reason than public
safety, which is the first reason we institute government. Remember this happened just after Paris,
public safety is a very legitimate concern. Also, why are Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia or
the Gulf States taking in a single refugee? The Saudis have the money and the capacity to to do this.
They have tents used only during the hajj that house thousands upon thousands. Where is that wonderful,
charitable side of Islam?
I wish the world were different. I don´t harbor prejudice against anyone. Those that want to come
and live, grow and contribute to American civilization, Come, please!! But our world is very dangerous,
and we have created enemies that seek to do harm to our society and civilization in anyway that they
can. We have to protect ourselves and our nation. I wish beyond wishing, that it was someone besides
the Donald saying these things, but, it is what it is. I am not gonna shoot the messanger cuase I dont
like his personality, or because I would not be friends with someone like him.
Illegal immigration could likely be enforced in some industries (on the lower paid scale in garment
making sweatshops and so on). And this could probably best be done by prosecuting the employers doing
the hiring. But I'm not at all convinced the country could run without immigrants entirely. Who would
pick the crops? Ok maybe lots of people at a $15 an hour minimum wage. But at current compensation?
Though I don't know if this really needs to be done via illegal immigration, it could be done by much
more formalized guest worker programs I suppose.
Or, we could just let the market work. You WILL get American workers to perform just about any job
if you pay them enough. Obviously, the reasonable price point for labor is currently well below
what a US citizen will accept. But if I offered a million dollars to get my lawn mowed, I would have
a line out the door of American workers begging to have the job.
Guest workers are just another way to depress US citizens' wages. And immigration reform is best
tackled at the employer level, like you said - anybody who doesn't make this part of his or her "reform"
plan is not to be taken seriously. (I regularly mention this to conservatives, and they always look
for a way to justify going after the powerless immigrants anyway.)
High wages can encourage more automation or substitution of crops that require less manual labor
or even cause people to exit farming as uneconomic.. But the number of workers employed in farming is relatively small.
The World Bank has the USA workforce at 161 million in 2014 and if about 2% of this workforce is
employed in farming, this is about 3.2 million people throughout the USA. And the 3.2 million count is probably not all illegal immigrant workers. This report suggests government price supports have encouraged more people to work in agriculture,
implying that the government is indirectly creating low wage jobs by price supports.
From the above pdf. "For example, the institutionalization of what began as emergency income support
in the 1930s has likely slowed the movement of labor out of the farm sector."
I am of the opinion that the law of one price will apply if there is relatively free movement of
workers, legally or illegally, across borders.
Note, Trump never suggests e-verify and employer enforcement, which would be a low cost way of enforcing
citizen employment and would avoid a costly "great wall".
Trump and HRC's investments are probably more profitable due to a lower labor cost influenced by
low wage workers.
And people don't OPPOSE his restrictions on Muslim immigration because they feel so charitable towards
and accepting of Muslims.
We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries for
the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated. And we've allowed our
own civil liberties to be radically infringed. All because " THEY hate us for our 'freedoms.'
" Who the hell do you think THEY are?
But it's Trump who is hateful, prejudiced, divisive and bigoted? As if "welcoming" some immigrants
from countries that we callously destroyed perfectly absolves those who were busy waiting in line for
the newest i-gadget and couldn't be bothered to demand an end to the slaughter.
Get a clue. Trump's not talking about murdering anybody. And no amount of puffed up "outrage" and
name-calling is going to get the stain out. Not to mention it's the most sane and humane way to protect
the "homeland" from the "terrorism" that we, ourselves, created.
"We have been killing, maiming and displacing millions of Muslims and destroying their countries
for the last 15 years with less outcry than transgender bathrooms have generated."
Good point. I keep wondering why Hillary the Hawk's actual illegal war and murdering of Muslims is
worse than Trump's ban.
"I'm against all immigration, as it's merely a lever to lower wages." "I'm against the immigration
of muslims, because they're bad terrorists." There is a difference in these two statements.
You are correct that there is too much immigration to the U.S., and it causes economic and environmental
problems. However, Trump's Muslim ban would cover more than immigration. He would also ban temporary
visits by Muslims (except for the mayor of London, I suppose).
I object very strongly to Muslim extremism, and a lot of Muslims have extremist views. But not all
of them do. And many Christians, Hindus, and whatever also have extremist views which should be opposed.
Trump's not proposing a bad on travel by extremist Christians; he's singling out Muslims because they
scare millions of Americans. It's demagoguery.
You are not quite right there. Trump supporters do indeed want to ban Christian immigrants as well
(the vast, overwhelming majority of immigrants from Mexico, central, and South America are Christians
of some sort) although in the case of Christians the excuse is "violent crime" since obviously Trump
supporters can not disparage Christians specifically for their Christianity. Seriously, watch any Trump
speech and you'll see that he spends more time talking about why all American (Christian) immigrants
need to be banned (crime) than why Muslim immigrants need to be banned (terror). Economic insecurity
is at the root of all of it.
Has Trump demanded that Christians from Europe or Canada be prevented from entering the U.S.? I'm
pretty sure he hasn't. If he's really motivated by economic reasons, there's no need to specify a particular
religion, such as Islam, or a particular nationality, such as Mexicans.
People from Europe and Canada already have high salaries. Or they are perceived to have high salaries
in their home countries. IE they are not percieved as an economic threat. I guarantee you, show me a
poor, third world country that is sending a lot of people to US right now and and I'll show you an ethnic
groups that faces some prejudice. Come on, it's not well paid people with stable jobs and incomes who
are going around being prejudiced against immigrants. It's the poor and the desperate who are doing
it.
There is a reason for that. Ignoring that reason and pretending that it's some bizarre and unfathomable
psychological illness just coincidentally affecting people who are also offing themselves from despair
left and right isn't going to make it go away. Rather, you are inviting something terrible to happen.
The Germans didn't decide to follow Hitler because times were good, and a friendly PR campaign encouraging
openness and acceptance among the poor misguided racists and immigrant haters out there will do exactly
nothing to help matters.
I don't think anyone (most anyone anyway) would disagree that there are plenty of Muslims who are
not extremists. The problem for us is, how do you tell the difference? The San Bernadino shooter was
a health inspector, had a wife, kids, a middle class job, ties to the community and still decided to
shoot up his co-workers with his wife in tow. Plenty of the European ISIS recruits come from middle
class families that are seemingly well-adjusted. If these people (keep in mind Farook was a US citizen)
can become terrorists, how can we possibly screen new entrants with any sort of efficacy?
I'd say it's probably worth the miniscule risk of possible immigrants turning out to be terrorists
if there was some other benefit to having them come in, but if we agree there's too much immigration
to the US already and it is hurting actual US citizens, what exactly is the upside to keep allowing
Muslims in?
By the way, I've been lurking on this site for a few weeks now, first time commenter. It's nice to
find some quality discussion on the internet. Nice to meet everyone.
Where are these "extremist Christians" burning and burying people alive, beheading hostages, blasting
away at crowds in night clubs? "Christian extremism" is a figment of your imagination. The attempt to
equate Moslem violence with conservative Christians is utterly absurd. Do you seriously believe that
soime Amish dude is going to run amuck in a New York night club and slaughter hundreds of people?
Obama does not get is morning SITREP delivered with biblical headers
"The religious theme for briefings prepared for the president and his war cabinet was the brainchild
of Major General Glen Shaffer, a committed Christian and director for intelligence serving Mr Rumsfeld
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the days before the six-week invasion, Major General Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers
for the briefings to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle.
But as the body count rose, he decided to introduce biblical quotes.
However, many of his Pentagon colleagues were reportedly opposed to the idea, with at least one Muslim
analyst said to be greatly offended.
A defence official warned that if the briefing covers were leaked, the damage to America's standing
in the Arab world 'would be as bad as Abu Ghraib' – the Baghdad prison where U.S. troops abused Iraqis.
But Major General Shaffer, 61, who retired in August 2003, six months after the invasion, claimed
he had the backing of the president and defence secretary. When officials complained, he told them the
practice would continue because it was 'appreciated by my seniors' – Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Bush.
The briefing covers were revealed for the first time by GQ after they were leaked to the U.S. magazine
by a source at the Pentagon."
Disheveled Marsupial . whilst I understand the acts committed transcend time and political party's .
never the less in – The Name Of – can not be white washed away
Did you manage to miss Trump's point in the video that the US has killed millions in the Middle East,
and that if US presidents had gone to the beach for the last 15 years. everyone would have been better
off? And that we murder people by drone in addition to all our undeclared wars? You are seriously pretending
Christians not only have blood on their hands, but started these wars and have killed people in vastly
bigger numbers than we have? I'm not defending terrorists, but your position is a remarkable airbrushing.
The worst domestic terrorist the U.S. ever produced, Timothy McVeigh, wasn't Amish, yet neither was
he Muslim. Denying people the opportunity to immigrate here– based solely on religion– contradicts the
principles of tolerance on which this country was founded.
Yah, this is a Great Country, isn't it, where everyone has the right to own assault weapons, and
the opportunity to assemble and detonate giant bombs hidden in rental trucks, and you can do pretty
much whatever you can get away with, depending on one's degree of immunity and impunity and invisibility
Eric Rudolph and Robert Lewis Dear, Jr., are more examples of Christian terrorists. Outside the country,
there's Anders Breivik (well, he's only partially Christian, but he's definitely not Muslim).
I get your point from a labor standpoint but who gets to decide to shut the door and say 'no more
room at the inn'? Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the
descendants of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
PS: I haven't heard this talked about much but does anyone really believe Trump is serious with all
this immigrant-bashing rhetoric? If he is anywhere near as rich as he claims to be, he got there at
least in part, and likely in large part by exploiting cheap labor. While I've never stayed in a Trump
property to see for myself I'm guessing that all the hotel employees aren't direct descendants of the
Daughters of the American Revolution.
Unless it's First Peoples I think it would be pretty hypocritical coming from the descendants
of all the other immigrants who crossed over themselves at some point.
Everybody outside of Africa, including "First Peoples" (if I understand that phrase correctly), is
a descendant of immigrants. The ancestors of the Amer-Indians (probably) came from Siberia over the
Bering land bridge during the late ice age.
It might be hypocritical for an actual immigrant to advocate restrictions on immigration, but that's
not the case for descendants of immigrants. But if there are restrictions, they shouldn't be based on
religion or race.
I don't really think shutting down immigration is the answer. It's not practical and isn't likely
to solve the problems blamed on immigration even if you could keep people out.
People don't leave their countries en masse unless there's some kind of disaster. A little less imperialism
turning nations to rubble would be a much better solution.
So you believe that no people, anywhere, ever, have a right to determine who can join their community,
contribute to their community, or undercut their community's wages and values. Except if some "First
Peoples" show up and endorse the idea? Do they have divine right of kings or something? What if we got
one Indian to agree? A plurality of them?
If it was right for the natives to resist the destruction of their way of life in 1492-1900, and
it was, it is right for the natives to resist of the destruction of their way of life now. Even if those
natives' skin now comes in multiple colors.
Well, I have trouble believing that Trump is serious about his TPP-bashing and Iraq-war-bashing,
I have trouble believing Trump's words are credible on just about any issue.
It's going to be a rough four years, whether Trump wins or loses.
Well, Sanders still has a chance, although he's a long shot. Democratic voters in Kentucky, Oregon,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota,
and the District of Columbia have a chance to save the nomination for him.
In Puerto Rico, Montana, and North Dakota, the election events are open, so anyone who's registered
can vote for Sanders. In California, registered independents can also vote for Sanders.
If its hypocritical, perhaps we should live with that if it is also reality-based and pragmatic.
As in " we've got a good thing going here and we don't need nobody else muscling in on our sweet racket".
Separately, many advocates of ILLEGAL immigration carefully pull a sleight-of-mouth bait-and-switch
between ILLEGAL immigration and legal immigration. Accepters of carefully controlled legal immigration
can still reject ILLEGAL immigration for pragmatic social-survival reasons.
Quite simply, the idea of banning Muslims entry to the U.S. is an affront to the very nature of the
American experiment, of plurality, equality, and religious freedom. However, recent events in Europe,
specifically the sexual assaults in Cologne and elsewhere show that some young Muslim men are a problem.
So are some young American men. An issue we need to wrestle with is how to reduce this problem. Such
problems are not about religion, they are cultural, they are about interpersonal respect and behavior.
But, the West, broadly speaking, has shown horrendous disrespect to Moslems. The U.S. has attacked wedding
parties and funerals, destroyed cities and countries, behaving like Crusaders. Perhaps were the West
to display less barbarism toward Moslems, they would express more respect toward us. Seems worth a try.
He doesn't have to mean anything. Trump needs to drive potential Democratic turnout down. On one
hand, reminding people how awful Hillary is effectively destroys volunteer efforts which is how voters
get registered and identified for gotv. The other side is what is the perception of the average Democratic
voter of Hillary's record. Hillary supporters have pushed the "tested," "likely to win, " and "inevitable"
arguments for a long time now. How many people in the potential electorate understood Hillary was a
hawk when they voted or didn't bother to show up? Bernie used words such as "poor judgement" for fear
of being labeled sexist. Trump won't hold back.
Perhaps, Trump was a mole, but what can Bill offer that the GOP can't? Air Force One might not be
the most luxurious plane, but its the Air Force plane wherever the President is. Thats respect no one
can buy. Reagan was carted through the White House, so why not Trump?
Imagine Trump running to the left of Hillary on defense / interventionism, trade, and universal healthcare.
That would sure make things interesting. He could win.
It ain't over. She's got one countermove left which is to somehow get Bernie on the ticket and grab
the enthusiastic and politically correct (if not fully-informed) millenial vote. Otherwise the dilution
of the blue vote in the swing states will loom large. James Carville, astute handicapper that he is,
has already sniffed out that Hillary now needs Bernie more than Bernie needs Hillary.
Sanders on the ticket would only undermine Sanders. This Is about the DLC or the status quo. The
length of Sanders career has made him credible, but Hillary has already lost this same race to an empty
suit. The Democrats have bled support since Obama went full Reagan, but in many ways, this is a conflict
between Democratic elites and their loyalist followers and everyone else. Accepting assimilation will
only hurt Sanders. Forcing a Vice President onto Hillary such as Gabbard would be a far better aim.
Sanders supporters aren't interested in a status quo candidate, supported by the usual list of villains.
Hillary can get a begrudging vote, but she will never endive enthusiasm. Bernie and Hillary uniting
will only annoy people.
Yes, and then, as his long history with customers, contractors, vendors and creditors has shown,
he'll fuck us.
Please don't take this as advocacy for the Other One, but Donnie's entire career is based on screwing
people over; this is just another, albeit far bigger, hustle.
Don't think for a second that you could rely on him to follow through honestly about anything; it's
always and forever about Donnie.
Hey, there's at least a 1% chance that Trump won't go out if his way to screw the American people
considering the blackbox nature of his candidacy, whereas there is at least a 100% chance that HRC will
screw the American people hard. And add in the fact that she is a known psychopath with an itchy trigger
finger who will have the Red Button on her desk if she gets into the oval office Yeah. Trump isn't
looking too bad now, is he?
I gotta admit that Trump has always been a wild card for me, and while he is likely to screw us,
Hillary definitely will. Still the only candidate worth supporting in any conceivable sense is Bernie.
Given his gleeful endorsement of torture, advocacy for war crimes, nods to totalitarianism and fascism,
his own clear psychopathy, along with his racism, xenophobia, and apparent ignorance on everything from
medicine to the environment, and nuclear weapons, yes he looks bad, even in comparison with Hillary
Clinton , which says a great deal about just how awful he truly is.
I'm personally more frightened by Trump than Clinton. I've lived through almost 8 years of Obama,
plus Bush and Clinton how much worse than those could another 4-8 years of the same be? Trump is a
terrifying like my house on fire. But at the same time, I can certainly understand the desire to vote
for the Green with a clear conscience.
Perhaps we'll get lucky, and Hillary's campaign will collapse before the convention. Bernie would
be the first candidate I could really vote for (and who'd have a real chance at winning).
Why not put your vote where your words are? We're Senator Bernie Sanders to be the candidate, my
vote would be his. If he's not, and he endorses Secretary Clinton, then my vote goes to Doctor Jill
Stein, my favorite candidate anyway. Given the momentum Sanders has generated, were he, instead of supplicating
himself to Clinton following her coronation, to stand behind Ms. Stein Only in my dreams. Sigh
The DLC Third-Way Clintonite Obamacrats will not let Bernie become nominee no matter what. If the
party can't coronate Clinton, the party will try to bolt the severed head of Joe Biden onto Clinton's
headless body . . and run THAT.
That right there is what convinced me that the woman is a psychopath. She should have been carried
out out of the interview in a straight jacket, and yet there are some people who trying to make her
president. Trump may be a narcissist, but I would not say that he's psychotic.
If nothing else you need to support Trump for the survival of humanity.
Thinking about a Trump/hillary_clinton. contest reminds me of the movie 'The Sting'; where a couple of honest
con men take down a dishonest con man who killed their friend. I see Hillary as the dishonest con man.
In reality Trump is NOT to the left of Hillary on universal healthcare. Read his website.
Look since the guy is a major presidential candidate whether one likes that or not, I have no problem
directing people to his website. See how he puts his actual policy positions, such as they are, in his
own words.
Interventionism and trade remain to be seen as personally I think his positions on them are likely
to still uh evolve as they say during the campaign season. So I'm leaving the verdict out there.
I brought up this idea right when he became the presumptive nominee but this isn't really a pivot
left. He's always been less of a hawk than Hillary. One of the few positions he has been relatively
consistent on. I see him biding his time for a full pivot until Bernie is out of the picture. Here's
to hoping that doesn't happen.
My apologies, my friend. Didn't mean to step on you. Meant it as a concurrence. Sipping coffee slowly
today. You're one of my favorite people here for your regularly spot on, insightful comments.
Yes, my big effort to tell myself that Life Under Trump may not be as horrible as I fear is that
the record of outsider presidents (Carter) and celebrity governors (Schwarznegger and Jesse Ventura)
is they get very little done.
Modern governors are bound by devolution and mandates. They are just glorified city managers with
the staff to do the city manager's job. Even popular, insider governors can do very little. The President
can set the terms by which the governors operate.
I'm concerned that HRC will get more done than the Donald, but little of HRC's actions will be positive.
California handled Schwarznegger without too many problems as he tried unsuccessfully to "break down
boxes".
He replaced, via recall, the forgettable democratic Governor Gray Davis who simply disappeared from
politics.
As I recall, Davis papered over the CA energy crisis until after the election, figuring that when
the s**t hit the fan, he'd have been safely reinstalled in office.
I see HRC as possibly getting more wars started, TPP/TTIP approved, a grand bargain done on SS, and
providing more coddling to the financial, medical and insurance industries.
If many or all of HRC's possible negative accomplishments will not be done by Trump, then that could
justify electing a president who accomplishes little..
Yea Schwarznegger was ok. He made a few very devoted enemies in a few unions. But he was probably
far better on pushing environmental issues than Jerry fracking Brown ever was or will be. If it was
him versus Jerry at this point, I might very well prefer Arnold.
I think Trump at least understands that you can't take money from people who don't have any. His
casino enterprise in Atlantic City may have taught him that.
Like Anne Amnisia's link yesterday, I feel like I know where I stand with a Mussolini and can envision
taking a bullet honorably in resistance where the DNC method has been slowly killing me my whole adult
life and, short of Bernie, I can't see how to resist!
If he's ineffectual and doesn't start more wars, at least its more time to organize and Trump's the
kind of "leader" that might give focus to resistance.
Yves, I wish I thought you were right. But The Duck is so bizarre, so definitively unhinged, that
no one can predict what he'll do. He changes positions as the wind blows. And when he follows any philosophy
at all, it's the "Conservative" philosophy. He doesn't believe in global warming. He once said that
there should be NO minimum wage. I'm a Bernie fan, not a Hillary fan, but I would never, ever take the
risk of letting the Hare-Brained Jabberwocky into any position of power, which means, probably, that
I have to vote for Hillary, and even start sending her money after the primaries. Probably.
His healthcare plan on his campaign website is the usual Republican gibberish – repeal Obamacare,
sell insurance across state lines, block grant Medicaid.
He suggested 20-30,000 troops to Syria in response to a debate question, then said he would never
do that, but send " air power and military support" instead. (
LINK )
edit: Position on the website is also to give veterans the ability to "choose" healthcare outside
the VA system. (I'm not knowledgeable to say if this would actually help current pressing VA issues,
but it is a move from a national public health service model to a private care model, so not leftward).
Thanks for that. I think the general idea holds, though: it's a populist remake of politics, and
I think if Trump stakes out some 'unconventional' positions that are to the 'left' of HRC, he could
beat her.
Well, if by left you meant 'left' then we agree :) His appeal is much broader, though IMO a combination
of rightward demagoguery and leftward populist-i-ness.
That VA notion is a dagger pointed at the heart of all those people who for whatever reason, "took
the King's shilling" or drew the short straws in the draft lotteries or, before that, were nailed and
"inducted" just by living in heavy-draft-quota areas. And of course the Greatest Generation, so many
of whom got drug into earlier US imperial wars (Narrative notwithstanding.)
Sending GIs to docs outside the VA system (itself under siege for generations now by the same shits
who bring on the Forever War that generates ever more damaged people needing those "services"), to docs
who in my experience pretty uniformly have zero knowledge of vet-specific problems and diseases and
injuries, who will be paid how much to treat what quota of veterans, again? Crucifying GIs on the HMO
cross, so people can pretend there's "care" for them, via docs who are even more likely than VA docs
(who at least have some protections against arbitrary rules and policies and firings, in a "system"
run by many who institutionalize actual CARE as the main idea) to "go along with the minimization-hurry-up-and-die
program"?
The whole notion is straight Rule #2: "GO DIE, FOKKER! And do it quietly, out of sight, and with
minimum fuss, in a structure that so diffuses the abuses over space and time that it's extremely difficult
for the affected population to even gather the numbers to show how bad it is." Straight "more continuing
more opaque fog of war" bullshit. The same kind of sales BS as used to sell the rest of neoliberalist
misery ("Don't whine now, fools - you voted for it, I have the validated results of the elections right
here, so now it's All Nice And Legal, seeee?) from NAFTA and preceding frauds and vast FIREs, on up
to the present scams.
In the meantime, the Military-Industrial Juggernaut continues to gain mass and momentum. Trump can
natter about "war in the Mideast is a bad deal for the US" (Mideast seemingly not including AfPak, China,
Africa, South America, etc.) as a "bad deal." But will he have any interest in spooling down the turbines
on the enormous Milo Minderbinder Enterprises machine that is daily being "upgraded" and "up-armored"
and "re-weaponed" and "re-doctrined" and "mission-creeped," with the happy participation of every business,
large and small, that can wangle or "extend" a procurement or "study" contract to expand and lethality
and simple bureaucratic-growth size and incompetence (as a military force, in the old sense of what
armies are supposed to do for the Emperoro) of the monster, even as we blog participants do our mostly
ineffectual (if intellectually pleasing) nattering?
Civilian Control of the Military is a dishonest myth - true only in the sense that the Captains of
MICIndustry and drivers of "policy" are not currently Active Duty, though they all, along with the generals
(who live like kings, of course) belong to the same clubs and dip deeply into the same MMT Cornucopia.
And the MIC, from what I read, is quite open and pleased about the state of affairs
I would argue that the MIC is simply part of the 20 percent that derive their middle class existence
by serving at the beck and call of the 1 percent. You are describing the symptoms and not the disease.
We are in the grip of "credentialled" doctors and lawyers. Just as most litigation and most of what
lawyers do is destructive to the average person, it is estimated that half of all surgeries done in
the US are unnecessary. the HIC (health industrial complex) has brainwashed the public to believe that
we need $20,000 per month medications and artificial discs. As you have doubtless seen the third leading
cause of death in the US is medical mistakes. They happen in the VA and in the private sector. Maybe
the notion of more medical care is better is simply not valid. At some point we will have to realize
that rationing in a rational way is going to have to happen. I would rather have someone who went to
medical school decide on what is going to be rationed than some lawyer or business administrator.
There sure is a lot packed into that comment. But my experience with VA doctors and other caregivers
(speaking as a retired "private sector" nurse, VA care recipient and former attorney) is that except
for the psychiatrists and some of the docs that perform disability examinations, the VA caregivers actually
provide care, and they seem to do it pretty well, given the constant attrition of resources and burgeoning
case load the neolibs are imposing. Personal tale: the Medicare 'provider" at the full-spectrum clinic
I used to use was all hot to perform a "common surgical procedure that most older men need." A fee-generating
TURP, which pretty rarely improves the victim's life. The VA doc, looking at the same condition and
presentation, noted the down-sides pretty carefully and said that until I was a lot more "restricted,"
there was no way I "needed" any such invasive procedure. But then his income is not influenced by the
number of cuts he makes
Most of what lawyers do any more, and this has been true for a long time, is combat over wealth transfers,
economic warfare. Ever since partnership was killed off as the mandatory form of lawyer business operations,
with attendant personal liability for partner actions, the rule is "eat what you kill, and kill all
you can." Most doctors I know have caregiving as their primary motivation in going into medicine. (Most
nurses, the same to a much greater extent, and since they start with smaller debt and fewer chances
to bleed the patient and the system that bleeds the nurse pretty badly, they can carry that decency
forward.)
Interesting, of course, that more and more doctors have joint MD and MBA credentials. And working
with other operatives, are gradually and maybe inexorably forcing more of their fellows into "medical
cooperatives" like HCA and JSA, where they become salaried wage slaves with productivity targets and
metrics, and thus "rationers" de facto, by having to respond to "metrics" that are all driven by the
basic business model: "More and more work, from fewer and fewer people, for less and less money, for
higher and higher costs, with ever more crapified outcomes for the mope-ery." Although, I might offer,
there are some of my fellow mopes who actually do benefit from those back surgeries (yes, maybe most
of them are unwarranted, but not all) and meds that only cost "$20,000 per month" because of MARKETS.
Imagine Trump winning as a GOP canidate by running to the left of the DNC canidate. The vision of
the GOP having a collective ulcer/Rovian Meltdown is making me giggle like a schoolgirl all day.
Frankly, I'm *much* more worried about HRC in the Whitehouse than I am about Trump. Reason why is
that he's a relative outsider, not an Establishment guy - and there is always Congress to deal with.
Its not like he would have a total dictatorship, whereas HRC would be able to do far more and deeper
damage to the nation.
My position is Sanders or bust, and I say that as a 20-year member of the GOP (now independent).
Like you said, he changes his positions all the time, and Clinton is no doubt a serious warmonger/war
criminal, but he did also say that he would "bomb the s- out of ISIS," which one might also be inclined
to characterize as trigger happy.
I am equally terrified at the prospect of having Clinton or Trump at the nuclear controls, which
is why we should all send Bernie a few bucks today. The MSM have already gone into full Clinton v Trump
general election mode, though that is certain to change once Bernie wins California.
If you read what Trump has said about our foreign policy, he has been consistent in his view that
the US can't and shouldn't be acting as an imperalist. He does not use those words, but he's said this
often enough that I've even linked to articles describing how Trump is willing to depict America as
being in decline, and this as one manifestation. In addition, his foreign policy speech was slammed
basically because it broke with neocon orthodoxy. I have not read it but people I respect and who are
not temperamentally inclined to favor Trump have, and they said it was sensible and among other things
argued that we could not be fighting with China and Russia at the same time, and pumped for de-escalating
tensions with Russia as the country whose culture and interests were more similar to ours than China's.
Having said that, calling out our belligerence and TPP as bad ideas seem to be the only issues on
which he's not been all over the map (well, actually, he has not backed down on his wall either .)
The other reason to think he might stick with this position more consistently than with others is
that his core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support among
veterans and active duty soldiers, and it's due to his speaking out against these wars.
Trump can probably get away with continuing to shape shift till Labor Day, since most voters don't
make up their minds till close to the election. It's not pretty to watch him make a bold statement and
then significantly walk it back in the next 24 hours, particularly if it's an issue you care about and
he's said something that is so nuts that it sounds like he cares more about his Nielsen rating than
what makes sense for the country. If he can't put enough policy anchors down by the fall and stick to
them, he will lose a lot of people who might give him a shot out of antipathy to Clinton.
That may well be the case and he was right to call out the Iraq war as a "mistake" during that debate
(given his otherwise unconventional rhetoric, however, I was actually a bit disappointed that he didn't
use the more correct term war crime), but he has also said that he wants to bring back torture and then
some.
As far as I'm concerned though, the race right now is between Clinton and Bernie and I'm fairly confident
that Bernie still has a good chance since he is sure to take California (which, luckily for Bernie,
will seem like a huge surprise).
In a match up between Trump and Clinton my own personal thoughts (that a democratic – i.e. neoliberal
– white house will at least continue to move people to the left, whereas a republican white house will
only galvanize people around bringing another neoliberal to the white house) are irrelevant because
I have virtually no doubt that Trump will win.
Yes, his enthusiasm for torture is pretty creepy and you get a taste of it here indirectly: "That
Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!" While Trump does seem
to genuinely disapprove of all the people our wars have killed for no upside (a commonsense position
in absence among our foreign policy elites), he seems overly confident that we can identify baddies
well and having identified them, we should have no compunction about being brutal with them.
"That Saddam, he was a really bad guy but he sure could take care of those terrorists!"
His meaning here is we should have stayed out of it and let the "really bad guy" (Saddam) handle
Al Quaeda. Of course, the Bush neocons dishonestly morphed Saddam into Al Quaeda. You know the rest
of the story.
I'm willing to bet that he's saying a lot of this stuff for his audience–people who are generally
a pretty angry and bloodthirsty lot. I'm not saying that he's not going to come out for peace, love
and contrition when he's elected president, but I think it is safe to say that his rhetoric now is completely
unrelated to how he'd go about actually governing.
OK, so normally that'd be a horrible admission–if the Democrats hadn't had the brilliant idea of
foisting Hillary onto the American people. What a brain-dead move! I myself could have been persuaded
to support Bernie, but Hillary is the Devil incarnate as far as I'm concerned.
One fact that we have to remember is all the people who designed, advocated for, implemented, and
defended "enhanced interrogation" and than who use "Clintonisms" to say we no longer use torture (because
we never did – "enhanced interrogation") AND because we are "rendering" them someplace else and our
friends are doing the enhanced interrogation – well, such lying devious people in my view are far, far
worse than The Donald.
In my view, there appears to be considerable evidence that the US still defacto tortures – and that
is far, far worse than the appalling, but at least truthful statement of how Trump feels. And of course,
pink misting people may not be torture, but it can't be separated.
Again, which is worse:
A. The Donald up front advocates a policy (of torture), people can be mobilized to oppose it. No legalisms,
dissembling, and every other term that can be used to obfuscate what the US is REALLY doing.
B. The US government asserts it no longer tortures. How many readers here have confidence that that
is a factually true statement, that can be said without word games?
Is saying we should torture WORSE than saying we don't torture, but WE ARE???
I feel the same way. It's preferable to have someone take the morally reprehensible pro-torture stance
than to pretend to be against it while secretly renditioning prisoners and so forth.
except for the fake wmds that started it. and abu ghraib. and the reasons the contractors were hung
in fallujah. and the fake alliance between saddam and al quaida. and outing valerie plame when joe wilson
blew the whistle on the fake purpose of the aluminum tubes.
Enough electoral fraud has been evidenced that I think that the numbers are going to be gamed to
be closer to the non-representative polling that flood the MSM. He may win, but they aren't going to
allow him to win by a lot in such a delegate heavy state.
Unfortunately, I think you are quite right that the California numbers will be rigged/gamed. I had
become quite cynical about American politics, thanks to Obama the More Effective Evil's reign and the
Bush and the Supremes Florida gambit back in 2000. But this primary vote rigging has really moved my
marker so far that I am not even sure what word to use what's more cynical than super duper cynical?
So here's an idea I've been pondering how can the people try to prevent or find this? Could we exit
poll outside the voting places? Yes it would be a limited sample of just one local place but it's something
and in aggregate if lots of people were doing this
I too think they might try to game California. And this is quite alarming considering California
is usually too unimportant to even game. I figure the elections are usually honest here, probably because
they just don't matter one whit. But this time it might matter and they might steal the vote.
"core voters come from communities where a lot of people have fought in the post-9/11 Middle
Eastern conflicts. Our armed forces are stretched to the breaking point. Trump has strong support
among veterans and active duty soldiers"
This.
People tend to also forget that there's a lot of us Gen-X'ers that were deployed over there over
25 years ago, when it was popular, for the same damned thing. Nothing has changed. Sure, some leadership
folks have been taken out, but the body count of Americans soldiers has only risen,and the Region is
now worse off.
The "first time" we had more folks die from non-combat related accidents than from actual combat.
Some of us are sick of our political and corporate establishment selling out our fellow soldiers and
Veterans, even worse is the way they have been treated when they come home. I'm not a Trump supporter,
but this part of his message not only resonates with me, but angers me further. Why? Because I know
that if Hillary Clinton walks into The Oval Office, even more Americans are going to die for lust of
more power and influence.
HRC is simply the evilest human being I have ever seen in politics in my lifetime. Trump may be an
idiot, crass, authoritarian, and any number of negative things, but he is not "evil" – she is.
If the mash up continues as Clinton v. Trump and barring any character sinking actions of Trump,
this man will win in November. To paraphrase Shivani, Clinton is speaking entirely in high minded self-interest,
while Trump has latched onto and is pressing a actual truths of reality (regardless of his personal
convictions or what he wlll actually do if elected).
Trump is more liberal than Clinton here. What exactly are her redeeming qualities again?
I can't really think of any HRC redeeming qualities. "Retail politicking" doesn't seem to be one
of them. Lambert, you no doubt saw this video of her confronted with rising health insurance costs post-ACA?
Her word salad response doesn't begin to address the real issues
During a recent town hall event, a small business owner explained to the Democratic front-runner
that her health insurance has gone up so significantly for her family that the thought of providing
benefits to her employees is secondary at this point.
"As a small business owner, not only are you trying to provide benefits to your employees,
you're trying to provide benefits to yourself. I have seen our health insurance for my own family,
go up $500 dollars a month in the last two years. We went from four hundred something, to nine hundred
something. We're just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide
benefits to your employees is almost secondary, yet to keep your employees happy, that's a question
that comes across my desk all the time. I have to keep my employees as independent contractors for
the most part really to avoid that situation, and so I have turnover"
"We do not qualify for a subsidy on the current health insurance plan. My question to you
is not only are you looking out for people that can't afford healthcare, but I'm someone that can
afford it, but it's taking a big chunk of the money I bring home."
To which Hillary responded, to make a long story short, that she knows healthcare costs are going
up, and doesn't understand why that would ever be the case.
"What you're saying is one of the real worries that we're facing with the cost of health insurance
because the costs are going up in a lot of markets, not all, but many markets and what you're describing
is one of the real challenges."
"There's a lot of things I'm looking at to try to figure out how to deal with exactly the
problem you're talking about. There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to
the real world test, will this really help a small business owner or a family be able to afford it.
What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't understand."
"What could have possibly raised your costs four hundred dollars, and that's what I don't
understand." - this from a woman who ostensibly is an expert on health care delivery?
The link is from Zero Hedge but in any case watch the video. Or wait for it to appear in a Trump
campaign ad:
"Or wait for it to appear in a Trump campaign ad" Haha!
I am surprised she didn't pull out the "90% coverage" false-positve. We haven't seen that pony enough.
The notion of imploring "scientific" method here is interesting in light of the party's blood oath to
meritocracy. "There are some good ideas out there but we have to subject them to the real world
test ". It also implies that the process is natural and no accountability is necessary.
Another great DNC experiment. Throwing the blacks in jail for 20 years over nothing "oh well, we
need to try more!" I cannot imagine being in prison right now for some minor drug offense and hearing
the Clintons spew this nonsense.
Jeff Gundlach, one of the few iconoclasts and reigning king of bonds on Wall Street:
"People are going to start putting greater focus on Hillary (Clinton). Voters are going to say, 'No.
I don't want this,'" he told Reuters. "Hillary is going to evolve into an unacceptable choice. If she
is such a great candidate, how come (Bernie Sanders) is beating her?"
Even more. He's based in LA so there's a 400 mile air gap between him in the goldbugging, glibertarian,
wannabe John Galt culture of the Valley exemplified by Peter Theil.
How about a picture of Gundlach for tomorrow's antidote ?
It is warm heartening to see this site who consistently leaning left warming for the Donald. Clinton
is a horrible candidate, flawed human being and her presidency is guaranteed to be marred by scandal
after scandal and deep polarization.
Bern would be a great choice but he has no chance, the corrupt Democratic establishment will stick with
Clinton.
I inuited months ago that the warming to Donald thing would happen. I have a growing conviction that
most of the people here, maybe even you, are going to vote for Donald in November. Even Jason will vote
for Donald (unless he is being employed by that pro-Hillary super pac which I don't think is the case
but just throwing it out there since there are empirically speaking people being paid to produce pro
Hillary comments on the internet). Barring something truly interesting and novel happening between now
and then that is.
The way things are going now this plane seems set for an effortless autopilot victory for Trump.
I have no doubt that everyone will regret too. They'll even regret before they cast the vote, and do
it anyway. Oh man, that's some truly black humor. OK I'll make an even grander prediction: Trump will
inaugurate the post postmodern era (whatever historians eventually decide to call it) where our entire
conception and perception of reality as a society undergoes a radical and unpleasant change. It's a
unique time to be alive. Aren't we lucky?
Wait. I just had an incredible insight. We're already out of the postmodern era, and I can date it
from Sept. 11, 2001as the exit. Historian are going to say that this was a short era, a transitional
era of illusions, delusions and fear, where complete non-reality Trumped the real for an ever so short
period of time. But now we're going to be shocked awake, and what's coming next is going to be incredible
and horrific. Damn, it's such an awesome and strange feeling to see things so clearly all of a sudden!
It's really happening. So this why I've been obsessing over this stuff much recently.
I tried to find a short clip of Brunhilde riding her horse into the flames in Gotterdammerung right
before Valhalla collapses, which is what voting for Trump would be like for me, but I couldn't find
out.
There was an antiwar left on the msm during the Bush years? Kerry's campaign message was "Ill be
W 2.0." Kerry himself was that awful, but there was no antiwar left in the msm. I thought the absence
was the direct cause for the rise of blogs. The real crisis is the shift of websites such as TalkingPointMemo
and CrooksandLiars to Team Blue loyalist sites or when Digby brought on Spoonfed.
Yep. 2006 was when the Dems decapitated the left blogosphere, and as a result we have no independent
media, except for lonely outposts like this one, and whatever those whacky kidz are doing with new media.
I keep donating to Bernie because even if he somehow doesn't win the nomination, he can force Hillary
to be much more like him – if HRC wants Bernie voters to clinch the deal for her. Bernie staying in
and fighting to the end (and my money says he wins) is great and if Hillary doesn't become Bernie, then
the only one that can beat Trump is Bernie, and the super-delegates have got to see that.
Bottom line, Hillary has to become Bernie to beat Trump. Is that going to happen? We'll see.
Bernie staying in until the very end serves two purposes (he CAN still win, especially when he carries
California). The first is, again, he CAN win. The second purpose is to prevent Hillary from shifting
right the way she REALLY wants to for the general. She will have to keep tacking left to fend off a
major slide towards Bernie. The "center" (actually right wing) is out of reach for her as long as Bernie
is there.
Sorry to rain on your thesis, but absent the nomination, all Bernie can do is to force Hillary to
*message* more like him. With her, the operative phrase is "words are wind". There is nothing whatever
to keep her from immediately ditching every progressive-sounding campaign stance once she is in office,
just as Obama did. And I guarantee you that if she does become president, that is precisely what she
will do.
Trump knows the counterweight better than anyone. He's the guy you keep on the job because he's entertaining,
knowing he will sell you out if you let him, and you let him, when it serves a purpose, to adjust the
counterweight.
POLITICS, RE feudalism, is a game, and he loves it, despite the heartburn. All that debt inertia.preventing
the economic motor from gaining traction is psychological. That much he knows, which is a lot more than
the rest of the politicians, making him a better dress maker. But like the others, he has no idea what
to do about it.
He vascillates to maintain options, including a path to the future, while others rule themselves
out. Of course hiring good people is the answer, but most Americans are politicians, like anywhere else,
wanting to know little more than their cubicle, because the net result of majority behavior is punishing
work, in favor of consumers, competing for advantage.
If you spent this time developing skills and finding a spouse that won't cut your throat, you will
do quite well. The casino isn't life; it just keeps a lot of people busy, with busy work. Government
is hapless.
It's hard to know if Trump sees militarization and imperialism as bad because they're bad or bad
because it's not Donald Trump in charge, with a great big straw sucking Benjamins between those rectally
pursed lips. It may take an agent provocateur bullshitter to call bullshit, but that says nothing about
what Trump will do as president. What's likeliest, given his record, is an opportunistic seizure of
the Treasury to rival the occupation of Iraq. When I gaze into my crystal ball at a Trump administration
I see cronyism, graft, corruption, nepotism, and deceit of monumental dimensions, just like the gold
letters spelling Trump plastered over everything he lays his stubby little hands on. Because the Clintons
are appalling doesn't make Trump appealing. It's a farcical contest, and every way, we lose.
You echo my feelings. My loathing of Clinton knows no bounds, and I cannot vote for her, no matter
what. But I simply don't trust Trump. He's a gold-digger extrodinaire, and quite the accomplished showman.
He knows how to play to the crowd, and he's clearly quite quick to shape shift. The wrecked tatters
of what's called the USA "media" gives Trump a YOOOGE pass on simply everything and anything the man
says or does.
I don't trust Trump, and although, yes, he has says a few things that I agree with – and usually
stuff that no one else at his level will ever say – it's essentially meaningless to me. I think Trump
would be a disaster as President, and my "take" – which is based on my own opinion – is that he'll be
Grifter El Supremo and make sure that he walks off with stacks and gobs and buckets of CA$H. For him.
And if the country really tanks and goes bankrupt? So What?
Plus all this about Trump not being a War Hawk? I don't trust it. With the other breath, he's constantly
spewing about "building up" the damn military, which, allegedly Obama has "weakened." Like, we really
need to be spending another gazillion of our tax dollars "building up" the Military??? WHY? If The Donald
is so against all these foreign wars, then why do we need to spend even more money on the Military???
All that signals to me is that Donald expects to go large on MIC investments for HIMSELF.
Story time: so, when I married the Mrs, I offered to fix the mother in laws old bug. She turned me
down and has since demand that I fix what is now a rust bucket, not worth one manhour of my time, going
around to the neighbors, all critters on govt checks rapidly falling behind RE inflation, to build consensus
to the end, among women using men and men using women, all of them having thrown their marriages under
the bus, as if majority vote is going to get me to do something I have no intention of doing.
When hospital gave Grace that shot and sent her to the ICU, per Obamacare expert protocol, all the
critters went into CYA mode, and ultimately called the family, to confirm that the wife and I must be
on drugs, which they did. I don't blame the morons running the court system, and she's the mother in
law.
That debt is nothing more than psychology, but it is more effective than a physical prison. Silicon
Valley is the as is abutment, simply reinforcing stupid with ever greater efficiency, but it is the
endpoint on a collapsing bridge with no retreat, because automation has systematically destroyed the
skill pool and work ethic required to advance further, replacing them with make work and make work skills.
Competing with China and the Middle East to build carp infrastructure to keep As many economic slaves
as busy as possible is not the path forward. As you have seen, govt data is far closer to being 180
degrees wrong than being correct, as designed, which you should expect, from those holding out ignorance
as a virtue.
There are far more elevators that need fixing than I could ever get to, and I am quite capable of
fixing them in a manner that generates power. Who becomes president is irrelevant.
My family in Ohio is massive, they made a killing on RE and currency arbitrage, after selling all
the family farms, and have nothing real to show for it, but rapidly depreciating sunk costs, waiting
to do it again. Rocket scientists.
If the GWOT has cost us $4 Trillion, somebody made $4 Trillion.
That/those somebodies are not about to give up the kind of behavior that makes that
kind of money.
If there is any real, actual third-rail in American politics, it's the MIC budget.
This fact has never been openly acknowledged, even though the American people are pretty sure that
threatening the will of the MIC cost the life of at least one well known politician.
Trump may talk about that enormous waste now, but after his private screening of the Zapruder film
he's going to STFU and get with the program like all the rest.
OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be
ignored, get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that.
if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored, get nothing done
Exactly my feeling. He will be hated and fought constantly, whereas Clinton (if nominated) is guaranteed
to screw things up. Like her husband (who by the way will be there whispering in ears and making passes
at maids) she will triangulate on issues and pass destructive GOP legislation and likely drag this country
into another foreign policy blunder, where I am betting more young, under-educated, poor citizens with
no prospects or options will be sent to slaughter (themselves and others).
EH? I think The Donald will just go Large on MIC investments for himself. He talks a good game, but
he keeps saying that he's going "build up" the Military, even as he's stating that we shouldn't be fighting
in all of these wars. Why, then, do we need to "build up" the Military?
No one ever said Trump was stupid. I'm sure he's rubbing his grubby tiny vulgarian mitts with glee
thinking about how he, too, can get in on that sweet sweet SWEET MIC payola grift scam. Count on it.
Trump doesn't need to see the Zapruder film. He was alive then and knows the story, just like everyone
else of a certain age. Nay, verily, he just means to cash in on it.
Watt4Bob
May 13, 2016 at 12:30 pm
"OTOH, like Yves has pointed out, if Donald wins, he could just end up the loneliest man in DC, be ignored,
get nothing done, and I'm not sure I see a down-side to that."
I too view that as a feature and not a bug. Seriously, in the last 10, 20, 30 years, I would ask,
what law is viewed as making things better? Was Sarbanes Oxley suppose to do something??? Maybe the
law is OK, they just won't enforce it
I know Obamacare is relentlessly disparaged here, others think it is better than nothing.
Many of you youngsters don't realize this, but there was a time, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, that
there were no deductibles, co-pays, narrow networks, and that you had confidence that your doctor may
have over treated and tested you, but you weren't afraid that you would die because it was too expensive
to treat you.
Just like I don't care if GDP goes up because i won't see any of it, I don't care about all the cancer
research because I am certain I won't be able to afford it, even though I have health "insurance" .
"Employer-sponsored retiree health coverage once played a key role in supplementing Medicare," observe
Tricia Neuman and Anthony Damico of the foundation. "Any way you slice it, this coverage is eroding."
Since 1988, the foundation says, among large firms that offer active workers health coverage, the
percentage that also offer retiree health plans has shrunk to 23% in 2015 from 66% in 1988. The decline,
which has been steady and almost unbroken, almost certainly reflects the rising cost of healthcare and
employers' diminishing sense of responsibility for long-term workers in retirement.
.
Financial protection against unexpected healthcare costs is crucial for many Medicare enrollees, especially
middle- and low-income members, because the gaps in Medicare can be onerous. The deductible for Medicare
Part A, which covers inpatient services, is $1,288 this year, plus a co-pay of $322 per hospital day
after 60 days. Part B, which covers outpatient care, has a modest annual deductible of $166 but pays
only 80% of approved rates for most services.
====================================================
80% of 100,000$ means 20K is left over – with cancer treatments*, kidney treatments, cardiovascular
treatments, such a scenario is more likely than a lot of people will imagine.
*treatments don't include those foam slippers that they charge you 25$ for .
But the consequences of the shift away from employer-sponsored retiree benefits go beyond the rise
in costs for the retirees themselves. Many are choosing to purchase Medigap policies, which fill in
the gaps caused by Medicare's deductibles, cost-sharing rates and benefit limitations. That has the
potential to drive up healthcare costs for the federal government too. That's because Medigap policies
tend to encourage more medical consumption by covering the cost-sharing designed to make consumers more
discerning about trips to the doctor or clinic. Already, nearly 1 in 4 Medicare enrollees had a Medigap
policy - almost as many as had employer-sponsored supplemental coverage.
..
The trend is sure to fuel interest on Capitol Hill in legislating limits to Medigap plans. Such limits
have supporters across the political spectrum: Over the past few years, proposals to prohibit Medigap
plans from covering deductibles have come from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, the centrist
Brookings Institution and conservatives such as Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).
================================
please stop going to the doctor, its expensive .just expire
First time poster, long time lurker. You don't think that Sanders success in the race pushed HRC
to embrace debt free 4 year public college?
We'll see what specific policy commitments come out of the convention, but I don't think the current
campaign would have the same issues if Bernie wasn't there.
Please don't mistake me either, ideologically I'm with Sanders and was supporting him until the NYDN
article and the delegate math became pretty much impossible. If I had my druthers, he'd be the candidate,
but it looks quite quite unlikely now.
I'm concerned that HRC will pivot after the election and give support to the TPP but even then I'm
still anti-Trump more.
Actually, a poster with your email commented in 2014 under another handle. There seems to be a rash
lately of infrequent or new commenters who "support Sanders but" or "supported Sanders until" lately.
For some reason.
That said, you could be right on college (
see here for a comparison of the plans ). It's just that Clinton's talking point about not wanting
to pay for Trump's children is so unserious I can't believe the plan is serious.
I dunno. I see a lot of people decry Trump's immigration ban on Muslims, but Hillary's record as
SecState was incredibly violent toward Muslims internationally and also includes presiding
over a defacto immigration ban from specific "problem" states- banning people for security reasons being
much more tactful than banning Muslims per se.
The nativist appeal Trump is making doesn't go much farther than naming the intent of policy Hillary
has been actually pursuing. Trump wants to use the demonisation of Muslims since 9/11 as a political
lever to gain power and will use anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant (weird to see the two conflated so frequently)
sentiment to achieve specific political goals, preferably sublating it into keynesian infrastructure
programs (wall building or whatever). Hillary intends to keep bombing societies that are increasingly
visibily disintegrating from the cumulative effects of climate change, colonial oppression and marginalisation,
foreign intervention, etc. It's not obvious who gets the benefit of the doubt in a lesser evil contest.
Trump is breaking the "lesser of two evils" argument.
Let's be clear about something here. The "lesser of two evils" is not an argument to find which candidate
is "the less evil." It's an argument used to justify the assumption that your candidate is the less
evil of the other. While else is it that Democrats say Clinton is the less evil while Republicans argue
that Trump is the less evil.
It's obvious watching leftist pundits (many of whom I respect) come out and flatly assert "Clinton
is the better of the two." And there heads usually explode right off their shoulders when they run into
someone who disagrees or is simply skeptical of the claim.
The real problem is when Trump dose speak on trade and war policy, he exposes the fallacy of the
argument. We can't take Trump's word for it – even though we already know Hillary is likely lying, so
it's still a tie. The notion that Trump might actually be honest here isn't even permitted to be considered
because that would make Trump the less evil of the two.
The problem I keep running into is just how do you measure "evil?" This gets even harder to do when
you can't take either at their word. There is always some deeper calculous we are expected to project
on the candidates in order to arrive at our pre-supposed conclusion that our candidate is always the
less evil.
It's the main reason I will not be voting for either.
Forgive me for piling on today Btw,.anyone know who this Carmen Yarrusso is? Excerpt from Counterpunch
(today)
"Trump may be a (loose-cannon) unpredictable evil. But then, based on her long track record, Clinton
is a very predictable evil. In fact, Trump is left of Clinton on such things as legal marijuana, NATO
aggression, and trade policy. His crazy proposals (e.g. Mexican wall, banning Muslims) are just bluster
with zero chance of becoming reality. If Congress can stop Obama, it can stop Trump. But Clinton has
a predictable pro-war track record (Iraq, Libya, Syria) and a predictable track record of changing positions
for political expediency (e.g. Iraq war, NAFTA, Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000, immigration, gun control,
the Keystone XL pipeline, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, same-sex marriage). How can you be sure she
won't conveniently change her current progressive positions as president? A Trump presidency just might
force Democratic Party elites to start seriously addressing the populist concerns they now arrogantly
ignore.
If you vote for Clinton as the lesser of two evils, you're compromising your moral values, you're
condoning the Democratic Party's shoddy treatment of millions of progressives, and you're sabotaging
future real change. You're virtually guaranteeing the Democratic Party elites will put you in this position
again and again. If you refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, maybe you'll help elect Trump (or
maybe your write-in or third party choice will win). But you'll certainly send a very clear message
to Democratic Party elites that you'll no longer tolerate being ignored, marginalized, or shamed with
false lesser of two evil choices."
lol watching people attack Trump well, not sure if it's Clinton's army out to scare us about the
horrors Trump will cause. now it's like the Devil we know vs the Devil we don't know. Kind of hard to
compare Trump to Hillary. Hillary's effective brand of evil is well established and is quite thorough,
shown by the primary votes in NY and AZ, for example. watching the Elites attack, belittle and completely
ignore the existence of Bernie gives us a little clue of what is in store if Hillary gets her way. Trump
is the "known unknown" to use Rumsfeld terminology.
Evil is as evil does. aka Hillary
this is perhaps the one and only time I ever will vote Republican. and I abhor Republicans. Hillary
has earned her reputation, Trump.. well Trump or no Trump, it won't be Hillary getting my vote. Keeping
Bernie out, we all lose.
No, I don't support the current administration's drone war, nor did I support the horrible Iraq war
of 2003, but that doesn't answer my question. I don't understand "Hillary is lying" as a tautology and
the conclusion being that Trump is a better bet than HRC because of that.
But in regards to your question, do you think that the drone war stance will change in the next administration
whether's it's HRC or Trump? Trump said he wants to get more aggressive on terrorists than we currently
are, explicitly endorsing torture.
Well even Sanders has come out in favor of drones, so probably, unless one is die hard Jill Stein
all the way. Then one's hands are entirely clean if also entirely ineffective.
Yeah, because voting for drone strikes, imperialism and corruption is more effective at getting rid
of those things than not voting for drone strikes, imperialism and drone strikes
Theyre both liars. If youre trusting Donald to not drone strike or trusting Hillary to not torture,
youre being duped.
As for your comment further down about Trump saying he wants to torture people more Its not as if
Obama has stopped Bush's torture regime or closed Guantanamo. Hillary too would continue more things.
Honestly I still dont understand why Trump is so much scarier than Hillary. Their differences are
mostly kayfabe. All that xenophobic racist demagogy Trump is doing? More kayfabe. Im still voting Stein,
because I dont vote for corrupt imperialists.
Stein is likewise kayfabe. If the party had gone with Anderson he might well have pulled a Bernie
in the last general election. That just wouldn't do, so the party was rather brazenly railroaded into
nominating Stein.
Just as the best lies are 99% truth the best con-jobs are the ones containing the maximum amount
of truthiness. Some days I like the things I hear Trump saying, the next he gives me a sick feeling
with chills down my spine. Sure, he's not sticking to the approved neo-con, neo-lib, Washington consensus
script but just how stupid do you have to be to not know that Saddam Hussein was a secular Bathist dictator
who executed anyone who he saw as a threat to his power, especially muslim extremists. Just because
Trump can spout off a truthy factoid that is only news to the brain-dead Fox News masses doesn't mean
he is any more of an honest dealer than Bush Jr. Does anyone think Bush, Cheney or Rumsfield were operating
under any illusions that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11? Of course not, they either saw
an opportunity or they engineered an opportunity to do what they wanted to do. Trump has shown himself
to be a bully comfortable with marshaling mob violence or the threat of mob violence. He is an authoritarian
and no defender of civil liberties, habeous corpus or the Geneva convention. He's exactly the type of
megalomanic that would try and seize power in an ailing democracy like our own, and I have no doubts
that if elected he will create some sort of Constitutional crisis that could end in a military coup
or Trump installed as a dictator. He already has a silent pissed-off army of violent brown shirts on
his side. I don't like the way this situation looks and people on the left with intelligence and a grasp
of history are deluding themselves if they think Trump isn't a very dangerous person.
In a possibly unrelated note, I'm 99% sure someone deeply keyed the full length of my car (truck
actually) yesterday while I was surfing for no other reason than my Bernie Sanders bumper sticker right
here in sunny, liberal southern California. Could it have been a Clinton supporter or a joy vandal who
likes keying random people's cars – sure. But if Trump wins I wonder how long it is before halal restaurants
and muslim dry cleaners start getting their windows smashed, then burned. How long before Hindus and
brown people start getting attacked (as a common occurrence, not outlier events that are punished as
they are now) because they are confused as being Muslim or Mexican or deliberately because they just
aren't white and should go home. There's a very nasty underbelly to this Trump thing and I don't like
it.
I agree on the nasty underbelly. On the other hand, I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the
millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy. I don't hear that from Clinton, at all.
" I find it refreshing that Trump mentions the millions of people slaughtered by our foreign policy.
I don't hear that from Clinton, at all."
Ditto, me too, but I'm not about to cherry-pick Trump's schizophrenic and ever shifting talking points
then soft-peddle candidate Trump while telling people not to worry. I like silver-linings, staying optimistic
and being contrarian (I wouldn't hang out here otherwise) but why ignore the very troubling subtext
in the rest of Trump's speech? The anti-democratic, sneering remarks about suspected terrorists being
executed immediately in Saddam's Iraq instead of "on trial for fifteen years" in pansy-cakes weak, habeas
corpus America. Trump offhandedly mentions; 'Oh by the way, don't buy the lowball collateral damage
numbers you hear from the Pentagon, we're unnecessarily killing a lot of brown people abroad.' But then
he fans the flames of racism with stump speeches about building a wall and banning all muslims from
entering the USA. I can tell you which message his supporters are comprehending if you're unsure. Despite
being a politically heterodox chameleon Trump is showing his true colors. Just because Trump is willing
to break with the orthodoxy while he is campaigning doesn't mean he isn't an aspiring tyrant. Don't
be fooled. Trump isn't enlightened or altruistic, he's a talented demagogue pulling a Con on America-
that's it.
By the way, I wanted to add I am not in any way considering a vote for Hillary if she does in fact
become the Democratic nominee. I am very troubled by the prospect of a President Trump but I will not
allow my vote to be held hostage by the DNC and the very tired "lesser of evils arguments" I realized
my last comment might be construed as a "Trump must be stopped at all costs" Clinton rationalization.
It was not. Trump will be on the conscience of those who vote for him and those who have enabled him.
Maybe we should look at what Trump recently said at AIPAC – y'know, that itsy bitsy little lobby
that seems to strike fear into the hearts of all US politicians Trump included – to get a sense of his
ME policy,
shall we
?
snip
'In Spring 2004, at the height of violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the Grand Marshal of the 40th
Salute to Israel Parade, the largest single gathering in support of the Jewish state."
"My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business
a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic – for America, for
Israel, and for the whole Middle East."
"First, we will stand up to Iran's aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran
is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with
trouble. Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon, a problem in Yemen,
and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day, Iran provides more and better
weapons to their puppet states.
Hezbollah in Lebanon has received sophisticated anti-ship weapons, anti-aircraft weapons, and
GPS systems on rockets. Now they're in Syria trying to establish another front against Israel from
the Syrian side of the Golan Heights."
Just last week, American Taylor Allen Force, a West Point grad who served in Iraq and Afghanistan,
was murdered in the street by a knife-wielding Palestinian. You don't reward that behavior, you confront
it!
It's not up the United Nations to impose a solution. The parties must negotiate a resolution themselves.
The United States can be useful as a facilitator of negotiations, but no one should be telling Israel
it must abide by some agreement made by others thousands of miles away that don't even really know
what's happening.
When I'm president, believe me, I will veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish
state.
Already, half the population of Palestine has been taken over by the Palestinian ISIS in Hamas,
and the other half refuses to confront the first half, so it's a very difficult situation but when
the United States stands with Israel, the chances of peace actually rise. That's what will happen
when I'm president.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem – and
we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally,
the state of Israel."
Yup, it's like he and Hillary are just night and day, huh?
I mean other than the fact that Hillary actually BACKS the Iran Deal but don't let that get in the
way of a good "but Hillary" meeting.
The two candidates will be identical where it's most important – e.g. w/ Israel and the ME – just
like all of the presidential candidates.
You would think the Obama administration may have taught us something about perceiving reality oh
wait that's right, it really was Hillary and not poor Obama who's been doing all that killing over the
last 8 years and the Donald's really a renegade "outsider" billionaire who's just scaring the pants
off of the Establishment, right?
Wow. Just wow.
Obama Hope Junkies so desperate that they're shooting Trumpodil straight into their minds.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with the topic of the post? The YouTube has nothing to do
with the deplorable Beltway consensus on Israel, of which Trump is a part.
As US-driven wars plummet the Muslim world ever deeper into jihadi-ridden failed state chaos,
events seem to be careening toward a tipping point. Eventually, the region will become so profuse
a font of terrorists and refugees, that Western popular resistance to "boots on the ground" will
be overwhelmed by terror and rage. Then, the US-led empire will finally have the public mandate it
needs to thoroughly and permanently colonize the Greater Middle East.
It is easy to see how the Military Industrial Complex and crony energy industry would profit from
such an outcome. But what about America's "best friend" in the region? How does Israel stand to benefit
from being surrounded by such chaos?
Tel Aviv has long pursued a strategy of "divide and conquer": both directly, and indirectly through
the tremendous influence of the Israel lobby and neocons over US foreign policy.
A famous article from the early 1980s by Israeli diplomat and journalist Oded Yinon is most explicit
in this regard. The "Yinon Plan" calls for the "dissolution" of "the entire Arab world including
Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula." Each country was to be made to "fall apart along sectarian
and ethnic lines," after which each resulting fragment would be "hostile" to its neighbors." Yinon
incredibly claimed that:
"This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run"
According to Yinon, this Balkanization should be realized by fomenting discord and war among the
Arabs:
"Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way
to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon."
So, you can see that Trump has said the right things into the right ears – read: AIPAC – as far as
anyone of import is concerned – read: not any of us – and so now he's free to say whatever else he thinks
he needs to.
I mean, Sheldon Adelson endorsed him so he can't be THAT scary to Israel-first billionaires and their
bed-buddies, right?
Ooops, I forgot he's an outsider that everyone's scared of. My bad. Hillary will be so much worse.
Robert Parry at ConsortiumNews has written an insightful article about the damage that has been caused
by both the neocon ideologues' control of US foreign policy and the neoliberals' control of economic
policy, their powerful political and propaganda apparatus, and what we can expect from the legacy political
party candidates for the presidency, focusing on Clinton and her past positions regarding the Middle
East.
It is noteworthy that the dominance of failed neocon and neoliberal policies over the past few decades
has coincided with consolidation and concentration of ownership of corporate media in very few hands.
As with restoring the Glass-Steagall Act and breaking up the TBTFs, reinstating limits on media ownership
and control is an important and necessary measure to breaking the influence these few individuals have
had over national policy.
Being Left of Hillary is a really really really low bar. He probably is, but thats probably because
Hillary is right wing. You know, like almost all American politicians from both parties. Trumps not
left of Bernie (at least not yet or not right now: I expect hes going to swing left in the general to
scoop up Bernie voters), and Bernies just an Eisenhower Republican, which is admittedly to the left
of basically all the other politicians today.
Quoting from memory, context foreign policy: "If our Presidents had gone to the beach every day of
the year fifteen years ago, we would have been in much better shape." (Note this includes Bush.)
"... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ..."
"... "How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came nearly six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida charges of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney asked. ..."
"... Bill has frequent flier points on Lolita Express. He had a 14yr.old toy on the island and the flight logs can prove his attendance. ..."
"... "The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." ..."
"... THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims, for over 70 years... " ..."
"... Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble ... GOP and Democrat. And Trump? Acosta is in his admin, right? Or, he didn't fire the scum yet? And when is Hillary going to jail? ..."
"... I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The $wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed, etc.' ..."
"... Hastert mentioned in WikiLeaks: https://wearechange.org/disgraced-house-speaker-pedophile-dennis-hastert/ As you dig into these stories, one singular theory emerges again and again: Sexual deviants and psychos have been groomed for office because they are easier to blackmail and control. ..."
Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and only
now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results.
While Trump has recently distanced himself from Epstein, a 64-year-old financier, it wasn't always that way.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, one of dozens of lawyers who successfully sued Epstein on behalf of roughly 30 women who claimed
he lured them to his Palm Beach mansion for sexually-charged massages when they were as young as 14, said he always found the
comment curious.
"How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came
nearly six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida
charges of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney
asked.
Be nice if someone found the guest list because Bill Clinton wouldn't be able to kill that many people to cover it up. It'd
be sweet if they found evidence that Trump went, because he definitely did. He's probably the one to name it "Lolita Express."...no,
that was probably Bill.
"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..."
THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians
victims, for over 70 years... "
Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble
... GOP and Democrat. And Trump? Acosta is in his admin, right? Or, he didn't fire the scum yet? And when is Hillary going to
jail?
I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The $wamp
can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed,
etc.'
I will further bet that JE has had adequate notice of all this to be getting out of the USA to Balfourstan - a non-extradition
country - ASAP.
Saker is talking about this episode YouTube. Trump clearly
tries to exploit this episode to his advantage...
There is also such thing as Diplomacy... To say "members of Congress support Israel because they are collecting money from Jewish
groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)" (as if this is a new) you are clearly positioning herself against
the colleagues, not matter who they are. that complicates your position without any return on investment.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, all Omar did was to say on Twitter that some members of Congress support Israel because they are collecting money from Jewish groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Duh?! Is that really news to anybody? Even Trump himself mentioned that during this campaign. ..."
"... By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here: http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/ . This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together! ..."
"... But the Neocons have now "lowered" Trump to the status of "rooster" and he now is acting like a willing "combat rooster" for those who "lowered" him to that status, which makes Trump the worst and most despised kind of "rooster": one who willingly serves his own rapists. See for yourself: ..."
In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, one of the tricks used by the prison/camp administration to break a prisoner (be he political
or not) was to stick him into a cell with the so-called "roosters". In the slang of the Russian criminal underworld, the "roosters"
are the very lowest category of prisoners (in what is a rather complex hierarchy): "roosters" are either homosexuals, rapists, child
molesters or men who have been down-ranked ("lowered" in slang) to that status as a punishment for some kind of action which the
criminals consider reprehensible (like interacting with other "roosters", mistakenly sitting down next to one, not repaying a card-debt,
etc.).
I won't go into all the details here, but suffice to say that one thing which was well known in the Soviet jails/camps is that
somebody who has committed some kind of trespass can be "lowered" to the status of "rooster" and that the prison/camp administration
often uses these man as "combat roosters" – they send them to attack and even rape some prisoner who needs to be broken. And, needless
to say, after you have been raped by such "roosters" you yourself get that status for the rest of your life.
What Trump did in the case of Rep. Ilhan Omar is act like a "lowered combat rooster", sent to abuse somebody else on the behalf
of the prison/camp administration. Of all people, Trump ought to know that accusations of anti-Semitism are absolutely, total
hogwash. This is just a verbal whip used by AIPAC/ADL/etc to beat up their opponents. In fact, all Omar did was to say on Twitter
that some members of Congress support Israel because they are collecting money from Jewish groups like the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Duh?! Is that really news to anybody? Even Trump himself mentioned that during this campaign.
By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here:
http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/
. This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!
But the Neocons have now "lowered" Trump to the status of "rooster" and he now is acting like a willing "combat rooster" for
those who "lowered" him to that status, which makes Trump the worst and most despised kind of "rooster": one who willingly serves
his own rapists. See for yourself:
jacques sheete, February 17, 2019 at 12:07 pm GMT • 100 Words
@der einzige
Thanks for that! Still the article was excellent just for this alone.:
But the Neocons have now "lowered" Trump to the status of "rooster" and he now is acting like a willing "combat rooster"
for those who "lowered" him to that status, which makes Trump the worst and most despised kind of "rooster"
The only beef I have with that statement is that no one did it to him and he obviously volunteered for the job right from the
start.
"... It's easy to see why the GI Bill wasn't extended despite its being one of the best policies ever enacted by the US Government--it's far better for Elites that the general populace remain unenlightened. ..."
...Myself and an entire cadre of Truth Tellers were exiled by Convention Time in 2016, lest we further drive people away from
HRC and further spread Wikileaks Scoops.
Yes, as you note, we have more than enough evidence as to what and why policies are made and for whose benefit/loss--and how
many of them are actually counter to already existing legislation that was never overturned: 1946's Full Employment Act is a big
case in point as is the UN Charter and US Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Just taking the latter into consideration renders every US national government since 1945 illegitimate as in constant violation
of THE NATION'S FUNDAMENTAL LAW and the utter lack of any Congressperson to do their duty and impeach all those in violation.
Indeed, IMO 1947's National Security Act is unconstitutional as it conflicts with the essence of the UN Charter.
And there's oh so much more. But when you look around, is it only me, an intellectual of little consequence, who can see this
great criminal act ongoing for over 73+ years!?!? Where's Chomsky's great pronouncement, or Zinn's or Gareth Porter's, or Chris
Hedges's, or Jesse Jackson's, or .?!?! IMO, the message of the movie Silence of the Lambs takes on a whole different meaning.
Also, the long series of what are known as the Spaghetti Westerns involving Clint Eastwood culminating in The Good, the Bad,
and the Ugly sent its own veiled message of warning as to the gestation of the Outlaw US Empire--as we see with Venezuela,
it's always for A Few Dollars More . Eastwood as the Man With No Name is proxy for whoever's POTUS.
I'll leave it to your imagination who the characters Tuco, Angel Eyes and Blondie represent in that amazing finale from 1966.
At the time, the entire world was being told about the genuine nature of the Outlaw US Empire but few had eyes to see what the
screen writers and directors could. The entire Star Wars saga was another attempt to open peoples eyes that also failed.
Lucas tried; he even told Bill Moyers so in an interview soon after it opened in 1977, and after the first trilogy he got more
specific with 1999's Phantom Menace , which together with The Matrix did begin to get a few to rub the sand from
their eyes.
The most propagandized people on Earth are also the most affluent and irresponsible-- a allows
p to culminate in i , or so it appears. When real Class Struggle existed during the 1930s and early 1950s, people
seemed more responsible, aware, and activist, as One-Third of a Nation and The Four Freedoms still resonated, but are now all
but forgotten, just like Wilson's 14 Points.
It's easy to see why the GI Bill wasn't extended despite its being one of the best policies ever enacted by the US Government--it's
far better for Elites that the general populace remain unenlightened.
And that's where you, I, MoA and its barflies come in, and those doing the same elsewhere--All of us constitute the growing
posse that must arrest the Outlaw US Empire and facilitate the rise of the new
Polycentric
World (Lavrov's new term for Multipolar).
The Valdai Club has convened a special session in Hanoi to correspond with the Kim-Trump meet with its usual
program of speakers and pertinent essays
, which is where Lavrov is today.
"... Only a stage-by-stage approach will work, consisting of positive actions in response to positive moves made by the DPRK. Judging by our contacts with the US negotiating team, we get the impression that they understand this. Nevertheless, the US leadership continues to claim in public statements that only the DPRK's full denuclearisation would bring about certain positive steps. ..."
"... By the way, denuclearisation is quite a broad notion. There is no doubt that the DPRK interprets it as the denuclearisation of the entire Korean Peninsula with the US and South Korea assuming the corresponding commitments. ..."
"... Like any expert, you must know about such a factor as China, as this country is not indifferent to what will happen to North Korea. Nor are we indifferent, sharing as we do a border with North Korea. ..."
"... Sergey Afontsev mentioned the GATT and the WTO. Both mechanisms are part of international law. What the Americans are doing means new rules. It is not for nothing that today one can seldom come across the phrase "we support the supremacy of international law" during talks or the drafting of documents with the West's involvement. They write that it is important to support the "rules-based order." Incidentally, even some documents signed by China and the European Union contain this term. What does this mean? They say this is the same thing as international law. However, this zeal in preaching the virtues of "the same thing" while refusing to mention international law cannot but suggest something very definite. ..."
"... I have cited the examples of UN Security Council decisions being simply put aside and new rules, on which nobody had ever agreed with anyone, invented. ..."
From the outset it was our firm belief that firmness and ultimatums with
which Washington embarked on these talks would not yield results. Until recently the demand as
articulated by the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was the following: eliminate everything
related to the DPRK's nuclear programme first, and the question of whether to ease sanctions
will be considered only once the DPRK completes denuclearisation. Only then will all the
economic benefits materialise. However, ultimatums of this kind do not work. I think that the
US has already understood this. How can people be forced to disarm? And what will happen after
that? They disarmed Saddam Hussein using con tricks, and it took 15 years before former British
Prime Minister Tony Blair acknowledged this. They disarmed Qaddafi, and we all know how it
ended. All these examples are in full view, they are obvious.
Only a stage-by-stage approach will work, consisting of positive actions in response to
positive moves made by the DPRK. Judging by our contacts with the US negotiating team, we get
the impression that they understand this. Nevertheless, the US leadership continues to claim in
public statements that only the DPRK's full denuclearisation would bring about certain positive
steps.
By the way, denuclearisation is quite a broad notion. There is no doubt that the DPRK
interprets it as the denuclearisation of the entire Korean Peninsula with the US and South
Korea assuming the corresponding commitments.
The process in itself and the fact that US President Donald Trump and DPRK Leader Kim
Jong-un will meet for the second time are positive developments. The same goes for the meetings
between the South and North Korean leaders, which are becoming regular. We very much wish that
more attention is paid to the understandings reached at the North-South meetings, meaning more
respect and taking them into consideration in the efforts by the US and DPRK that we all want
to succeed.
Question:
You were right in saying it is time to update the roadmap for the Korean
settlement. Today, South Korean representatives unexpectedly said that a bilateral peace
declaration by North Korea and the US would suffice while all multilateral formats were only
optional. This means they might have received some command from Washington. What is the role of
our multilateral initiatives in these circumstances? What are we seeking to achieve? Is our
objective a multilateral declaration, a treaty or a set of bilateral agreements?
Lifting economic sanctions on North Korea will primarily lead to American and South Korean
companies being given a free hand in this country. I do not believe the Americans will be
creating conditions for our trilateral projects involving the two Koreas. What formula could be
recommended for what steps to take next?
Sergey Lavrov:
It is very difficult to come up with formulas in this situation. There are
many factors involved here, some of which you have named. Like any expert, you must know about
such a factor as China, as this country is not indifferent to what will happen to North Korea.
Nor are we indifferent, sharing as we do a border with North Korea.
Presumably, the Americans have warned South Korea against any multilateral agreements,
meaning they would take decisions on their own. They have ignored China and have even further
backtracked, having tried to turn North Korea into a sort of buffer against China. And
everybody has shown their readiness to deliver. The same goes for trilateral electricity, gas,
railways and many other projects. Then we are getting back to the matter which Sergey Afontsev
has just elaborated on about the US simply forcing everyone to toe the line.
Should everyone be ready to comply, scenarios like the above might become quite realistic.
However, I do not believe the People's Republic of China will put up with this. China is keen
to reach a trade agreement with the US – one can see this – but I doubt that China
will tolerate anyone doing whatever one deems fit in its region and right on its border. Nor do
I think we will be meeting US requirements without demur.
Sergey Afontsev mentioned the GATT and the WTO. Both mechanisms are part of international
law. What the Americans are doing means new rules. It is not for nothing that today one can
seldom come across the phrase "we support the supremacy of international law" during talks or
the drafting of documents with the West's involvement. They write that it is important to
support the "rules-based order." Incidentally, even some documents signed by China and the
European Union contain this term. What does this mean? They say this is the same thing as
international law. However, this zeal in preaching the virtues of "the same thing" while
refusing to mention international law cannot but suggest something very definite.
I mentioned the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is part of international law. It was
emasculated by vote, which is not acceptable in respect of such documents. This is how they
apply their own rules instead of international law. They acted in the same way on the Iran
nuclear deal, which was "blessed" by the relevant resolution of the UN Security Council and was
made part of international law. The same happened to the Middle East settlement: instead of the
UN Security Council's resolutions, which the Americans have thrown away, Washington is
"brokering" the "deal of the century" based on its own rules. It has been promising to present
it for two years now but nobody has seen it so far, although we more or less understand that it
will put paid to all UN decisions.
The same goes for Ukraine. The Minsk Agreements were approved by the UN Security Council and
the sequence of steps was specified. But nothing is happening. The US special representative
for the Ukraine settlement says that, first, UN occupation troops should be deployed to bring
the entire perimeter [of the border] under control, the Donbass authorities and police be
dismissed, international forces introduced and only then will they put things straight.
Everything depends on how long the Europeans will be put up with what they are being faced
with when it comes to trade and economic cooperation. The same is true for the answer to your
question. This is why there is no formula whatsoever.
I believe that at the end of the day, the multilateral format will prove to be
indispensable. Safety guarantees that must be given to North Korea, should full
denuclearisation take place, must be absolutely reliable, although this will not guarantee
anything – excuse me for tautology. I have cited the examples of UN Security Council
decisions being simply put aside and new rules, on which nobody had ever agreed with anyone,
invented.
"... While Kim has not tested his missiles or nuclear warheads in a year, few believe he will ever surrender the weapons that secure his survival and brought the U.S. superpower to the negotiating table. ..."
"... Is Trump prepared to accept a deal that leaves a nuclear North but brings about a peace treaty, diplomatic relations and a withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula? Or are American forces to be in Korea indefinitely? ..."
"... What is our vital interest in Yemen's civil war? Why would Trump not wish to extricate us from that moral and humanitarian disaster? Answer: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his regime would sustain a strategic defeat should the Houthis, supported by Iran, prevail. ..."
"... Before the Warsaw conference called by the U.S. to discuss the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu's office tweeted: "This is an open meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common interest of war with Iran." ..."
"... The "war-with-Iran" tweet was swiftly deleted, replaced with a new tweet that spoke of "the common interest of combating Iran." Like many Americans with whom he is close, Bibi has never hidden his belief as to what we Americans must do to Iran. ..."
"... Today, the U.S. maintains a policy of containment of Russia and China, which are more united than they have been since the first days of the Cold War. We are responsible for defending 28 NATO nations in Europe, twice as many as during the Cold War, plus Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand. ..."
"... We have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and appear on the cusp of collisions with Venezuela and Iran. Yet we field armed forces a fraction of the size they were in the 1950s and 1960s and the Reagan era. ..."
In the Venezuelan crisis, said President Donald Trump in Florida, "All options are on the table." And if Venezuela's generals
persist in their refusal to break with Nicolas Maduro, they could "lose everything."
Another example of Yankee bluster and bluff? Or is Trump prepared to use military force to bring down Maduro and install Juan
Guaido, the president of the national assembly who has declared himself president of Venezuela? We will get an indication this weekend,
as a convoy of food and humanitarian aid tries to force its way into Venezuela from Colombia. Yet, even given the brutality of the
regime and the suffering of the people -- 1 in 10 have fled -- it is hard to see Trump sending the Marines to fight the Venezuelan
army in Venezuela.
Where would Trump get the authority for such a war? Still, the lead role that Trump has assumed in the crisis raises a question.
Does the reflexive interventionism -- America is "the indispensable nation!" -- that propelled us into the forever war of the Middle
East, retain its hold on the American mind?
Next week, Trump meets in Hanoi with North Korea's Kim Jong Un. While Kim has not tested his missiles or nuclear warheads
in a year, few believe he will ever surrender the weapons that secure his survival and brought the U.S. superpower to the negotiating
table.
Is Trump prepared to accept a deal that leaves a nuclear North but brings about a peace treaty, diplomatic relations and a
withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula? Or are American forces to be in Korea indefinitely?
Nancy Pelosi's House just voted to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi war against the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The Senate may follow.
Yet Trump is prepared to use his first veto to kill that War Powers Resolution and retain the right to help the Saudi war effort.
What is our vital interest in Yemen's civil war? Why would Trump not wish to extricate us from that moral and humanitarian
disaster? Answer: Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and his regime would sustain a strategic defeat should the Houthis, supported
by Iran, prevail.
Before the Warsaw conference called by the U.S. to discuss the Middle East, Bibi Netanyahu's office tweeted: "This is an open
meeting with representatives of leading Arab countries, that are sitting down together with Israel in order to advance the common
interest of war with Iran."
The "war-with-Iran" tweet was swiftly deleted, replaced with a new tweet that spoke of "the common interest of combating Iran."
Like many Americans with whom he is close, Bibi has never hidden his belief as to what we Americans must do to Iran.
Early this week came leaks that Trump officials have discovered that Shiite Iran has been secretly collaborating with the Sunni
terrorists of al-Qaida. This could, headlined The Washington Times, provide "the legal rationale for U.S. military strikes" on Iran.
At the Munich Security Conference, however, NATO allies Britain, France and Germany recommitted to the Iran nuclear treaty from
which Trump withdrew, and to improved economic relations with Tehran.
Trump pledged months ago to bring home the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria and half of the 14,000 in Afghanistan. But he is meeting
resistance in his own party in Congress and even in his own administration. Reasons: A U.S. pullout from Syria would abandon our
Kurdish allies to the Turks, who see them as terrorists, and would force the Kurds to cut a deal with Syria's Bashar Assad and Russia
for their security and survival. This week, Britain and France informed us that if we leave Syria, then they leave, too. As for pulling
out of Afghanistan, the probable result would be the fall of the Kabul government and return of the Taliban, who hold more territory
now than they have since being overthrown 18 years ago. For Afghans who cast their lot with the Americans, it would not go well.
U.S. relations with Russia, which Trump promised to improve, have chilled to Cold War status. The U.S. is pulling out of Ronald
Reagan's INF treaty, which bans land-based nuclear missiles of 300 to 3,000 mile range.
Putin has said that any reintroduction of land-based U.S. missiles to Europe would mean a new class of Russian missiles targeted
on Europe -- and on the United States.
Today, the U.S. maintains a policy of containment of Russia and China, which are more united than they have been since the
first days of the Cold War. We are responsible for defending 28 NATO nations in Europe, twice as many as during the Cold War, plus
Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand.
We have troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, and appear on the cusp of collisions with Venezuela and Iran. Yet we field
armed forces a fraction of the size they were in the 1950s and 1960s and the Reagan era.
And the U.S. national debt is now larger than the U.S. economy. This is imperial overstretch. It is unsustainable.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever." Copyright 2019 Creators.com.
King of Faustian bargain of a US politician. Bernie showed his colors in the 2016 primaries. He can't be trusted...
What Bernie is doing is eliminating chances for Tulsi...
Notable quotes:
"... Thank you Jimi, for calling out even Bernie when he buys the corporate bullshit ..."
"... Seriously, if you still support this clown, you are part of the problem. ..."
"... There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces -- & for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home. ..."
"... this is the bargain Bernie made to run as a Democrat ..."
"... Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020... ..."
Aaron Maté tweets -- Do we need a new category for progressives whose progressive values stop at the US border?
There's nothing progressive about silence, tepidness, or even support for destructive policies abroad by the same forces --
& for the same interests -- that we claim to oppose at home.
Bernie lost credibility when he endorsed Hilary in 2016... Tulsi is the one for 2020...
pandastratton. 23 hours ago
Donate to Tulsi to get her on the debate stage!!!!
Dionysos, 19 hours ago
Jimmy I know Tulsi is the best candidate in terms of foreign policy, but Bernie is our only chance at getting a real progressive
in the White House!
People are suffering economically and that is the issue where the vast majority of support lies. If stuff like this splits
the progressive support and allows someone like Kamala to win in the primaries, things will get really bad.
Robert Rowland23 hours ago
Jimmy (God love ya), the Military Industrial Complex is the single most gut-wrenchingly ruthless, most awesome entity on the
planet. It has the ability to kill pretty much anyone they want without repercussion. No domestic political movement, even one
that holds the Whitehouse, is capable of bringing them down or even reining them in. They will eventually meet their demise through
bad management in combination with a series of misfortunes resulting in defeat in all-out global war. Until then, and while we
as a nation are still able, the best we common folks can hope for is this juggernaut (the true boss) to give us some measure of
these desperately needed social reforms. In other words, Bernie is just being realistic.
Meanwhile, Tulsi, The Real Deal Gabbard (God bless her soul), if successful, will be on a course to join the ranks of JFK,
RFK, and MLK.
Our much-vaunted democracy is a sham and our freedom isn't actually what it is represented as being. May I suggest you watch this
video and view it as a metaphor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8Rj5xkDPk
"... Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the Russia....." ..."
"... Can you really trust that lying bastard? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats . ..."
Bernie Sanders said he on Wednesday, "felt compelled to address Russian interference
during the US election. Sunday.... he was not aware and believes Russian bot promoting
him and went as far to said WikiLeaks published Hillary's email stolen by the
Russia....."
Can you really trust that lying bastard? I'm probably one of the few MoA refused to
believe and trust Bernie Sanders and the fuckup Democrats .
I am a former Trump supporter, hardcore Trump supporter but I got off the Trump train 2
years ago after he bombed Syria. I got fooled once but I will not be fooled a second time.
This country needs a real leader with real sincerity with a real heart for the American
people and that's Tulsi Gabbard!!!
The main stream media and pollsters are ignoring Tulsi. That means she is doing a lot
better than they are letting on. They will not be able to ignore her forever.
i love tulsi. something ive noticed a lot is her bipartisan support. both sensible
thoughtful republicans and sensible thoughtful democrats (yes they both exist) seem to be for
her. either way her anti war stance is something that i hope gets more coverage and people
see through the blantant mainstream media smear attempts. whether you vote for her or not,
it's refreshing and compelling to hear an iraq veteran take a strong stance against endless
regime change war.
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis. I agree that Tulsi would indeed be THE most
formidable opponent against "The Donald". She offers the greatest contrast to him and in
that, gives the electorate a clear defined choice. As a woman with a multi-cultural and
strong religious upbringing, a Gen Xer and a veteran, she has all the qualities that "The
Donald" lacks. In addition, her life long commitment to public service, as well as her
well-defined policy platform, puts the icing on the cake as the best "Anti-Donald"
candidate.
Some Democrats have been taking a lot of heat at town halls because they refuse to get
behind a 'Medicare For All' system. And it's not just that they're getting booed; their
constituents are literally calling for them to retire. Dianne Feinstein has been one of the
recipients of this outrage. Tulsi Gabbard, however, had overwhelming support from enthusiastic
constituents at her town hall because she actually pledged to support a 'Medicare For All'
system. In this segment, we juxtapose Feinstein's town halls with Gabbard's to illustrate
EXACTLY how you talk with your constituents about healthcare.
************************
The Humanist Report (THR) is a progressive political podcast that discusses and analyzes
current news events and pressing political issues. Our analyses are guided by humanism and
political progressivism. Each news story we cover is supplemented with thought-provoking,
fact-based commentary that aims for the highest level of objectivity.
Is Medicare "government take over of health care"? Hell no. People on Medicare visit the
doctor of their choice, and the doctors are private entrepreneurs - unlike the doctors in the
VA, they aren't paid a salary by the govt. Time to retire, Dianne!
Ecuador is a small country without the resources we have. They have single payer system.
In this country my medication, Xeralto, costs $300 a month. In Ecuador the cost is $90 a
month. I practiced medicine in Canada for two years. It is the way to go. It is less
expensive and provides better care.
Watching this old fartbag talk and STILL have a seat in the senate really boils my blood,
I can't watch this without my blood pressure rising which I'd get checked out if Medicare for
all was a thing lol
Tulsi will be the Bernie of the 2020 election. The problem is, the same corrupt sellouts
are still in control of the DNC. So unless something changes she will be shut down in favour
of people like Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff.
I'm happy to say that my rep, Tim Ryan, was an early co-sponsor of HR676 and is a real
blue color progressive. However, I'm still calling and emailing others. Don't stop at your
own rep, folks. Please contact as many corporate dems as you have time for and let them know
that their job is on the line. The pressure must be turned up to 100!
Great 31 min presentation on Tulsi. Outstanding analysis of Tulsi as a candidate. Bravo
!!!
The idea the contrast between Trump and Tulsi will help Tulsi looks plausible. Trump is dumb,
corrupt, very rich and old chickenhawk. There can't be greater contract. She is almost 100%
opposite of Donald Trump.
In additional picking up voters disappointed with Trump she also will pick up large fraction
of voters that voted for Hillary.
The complication is the Bernie Sanders also runs and will attacks the same category of
voters.
True left was always anti-war, so Tulsi is the natural candidate of "true left"
In this video, I argue that Tulsi Gabbard could potentially make a very strong run in 2020
and that everyone who tries to dismiss her is vastly underestimating her potential.
Tulsi is my first choice, by a mile, for all the reasons you've mentioned. The #1
liability she has, only because of the fact that half of the American populace are ignorant
intolerant lunkheads, is her faith. She's a Hindu (which easily translates as being a Krishna
devotee.)
Only one correction. Assad isn't a dictator, he's been elected president of Syria in
democratic elections. And if you want to argue that the elections in Syria are rigged or that
the opposition candidates don't get impartial coverage in the press Well then I'd say that's
the same case of the USA and many other democracies around the world!
Tulsi Gabbard stands alone, she should form an independent party by asking the people to
donate to her cause. Bernie Sanders is a deferential failed candidate that is too worried
about the democratic party than winning for the people. It is too late to reform the 2
parties in charge since they are part of the cancer created by the Kakistocracy. Eventually
the masses will wake up, unfortunately they are in a catatonic state allowing the current
situation.
Surprised you didn't mention her religion: Hinduism. The left doesn't care, but you
mentioned that the right will have a hard time hitting her on traditional stuff... I think
that's wrong in one instance, religion. If she gets the nomination, the right wing
establishment will absolutely hit her on her religion, no question. I think you shoulda
mentioned that in your analysis.
I think your analysis is outstanding, many thanks! I haven't yet watched your other videos
but it's my intention. I agree with you almost 100% about Tulsi but am not yet convinced
Trump will be defeatable in 2020. I've been watching a lot of coverage from the conservative
right and he is way more popular than people on the left understand.
Michael Tracey (@mtracey) interviewed Democratic presidential candidate and Hawaii
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) in New Hampshire on March 23 and 24, 2019. They
discussed topics ranging from the farce of the Trump/Russia saga, her views on identity
politics, her religious background, her relationship with Bernie Sanders, and much more.
She is a real gifted politician. The question was very tricky. "Will you be able to pledge to
return any continuation of people who also donated to AIPAC"
Tulsi needs around 20000 more donors to be eligible for the Democratic debates. Please
donate a dollar to her campaign and tell your friends and family to do the same!
She will be dragged through so much mud by the establishment in the coming days, we saw a
glimpse of it in Colbert show, her training will help her a lot though
Rod, you just gained this subscriber excellent pointing this out! Once again Tulsi is
demonstrating she is on the right side of history and will even stand up to AIPEC like ilhan
Omar did sure would be nice to see Bernie make a similar stand!
Donate to Tulsi Gabbard campaign to help her get into the debates by donating to
tulsi2020.com you can donate more than once and they'll each count as a unique donation
even $1 at a time
AIPAC is a foreign terrorist organization that needs to be outlawed and any American that
takes their bribe money to do their bidding should be arrested for treason.
The more I hear Tulsi Gabbard speak the more I want her to win, and I am Irish living in
Dublin,
Ireland.You can tell by the reaction of the people there, what it means to them not to
have foreign government dictate their foreign policy
Trump is just looking for s big war, I think he reallys believe America can't be touched.
Meaning what he did with the golden Heights. Like really that's so wrong and you did it in
the open like it's not a bad thing. He's pissing off many countries and Russia is one of
them. Putin isn't happy ab the golden height thing.
Is there a website that list where candidates stand as far as the numbers they have and in
what states? I find it hard to believe that Tulsi hasn't reached the number yet, while other
less known candidates who entered after her have already blown past the needed 65K mark. If
this is something that is kept hidden, who's to know if more lying and cheating is going
on?
Tulsi Gabbard on AIPAC: "Our opportunity is to challenge leaders to see where we stand and
the policies we are pushing forward; and the kinds of debates and discussions we need to have
about our foreign policy and where our tax-payer dollars are going." My understanding: FP =
The US position on Israel 's policy vis a vis settlements and military entanglements.
Tax-Payer $$ = The money spent by the government in supporting the above.
This is, in my opinion, a very sane way to open the door to a healthy discussion about
such an important issue which up to now has been lopsided towards the Establishment's
position with little opportunity for the people to have a say in the matter.
The Daily Kos has made it their personal mission to make sure Tulsi has no success - or so
they said in an email just a couple of days after she announced. However, that didn't stop one
of the "Kosters" from putting out a more objective poll on Kos's website. 20k people voted in
this poll, and the results bode well for Tulsi.
Amazing level of polemic and diplomatic skills. That's really high class my fiends. Rare for
any US politician: most are suckers that can answer only prepared questions. MSNBC presstitutes
should be ashamed, but they have not shame. amasing !!!
In this segment, we look at Tulsi's savvy and brutally honest rebuttal when the Morning
Show hosts allege that "Russia" is looking to help Tulsi when the 2020 Democratic Primary
election
How it can be that there not 50K anti war people in the whole USA? Or they are waiting for something ? I do not know
what is the deadline, I do not understand why she still did not got 50K donations to bring her to debate. .
Tulsi needs about 20000 more unique donors to get to the debate stage! Tell your friends
and family to donate a dollar at
tulsi2020.com ! Even if she isn't their preferred candidate, they might still appreciate
a strong anti-interventionist voice on the debate stage!
A calm, thoughtful, anti-war progressive voice that we need to hear in the coming debates.
Please make a donation or buy something at
Tulsi2020.com She needs another 20,000 contributors to meet the DNC
requirement.
While many of us disagree on ideology and values, we agree on practical things like obeying the constitution and not letting
big corporations and the wealthy run everything.
Your 35-day government shutdown was a senseless abuse of power. So too your "national emergency" to build your wall with
money Congress refused to appropriate.
When you passed your tax bill you promised our paychecks would rise by an average of $4,000 but we never got the raise.
Our employers used the tax savings to buy back their shares of stock and give themselves raises instead.
Then you fooled us into thinking we were getting a cut by lowering the amounts withheld from our 2018 paychecks. We know
that now because we're getting smaller tax refunds.
At the same time, many big corporations aren't paying a dime in taxes. Worse yet, they're getting refunds. For example, GM is paying zilch and claiming a $104m refund on $11.8bn of profits. Amazon is paying no taxes and claiming
a $129m refund on profits of $11.2bn. (This is after New York offered it $3bn to put its second headquarters there.) They aren't breaking any tax laws or regulations. That's because they made the tax laws and regulations. You gave them a
free hand.
You're supposed to be working for us, not for giant corporations. But they're doing better than ever, as are their top executives
and biggest investors. Yet nothing has trickled down. We're getting shafted.
Which is why more than 75% of us (including 45% who call ourselves Republicans) support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's proposed
70% tax on dollars earned in excess of $10m a year.
And over 60% of us support Elizabeth Warren's proposed 2% annual tax on households with a new worth of $50m or more.
You've also shown you don't have a clue about healthcare. You promised us something better than the Affordable Care Act
but all you've done is whittle it back.
A big reason we gave Democrats control of the House last November was your threat to eliminate protection for people with
pre-existing conditions.
Are you even aware that 70% of us now favor Medicare for all?
Most of us don't pay much attention to national policy but we pay a lot of attention to home economics. You've made our
own home economics worse.
We'll give you official notice you're fired on 3 November 2020, if not before. Until then, you can keep the house and perks,
but you're toast.
"... It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government. ..."
"... Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu that the prime minister once slept in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place. ..."
No country in the world recognizes Israel's rule over the Golan Heights, occupied by
Israel in 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981 – no country,
that is, until now.
Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation on Monday formally recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, still
considered Syrian territory under international law. Standing by President Trump's side during an address by the two heads of state
in Washington DC, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, reportedly called Trump's decision "
historic justice " and gifted the president a box of wine from the occupied territory. As they embraced, Israeli forces began
an aerial bombardment of the besieged Gaza Strip after rockets launched from Gaza hit a house in a community north of Tel Aviv earlier
that day.
Trump's announcement is unmistakably an election-time favor for Netanyahu. Saddled with multiple corruption charges, including
one for bribery, Netanyahu and his Likud party have been flagging in the polls. Likud increasingly appears threatened by the center-right
Blue and White party, jointly headed by the taciturn retired general Benny Gantz and former TV personality Yair Lapid. Netanyahu's
desperation can be measured by the extremity of his rhetoric. He and his surrogates have spent the past several weeks waging a hateful,
vicious campaign, accusing the Arab political parties of supporting terrorism and explicitly warning that a Gantz and Lapid victory
would lead to dead Israelis.
Many in Israel, however, view Netanyahu, despite his flaws, as a talented statesman and skilled advocate for the country's interests
on the international stage, and Netanyahu has campaigned on achievements such as normalizing relations with the Gulf states and the
US embassy's move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Golan Heights declaration – which initially took even the secretary of state, Mike
Pompeo, who was in Israel at the time, by surprise – is likely meant to bolster this image.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right
But Trump's Golan Heights proclamation is not just a cynical political gambit. It is a dramatic change in US policy in the Middle
East that could have serious consequences. Trump, unlike his predecessors, has never even pretended to abide by international norms
and conventions. And yet the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over territory that the international community nearly unanimously
considers occupied, or at the very least disputed, is unprecedented.
It gives a formal US stamp of approval to Israel's violation of international law, and, in particular of the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilians into occupied territory. Roughly 20,000 Israeli settlers
live in the occupied Golan Heights today – now with the unambiguous backing of the US government.
This potentially paves the way for Israel's annexation, in part or whole, of the West Bank. It has long been a talking
point on the Israeli hard right that, despite the international community's protestations, there would be few consequences for extending
Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank . Trump's declaration,
it seems, has not only proven them right, but given them an added boost: unlike during the Obama years, they can be confident that
the global hegemon will take their side.
If Netanyahu's Likud wins enough seats on 9 April to form a government, it is very like that annexation, at the very least, will
be on the table for discussion. The Likud's central committee unanimously voted in 2017 in favor of annexing the West Bank. Naftali
Bennett, co-chair of the New Right party, has proposed a plan to annex parts of Area C of the West Bank. And the other rightwing
parties – the extremist Union of Parties of the Right and Moshe Feiglin's Identity party, both of which would almost certainly sit
in a future Likud government – have only more extreme proposals for dealing with "the Palestinian question", including the forced
transfer of Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.
Trump's recognition of the Golan Heights marks the total capture of US policymaking in the Middle East by pro-Israel right. US
ambassador to Israel David Friedman is an opponent of the two-state solution who previously operated the charitable arm of
a rightwing orthodox religious seminary in the West Bank settlement of Beit El. Jared Kusher's family is so close Netanyahu
that the prime minister once slept
in Kushner's childhood bedroom . Between the Trump administration's personnel and rightward lurch in Israeli politics, the pieces
that would make the current one-state reality permanent are rapidly falling into place.
It is important to remember this in light of the glitz and pablum of the AIPAC policy conference taking place this week in Washington
DC, where the PR hacks and policy flacks are working hard to launder Israel's image, to obscure the fact that there is one sovereign
state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea that determines the lives of roughly 13 million people; that of those 13
million, only half – Israeli Jews – have full citizenship and social rights; and that the other half, the Palestinians, live under
a range of discriminatory systems, from codified discrimination but legal citizenship within Israel, to residency without the right
to vote in East Jerusalem, to military dictatorship in the West Bank.
Donald Trump , his administration, the pro-Israel lobby,
and Netanyahu all intend to keep it that way.
Joshua Leifer is an associate editor at Dissent. Previously, he worked at +972 Magazine and was based in Jerusalem
"... What in the world is a fascist Jew? Well, in this case, it is someone who uses violent methods to realize the logical consequences of Zionism -- if Israel is a "Jewish state," then non-Jews must go. How they ultimately go has been left an open-ended question, though Israel is engaged in a continuous effort to destroy Palestinian infrastructure . Fascist Jews advocate expulsion of all Palestinians and sometimes engage in direct violence -- akin to classic pogroms -- in an effort to fulfill this goal. ..."
"... The "migration" of Israeli Jews to the right has narrowed the gap between the majority of "ordinary" citizens and the fascists. So, back into favor come the Kahanists. ..."
An article published
in the Israeli news
blog
+972
on 19 November 2018
posed
the question: Why does the right keep winning
elections in Israel? The answer offered was "because
Israelis are right wing." Simple enough, and
apparently, quite true. The article estimates that
over half of Israeli Jews think of themselves as
"right wing." Self-defined centrists are about 25
percent, and those Israeli Jews who still cling to
"leftist" ideals are now only about 15 percent of
the population. The remainder are non-committal.
This movement to the right is often blamed on the
Palestinians, but that is largely an evasion. As the
story goes, it was the
Second
Intifada
(occurring from late 2000 to early
2005) that so scared a majority of Israeli Jews that
it "
led
to a migration
of left-wingers to the
political center [and] centrists [to the] right,
causing the percentage of Jewish right-wingers to
drift upward over the decade." While the "migration
to the right" has certainly taken place, it is
better understood as follows: under Palestinian
pressure for democratic reforms and justice, along
with corresponding resistance to oppression, Israeli
Jews who could not face the prospect of real
democracy had nowhere politically to go than to the
right -- what should properly be described as the
racist right. And, so they went. From this point on
there was no more obfuscation -- Israeli "security" is
now clearly a stand-in phrase for the maintenance of
Israeli Jewish domination over non-Jews.
Enter the Fascists
The present shifting about on Israel's political
landscape prior to its April 2019 elections confirms
this basically rightwing racist scene. Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu affirmed that Israel is
"the national state,
not
of all its citizens, but only of the Jewish people
."
A minority of Israeli Jews might denounce such
racism, but Israel's recently adopted nationality
law states that the right of national
self-determination in Israel is "unique to the
Jewish people." And whether the "left" acknowledges
the fact or not, this law is in perfect sync with
Zionist ideology.
It should be noted that the prime minister's
personal preference is not for "the Jewish people"
as a whole. Indeed, in his eyes,
if
you are an anti-Zionist Jew you are an anti-Semitic
Jew
-- whatever that might mean. The prime minister
is more comfortable with Jews of the fascist, racist
right, with whom he has so much in common. This is
the kind of Jew he has politically allied with.
What in the world is a fascist Jew? Well, in
this case, it is someone who uses violent methods
to realize the logical consequences of Zionism -- if
Israel is a "Jewish state," then non-Jews must go.
How they ultimately go has been left an open-ended
question, though Israel is engaged in a continuous
effort
to destroy Palestinian infrastructure
. Fascist
Jews advocate expulsion of all Palestinians and
sometimes
engage
in direct violence
-- akin to classic pogroms -- in an
effort to fulfill this goal.
You might shake your head in wonderment at the
notion of Jewish fascists, but they have always been
an important element in Zionist history. You can
trace their activity from Vladimir Jabotinsky and
his
notion of an "iron wall"
(1923) that would force
the Palestinians to acquiesce in Zionist domination,
right up to
Meir
Kahane, an advocate of expulsion
, and his Kach
Party (1971-1990). It is Kahane's followers who now
are political partners of Netanyahu.
The "migration"
of Israeli Jews to the right
has
narrowed the gap
between the majority of
"ordinary" citizens and the fascists. So, back into
favor come the Kahanists.
What is an Israeli Centrist?
Nor should we look for anti-racist activism among
the 25 percent who see themselves as centrists.
Presently, those who seek to capture the centrist
vote are Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid. Gantz is former
chief-of-staff and a man who is being sued for war
crimes. He is leader of the Israeli Resilience Party
(Hosen Israel). That party has allied with Yair
Lapid, a former TV celebrity, and his There is a
future Party (Yesh Atid).
Both of these politicians
call
themselves "new centrists"
and concentrate their
platforms on "socio-economic issues such as the cost
of living." However, when it comes to the
Palestinians, neither of them are interested in a
democratic Israel that would afford non-Jews equal
rights -- nothing particularly "new" here for
"centrists." Gantz is the classic military maven so
prevalent in Israeli politics. Here is his view of
where "resilience" should take Israel relative to
the Palestinians: "The Jordan Valley will remain our
eastern security border," Gantz declared. "We will
maintain security in the entire Land of Israel we
will not allow the millions of Palestinians living
beyond the separation fence to endanger our security
and our identity as a Jewish state." For someone who
is campaigning on the theme that, under its present
government, "
Israel
has lost its way
," Gantz's intentions in this
regard are remarkably similar to those of Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Yair Lapid's position
on the Palestinians is
little different from that of Gantz. He says that
"we need to separate from the Palestinians," as if
Israeli Jews haven't been doing just that for the
past 71 years. He goes on to demand that all issues
of security have to "stay in Israel's hands," there
is no such thing as a "right of return," and
Jerusalem will not be divided into two capitals.
On the Palestinian issue -- the one that now divides
Israel from increasing numbers of citizens in the
democratic world -- there is little difference between
the Israeli rightists and the centrists except that
the latter do not publicly talk about the forceful
expulsion.
That approximately 85 percent of Israeli Jews
should end up unwilling to grant equal rights to the
20 percent of Palestinians who are their segregated
neighbors; that they should support, or at best not
act against the relentless, vicious process of
illegal settlement in the Occupied Territories; and
finally that they should react to Palestinian
resistance to Zionist oppression by "migrating" to
the right, is both tragic and predictable.
It must be realized that any country that allows
racism to rule its public sphere cannot pass itself
off as a democracy. It is simply a contradiction.
The Zionist experiment looking toward a democratic
Jewish state might have gone differently if it had
been tried somewhere devoid of a non-Jewish
population (like the moon), but then, in the end,
the Zionists became obsessed with Palestine, fell in
with the colonial mentality still prevalent during
the first half of the twentieth century, and have
never progressed beyond it.
To this point, I beg the reader's patience as I
repeat an argument I have made more than once in
past analyses: It is impossible to create a state
exclusively for one people (call them people A) in a
territory already populated by another people (call
them people B) without the eventual adoption of
racist policies by A and eventual resistance on the
part of B. Under such circumstances, for A, there
can be no real security, nor can there be anything
like a healthy national culture.
Indeed, unless a majority of Israeli Jews are
willing to go the route of South Africa and renounce
their program of discriminatory dominion over
millions of non-Jews, they have nowhere else to go
but head-first into the hell that is the racist
right. With 85 percent sharing, or at least
acquiescing, in the views of Netanyahu, Gantz, and
Lapid, the chances for redemption do not look good.
In fact, it is probably the case that the "light
unto the nations" has long since gone out.
"... The president's tweet does not signal any definitive action or official state recognition, but it does do much to boost Netanyahu's profile with possible voters. ..."
President Donald Trump announced on Twitter Thursday that he would recognize and support Israel's control
over the disputed Golan Heights territory on the border of Syria.
The decision immediately followed
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's meeting with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday, nearly a
year after Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the sole capital of Israel and announced that he would
move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv.
"After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel's Sovereignty over the Golan
Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional
Stability!" Trump tweeted early Thursday afternoon.
Smoke from explosions rises during
fighting in the village of Jubata Al Khashab, held by Syrian rebel groups fighting to overthrow President
Bashar al-Assad, as seen from the Israeli side of the border fence between Syria and the Israeli-occupied
Golan Heights, on September 11, 2016.
REUTERS/Baz
Ratner
Netanyahu, a conservative leader who is currently facing the threat of indictment for bribery and three
counts of breach of trust, has a tough election coming up in early April. The president's announcement,
followed by a planned trip to the White House, will surely bolster the Israeli leader's chances of retaining
his seat.
In fact, in 2015, President Barack Obama refused to meet with Netanyahu close to his election date,
saying, "He needs to be far away enough from the election that it doesn't look like in some ways we're
meddling or putting our thumbs on the scale."
But President Trump has signaled that he doesn't mind putting his thumb on the scale for his political
ally, even when it involves the controversial and much-disputed Golan Heights territory.
"At a time when Iran seeks to use Syria as a platform to destroy Israel, President Trump boldly
recognizes Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights," Netanyahu tweeted on Thursday. "Thank you President
Trump!"
The Golan Heights, a strategically situated 400-plus square mile area that overlooks Damascus, was first
captured by Israel from Syria in the 1967 Arab war. In 1973, Syria attempted to take the land back during
the Yom Kippur War and during a surprise attack, Egyptian and Syrian troops managed to kill 2,688 Israeli
soldiers. Israel, however, prevailed and retained control. They annexed the Golan Heights in 1981, but the
move was never officially recognized by the international community, including the United States. Syria and
Israel are still technically in a state of war over the land, but the area is now a demilitarized zone
occupied by U.N. observers.
The Golan Heights are an atypically fertile land in the desert that holds key water sources: About
one-third of Israel's water supply currently comes from Golan. The territory also provides Israel with a
high vantage point to monitor the Syrian military and ward off attacks.
There are currently about 30 Israeli settlements on the land, which are home to 20,000 citizens. Experts
estimate that there are likely about 20,000 Syrians living in Golan, as well. They are mostly part of the
Druze sect. The Druze, however, are typically at odds with the Syrian government.
There are also military concerns about Trump's move. Israel is currently in the middle of a precarious
situation with its neighbors: It has been striking Iranian targets in Syria and this latest development,
created by the Trump, could provoke Syria, Russia and Iran to further isolate and perhaps attack Israel,
complicating matters immensely.
The situation also hurts America's standing on Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. "It makes it
quite hard for the US to continue to contest Russia's annexation of Crimea under the principle that taking
territory by force is illegal," wrote Ilan Goldenberg, Middle East security director at the Center for a New
American Security, on Twitter. "We now have no leg to stand on and the Russians will use it."
The president's tweet does not signal any definitive action or official state recognition, but it does do
much to boost Netanyahu's profile with possible voters.
Related Stories
"... Well, if one does not characterize #RussiaGate as a "failed coup" ( see Naked Capitalism here ), how ought one to characterize it? ..."
"... What is giving the intelligence community veto power over the selection of a President other than a coup ? And if #RussiaGate is what they did to Trump, imagine what they'll do to Sanders. ..."
"Mueller report reprieve becomes Trump's re-election weapon" [ Associated Press ]. "As the
president's lawyers debated legal strategy, Trump aides and political allies developed a plan
to turn the end of the probe into the launching pad for a new round of attacks on the
president's foes and a moment to reinvigorate his supporters in the run-up to the 2020
campaign. Trump surrogates rushed to take a victory lap, depict the probe as a failed coup and
rub the results in the face of Democrats, many of whom had spent months promising that Mueller
would turn up more."
Well, if one does not characterize #RussiaGate as a "failed coup" (
see Naked Capitalism here ), how ought one to characterize it?
What is giving the
intelligence community veto power over the selection of a President other than a
coup ? And if #RussiaGate is what they did to Trump, imagine what they'll do to
Sanders.
And then Mike Gravel:
... ... ...
Of course, there's also the issue that in 2020 Trump can say -- with reason, after two solid
years of hysteria from almost every venue over what turned out to be a damp squib -- that press
coverage of his campaign is, well, fake news. And how exactly will the press go about
disproving that? What a weapon they've handed him. " Mueller report:
Trump cleared of conspiring with Russia. " After all the yammering and stamping and
frothing and mimosas!
(7) The Berlusconi Precedent :
... ... ...
Holding office rather than power:
... ... ...
Exactly what liberal Democrats did with Mueller. I don't understand the mentality; the wish
for an external, apolitical authority figure to come in and settle the matter. Why not practice
politics, instead? As the Financial Times
says:
Liberals, on the other hand, are like a child who has discovered Santa Claus does not
exist. Enormous faith was invested in Mr Mueller's report as a magic bullet to solve the
Trump problem. By the same token, an outsized role was conferred on Vladimir Putin as the
evil genius who robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency. There were large dollops of
evidence supporting both views.
I don't understand the liberal Democrat need to demonize Trump, either; perhaps so they can
keep him distinct, mentally, from the other very rich figures in their donor class? Back to
Berlusconi–
"The case for normalizing Trump" [ Vox
]. From 2016, still germane:
"[S]everal students of authoritarian populist movements abroad
have a different message. To beat Trump, what his opponents need to do is practice ordinary
humdrum politics. Populists in office thrive on a circus-like atmosphere that casts the
populist leader as persecuted by media and political elites who are obsessed with his uncouth
behavior while he is busy doing the people's work. To beat Trump, progressives will need to do
as much as they can to get American politics out of reality show mode."
And the precedent:
"In
a post-election op-ed, [Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago] revisited these themes and
observed that the two politicians who beat Berlusconi in elections -- former Prime Minister
Romano Prodi and current Prime Minister Matteo Renzi -- had two important things in common: ' Both of them treated Mr. Berlusconi as an ordinary opponent. They focused on the issues,
not on his character .
In different ways, both of them are seen as outsiders, not as
members of what in Italy is defined as the political caste."
Needless to say, the
Democrats have taken --
and will
continue to take , absent deprogramming their base -- a different approach.
What people notice, they often forget unless media work to remind them. The end of the
Democrats began as far back as the 1980s, with the Reagan Dems -- a handful of conservative
Democrats who represented "sensible politics." These merged with the Clinton right wing,
which successfully took over the Democratic Party in the 1990s. Just as the Reagan
administration obtained significant "influence" over the MSM, the Clinton administration
obtained significant "influence" over the new (online/cable) media marketed to middle class
liberals. Media shapes broad public opinion. Robert Reich has been a valued player (effective
propagandist) on the Clinton wing since the '90s.
Trump will come through this mess just fine. My impression is that the role of media
during this administration is to keep public focus off of what's actually happening in DC by
amplifying the Russian Tale and every delicious scandal that can even vaguely e connected to
it. It keeps the public preoccupied, chasing ghosts, so that those who are in power can do
what they're doing without interruption.
Eddie S , March 19, 2019 at 21:19
While Reich often writes-about & supports liberal/progressive issues, I still recall
how he effectively caved to Bill Clinton and his 'Republican-lite' programs, notably
'free-trade/globalization', which undercuts Reich's stated support for unions. I lost most of
my modest respect for him at that point -- he apparently felt it was more important to be 'an
insider' in a presidential administration than to stand up for his reputed viewpoints.
"... Senator Frants Klintsevich said, "There was not one piece of evidence -- only two years of lies and provocations. On this 'foundation,' the investigation could only have fallen to pieces, which is what happened." ..."
Politicians in Moscow have reacted to the U.S. attorney general's summary of special counsel
Robert Mueller's key findings, with one leading Russian senator suggesting the probe's
conclusion will only bolster support for President Donald Trump.
"The outcome of the Mueller report has now dealt Trump's team a full hand of trump cards,"
said Senator Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the Federation Council's Foreign Affairs Committee,
Russia's Tass news agency reported. The council is the upper house of parliament.
"His chances for re-election starting from yesterday seem to be much stronger," Kosachev
continued. "The opponents of the incumbent president wanted the best, but you know the rest.
Essentially, not a single politician has managed to build a bright future based on lies."
... ... ...
However, the Mueller report did not conclude whether or not Trump obstructed
justice by interfering in the special counsel's probe into Russia's efforts to influence the
2016 election.
"We believe the accusations that continue to be made against Russia in terms of interference
in the U.S. electoral processes are unfounded, because even the brief information that is
listed in the summary [of the Muller report] has no basis," said Dmitry Peskov, Russian
President Vladimir Putin's spokesperson, according to The Moscow Times . "It's hard to
find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it's not there."
Other Russian politicians were more harsh in their criticism of Mueller's investigation.
"From the very start it, was biased, artificial, provocative, conspiratorial, designed to
fuel hatred towards the Trump campaign," Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov said, according to the
Times . "Its second goal was to demonize Russia and prevent any U.S. moves towards
better relations with Moscow."
Senator Frants Klintsevich said, "There was not one piece of evidence -- only two years of
lies and provocations. On this 'foundation,' the investigation could only have fallen to
pieces, which is what happened."
"... The criminal investigations will be conducted by the Southern District of New York. And those are underway. Anyone who has followed Donald's career knows how deep into the seamier side of NYC real estate development he has been, with all that this implies. ..."
"Some time ago I suggested that this implausible and histrionic Russia-gate investigation fomented by the Clintonistas appears
to be a thinly-veiled fishing expedition. The target is not any significant 'collusion' to throw the election, but much more likely
[to be] obstruction of justice, coming off dodgy private real estate deals and assorted financial arrangements involving money
laundering..."
Jesse, 11 January 2018
Russiagate was a diversion and a distraction from the real work to be done, that of reforming the political and financial systems
and putting an end to this predatory economy and its damaging bubbles. No one in the public was a winner in this.
The criminal investigations will be conducted by the Southern District of New York. And those are underway. Anyone who has
followed Donald's career knows how deep into the seamier side of NYC real estate development he has been, with all that this implies.
The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any
sustainable recovery.
"... Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with prison reform as proof of his bonafides. ..."
"... Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't. ..."
"... The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss. ..."
"... Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First Con fell for a con man. ..."
Jared sold himself as the only man who could make a deal between Dems and the GOP. He pointed to "his" recent success with
prison reform as proof of his bonafides.
Of course, he blew it as usual. He told his side that Dems would vote for Trump's $5.7 billion "wall, or whatever you want
to call it" -- and they didn't. He said the Dems would break ranks -- and they didn't.
It appears that Kushner talked to a few junior Dems, who were too wet behind the ears to tell the president's son in law that
he needed to change his meds. He read their silence as meaning they were prepared to commit mutiny and, putting all his chips
on that bet, stopped talking to both Pelosi (where the real power lies) and Schumer.
Then he told everyone he'd cracked it.
The Senate votes came, and the Trump proposal got FEWER votes than the Democratic proposal, which managed to get 6 GOP
Senators to jump ship. Kushner had not only failed; he'd embarrassed the boss.
As others have said below, Trump always finds someone to blame for his mistakes. But in this case there were very good reasons
for pointing the finger at Kushner.
Of course, it was Donald who appointed Jared, and gave him the reins on this critical project -- ignoring the fact that
Pence had actually served in Congress, knew the players, and knew the game. Even after two years' worth of evidence that a political
neophyte cannot solve all the nation's most intractable problems just because he sleeps with the boss's daughter, the First
Con fell for a con man.
oliticians in Moscow have reacted to the U.S. attorney general's summary of special counsel
Robert Mueller's key findings, with one leading Russian senator suggesting the probe's
conclusion will only bolster support for President Donald Trump.
"The outcome of the Mueller report has now dealt Trump's team a full hand of trump cards,"
said Senator Konstantin Kosachev, who heads the Federation Council's Foreign Affairs Committee,
Russia's Tass news agency reported. The council is the upper house of parliament.
"His chances for re-election starting from yesterday seem to be much stronger," Kosachev
continued. "The opponents of the incumbent president wanted the best, but you know the rest.
Essentially, not a single politician has managed to build a bright future based on lies."
... ... ...
However, the Mueller report did not conclude whether or not Trump obstructed
justice by interfering in the special counsel's probe into Russia's efforts to influence the
2016 election.
"We believe the accusations that continue to be made against Russia in terms of interference
in the U.S. electoral processes are unfounded, because even the brief information that is
listed in the summary [of the Muller report] has no basis," said Dmitry Peskov, Russian
President Vladimir Putin's spokesperson, according to The Moscow Times . "It's hard to
find a black cat in a dark room, especially if it's not there."
Other Russian politicians were more harsh in their criticism of Mueller's investigation.
"From the very start it, was biased, artificial, provocative, conspiratorial, designed to
fuel hatred towards the Trump campaign," Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov said, according to the
Times . "Its second goal was to demonize Russia and prevent any U.S. moves towards
better relations with Moscow."
Senator Frants Klintsevich said, "There was not one piece of evidence -- only two years of
lies and provocations. On this 'foundation,' the investigation could only have fallen to
pieces, which is what happened."
But sophistication of intelligence agencies now reached very high level. Russiage was pretty dirty but pretty slick operation. British
thre letter againces were even more devious, if we view Skripals poisoning as MI5/Mi6 "witness protection" operation due to possible
Skripal role in creating Steele dossier. So let's keep wanting the evnet. The election 2020 might be event more interesting the Elections
of 2016. Who would suggest in 2015 that he/she elects man candidate from Israel lobby instead of a woman candidate from the same lobby?
Notable quotes:
"... The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an attack on them. ..."
"... Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared him perfectly for his present role. ..."
"... the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than by any intrinsic superiority. ..."
"... The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance, functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds. ..."
"... Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. ..."
"... Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged. ..."
"... Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. ..."
One might object that Trump, a billionaire TV star, does not resemble his followers. But this misses the powerful intimacy that he
establishes with them, at rallies, on TV and on Twitter. Part of his malicious genius lies in his ability to forge a bond with people
who are otherwise excluded from the world to which he belongs. Even as he cast Hillary Clinton as the tool of international finance,
he said:
I do deals – big deals – all the time. I know and work with all the toughest operators in the world of high-stakes global finance.
These are hard-driving, vicious cut-throat financial killers, the kind of people who leave blood all over the boardroom table
and fight to the bitter end to gain maximum advantage.
With these words he brought his followers into the boardroom with him and encouraged them to take part in a shared, cynical exposure
of the soiled motives and practices that lie behind wealth. His role in the Birther movement, the prelude to his successful presidential
campaign, was not only racist, but also showed that he was at home with the most ignorant, benighted, prejudiced people in America.
Who else but a complete loser would engage in Birtherism, so far from the Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Harvard aura that elevated
Obama, but also distanced him from the masses?
The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but
it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an
attack on them. 'The fascist leader's startling symptoms of inferiority', Adorno wrote, 'his resemblance to ham actors and asocial
psychopaths', facilitates the identification, which is the basis of the ideal. On the Access Hollywood tape, which was widely assumed
would finish him, Trump was giving voice to a common enough daydream, but with 'greater force' and greater 'freedom of libido' than
his followers allow themselves. And he was bolstering the narcissism of the women who support him, too, by describing himself as
helpless in the grip of his desires for them.
Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far
more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising
slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared
him perfectly for his present role. According to Adorno,
the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them
psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than
by any intrinsic superiority.
To meet the unconscious wishes of his audience, the leader
simply turns his own unconscious outward Experience has taught him consciously to exploit this faculty, to make rational use
of his irrationality, similarly to the actor, or a certain type of journalist who knows how to sell their sensitivity.
All he has to do in order to make the sale, to get his TV audience to click, or to arouse a campaign rally, is exploit his own
psychology.
Using old-fashioned but still illuminating language, Adorno continued:
The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous
spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance,
functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds.
Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well
as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was
particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. As with the Birther movement or Access
Hollywood, Trump's self-debasement – pretending to sell steaks on the campaign trail – forges a bond that secures his idealised status.
Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the
neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic
Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged.
Yet no one who lived through the civil rights and feminist rebellions of recent decades can believe that an economic programme
per se is a sufficient basis for a Democratic-led politics.
This holds as well when it comes to trying to reach out to Trump's supporters. Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent
approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. But if we understand the personal
level at which pro-Trump strivings operate, we may better appeal to the other half, and in that way forestall the coming emergency.
This is probably the most comprehensive outline of the color revolution against Trump. Bravo, simply bravo !!!
Reads like Agatha Christi Murder on the Orient
Express ;-) Rosenstein role is completely revised from a popular narrative. Brennan role clarifies and detailed. Obama
personal role hinted. Victoria Nuland role and the role of the State Department in Russiagate is documented for the first
time, I think.
Notable quotes:
"... The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation, led by McCabe, could continue unhindered. ..."
"... Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known since at least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr, an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working for Fusion GPS sometime in late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier. ..."
"... The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided by Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's data-sharing order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission. ..."
"... Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken. ..."
"... The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and charged with one count of lying to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time. ..."
"... The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute, to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017, statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents? ..."
Spygate: The True Story of Collusion [Infographic] How America's most powerful agencies were weaponized against President
Donald Trump
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate -- the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign -- remains surprisingly simple:
CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence
and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.
The FBI became the handler of Brennan's intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of
nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.
Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing
participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.
Let's start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.
Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump's campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At
the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established
political system.
The sudden legitimacy of Trump's candidacy was not welcomed by the U.S. political establishment. Here was a true political outsider
who held no traditional allegiances. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness, he couldn't be bought, and he didn't
care what others thought of him -- he trusted himself.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging monetary policy,
regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United Nations and the European Union.
He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of the Russia-collusion narrative and the spying on the Trump campaign. (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty
Images)
Brennan became the point man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed
or came from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of the imagination and
particularly foolhardy.
Brennan took unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan -- head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) -- partnered with former UK foreign intelligence members. Former MI6
head Sir Richard Dearlove
, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration
-- Hannigan abruptly announced
his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan's
resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of "spy traps." Prominent among these were ones set
for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection could be established that could then be publicized.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of Papadopoulos and
Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an inter-agency task
force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry
into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency
(NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan's inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation, which was formed
later at Brennan's urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting , which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference :
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in
intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan repeatedly noted this during
a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped establish
the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a series of meetings
in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding intelligence and information he had gathered.
Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information.
Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only a moderate confidence level.
Although the FBI is technically part of the DOJ, it is best for the purposes of this article that the FBI and DOJ be viewed as
separate entities, each with its own related ties.
The FBI itself was comprised of various factions, with a particularly active element that has come to be known as the "insurance
policy group." It appears that this faction was led by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and comprised other notable names such as
FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and FBI general counsel James Baker.
The FBI established the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russia collusion with the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Comey initially refused to say whether the FBI was investigating possible connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
He would continue to refuse to provide answers until March 20, 2017, when he disclosed the existence of the FBI investigation
during congressional testimony.
Comey also testified that he did not provide notification to the Gang of Eight until early March 2017 -- less than one month earlier.
This admission was in stark contrast to actions taken by Brennan, who had notified members of the Gang of Eight individually during
August and September 2016. It's likely that Brennan never informed Comey that he had briefed the Gang of Eight in 2016. Comey did
note that the DOJ "had been aware" of the investigation all along.
Comey opened the counterintelligence investigation into Trump on the urging of CIA Director John Brennan.
Following Comey's firing on May 9, 2017, the FBI's investigation was transferred to special counsel Robert Mueller. The
Mueller investigation remains ongoing.
The FBI's formal involvement with the
Steele dossier began on July 5, 2016,
when Mike Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the US Embassy in Rome, was dispatched to visit former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele in London. Gaeta would return from this meeting with a copy of Steele's first memo. This memo was given to Victoria Nuland
at the State Department, who passed it along to the FBI.
Gaeta, who also headed the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, had known Steele since at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance to the FBI's investigation into the
FIFA corruption
scandal .
Prior to the London meeting, Gaeta may also have met on a less formal basis with Steele
several weeks earlier.
"In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had cooperated over FIFA," The Guardian reported. "His information
started to reach the bureau in Washington."
It's worth noting that there was no "dossier" until it was fully compiled in December 2016. There was only a sequence of documents
from Steele -- documents that were passed on individually -- as they were created. Therefore, from the FBI's legal perspective, they
didn't use the dossier. They used individual documents.
For the next month and a half, there appeared to be little contact between Steele and the FBI. However, the FBI's interest in
the dossier suddenly accelerated in late August 2016, when the bureau
asked Steele "for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify
his sources."
In September 2016, Steele traveled back to Rome to meet with the FBI's Eurasian squad once again. It's likely that the meeting
included several other FBI officials as well. According to a
House Intelligence Committee
minority memo , Steele's reporting reached the FBI counterintelligence team in mid-September 2016 -- the same time as Steele's
September trip to Rome.
The reason for the FBI's renewed interest had to do with an adviser to the Trump campaign -- Carter Page -- who had been in
contact with Stefan Halper, a CIA
and FBI source, since July 2016. Halper
arranged to meet with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page took a trip
to Moscow. Speakers at the symposium included Madeleine Albright, Vin Webber, and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.
Page was now the FBI's chosen target for a FISA warrant that would be obtained on Oct. 21, 2016. The Steele dossier would be the
primary evidence used in obtaining the FISA warrant, which would be renewed three separate times, including after Trump took office,
finally expiring in September 2017.
Former volunteer Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Nov. 2, 2017. The FBI obtained a retroactive FISA spy warrant
on Page.
After being in contact with Page for 14 months, Halper stopped contact exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. Page,
who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, was never charged with any crime by the FBI. Efforts for the declassification of the
Page FISA application are currently ongoing through the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two prominent members of the FBI's "insurance policy" group. Strzok, a senior FBI agent, was the
deputy assistant director of FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, served as special counsel to FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe.
Strzok was in charge of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business. He helped
FBI Director James Comey draft the statement exonerating Clinton and was personally responsible for changing specific wording within
that statement that reduced Clinton's legal liability. Specifically, Strzok changed the words "grossly negligent," which could be
a criminal offense, to "extremely careless."
Strzok also personally led the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump–Russia collusion and signed the
documents that opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. He was one of the FBI agents who interviewed Trump's national security
adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. Strzok met multiple times with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and received information from Steele at those
meetings.
Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Strzok would join the team of special counsel Robert Mueller. Two months later,
he was removed from that team after the DOJ inspector general discovered a lengthy series of texts between Strzok and Page that contained
politically charged messages. Strzok would be fired from the FBI in August 2018.
Both Strzok and Page engaged in strategic
leaking to the press. Page did so at the direction of McCabe, who directly
authorized Page to share information with Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. That information was used in an Oct. 30, 2016, article headlined
"FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe ." Page leaked to Barrett thinking she had been granted legal and official authorization
to do so.
McCabe would later initially deny providing such
authorization to the Office of Inspector General. Page, when confronted with McCabe's denials, produced texts refuting his statement.
It was these texts that led to the inspector general uncovering the texts between Strzok and Page.
The two exchanged thousands of texts, some of them indicating surveillance activities, over a two-year period. Texts sent between
Aug. 21, 2015, and June 25, 2017, have been made
public . The series comes
to an end with a final text by Page telling Strzok, "Don't ever text me again."
On Aug. 8, 2016, Stzrok wrote that they would prevent candidate Trump from becoming president:
Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok sent a text referring to an "insurance policy":
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way [Trump] gets elected --
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation,
led by McCabe, could continue unhindered.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice, which comprises 60 agencies , was transformed
during the Obama years. The department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation.
However, a
series
of investigative articles by PJ Media published during Eric Holder's tenure as attorney general revealed an unsettling pattern
of ideological conformity among new hires at the DOJ: Only lawyers from the progressive left were hired. Not one single moderate
or conservative lawyer made the cut. This is significant as the DOJ enjoys significant latitude in determining who will be subject
to prosecution.
The DOJ's job in Spygate was to facilitate the legal side of surveillance while providing a protective layer of cover for all
those involved. The department became a repository of information and provided a protective wall between the investigative efforts
of the FBI and the legislative branch. Importantly, it also served as the firewall within the executive branch, serving as the insulating
barrier between the FBI and Obama officials. The department had become legendary for its stonewalling tactics with Congress.
DOJ Official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28, 2018. Ohr passed on information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
The DOJ, which was fully aware of the actions being taken by James Comey and the FBI, also became an active element acting against
members of the Trump campaign. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, along with Mary McCord, the head of the DOJ's National Security
Division, was actively
involved in efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn from his position as national security adviser to President Trump.
To this day, it remains unknown which individual was responsible for making public Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to a process crime: lying to the FBI. There have been
questions raised in Congress regarding the possible alteration of FD-302s, the written notes of Flynn's FBI interviews. Special
counsel Robert Mueller has repeatedly deferred Flynn's sentencing hearing.
David Laufman, deputy assistant attorney general in charge of counterintelligence at the DOJ's National Security Division, played
a key role in both the Clinton email server and Russia hacking investigations. Laufman is currently the attorney for Monica McLean,
the long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who recently accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while in high
school. McLean was also
employed
by the FBI for 24 years.
Bruce Ohr was a significant DOJ official who played a
key role in Spygate. Ohr held
two important positions at the DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force. As associate deputy attorney general, Ohr was just four offices away from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he
reported directly to her. As director of the task force, he was in charge of a program described as "the centerpiece of the attorney
general's drug strategy."
Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known
since at
least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr,
an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working
for Fusion GPS sometime in
late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier.
According to testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok, he and Ohr met at least five times during 2016 and 2017. Strzok was working
directly with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, Ohr met with the FBI at least
12 times between late November 2016 and May 2017 for a series of interviews. These meetings could have been used to
transmit information from Steele to the FBI. This came after the FBI had formally severed contact with Steele in late October
or early November 2016.
John Carlin is another notable figure with the DOJ. Carlin was an assistant attorney general and the head of the DOJ's National
Security Division until October 2016. His role will be discussed below in the section on FISA abuse.
The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate." He directed the activities of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance
policy" text message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He was placed into a somewhat chaotic
situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months
earlier, on March 2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of the ongoing investigation
being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased scrutiny as the result of actions taken
leading up to and following the election, particularly Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject of the memo was "Restoring Public
Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day. McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration
for the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding
apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe"
by Devlin Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations
Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate
fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions, regarding potential lack of candor
before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record President Trump. This remark
was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former
FBI general counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence. Rosenstein issued a statement
denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation
into the president." An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat
differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met with Mueller, reportedly as an interview
for the FBI director job. On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after Rosenstein's
encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein
would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed -- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would
have remained in charge of the Russia investigation. McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was
reportedly under consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement and the FBI would
have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to
The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of investigation and definition of authority"
that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the
new FBI director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray
were tasked with overseeing all leak investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove any residual FBI influence -- specifically
that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a grand
jury investigation.
State Department
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Clinton Campaign and the DNC
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout 2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. Sussmann transmitted information to FBI chief counsel James Baker and several
journalists. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Obama Administration
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is
provided by
Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Evelyn Farkas on May 6, 2014. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
Clapper leaked information to CNN, after which he publicly condemned the leaks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Media
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the
unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the
intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical
pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security
for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application. According to the
indictment , Wolfe
exchanged 82 text messages with
Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call. The original Page FISA application is 83 pages
long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Foreign Intelligence
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan in this file photo. Hannigan transmitted information regarding Donald Trump to John
Brennan in the summer of 2016. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
The company was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC–through law firm Perkins Coie–to produce the dossier on Trump.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier on Trump.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
Foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign was approached by several individuals with ties to UK and U.S. intelligence
agencies. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
FBI informant Stefan Halper approached Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
FISA Abuse
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
Then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers on May 23, 2017. Rogers uncovered widespread abuse of FISA data by the FBI. (Saul
Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
The Insurance Policy
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance policy," the term has been the subject of
wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying
meaning of the text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's
leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation
into the Trump campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the
foundation for the Russia narrative.
The intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the dossier as a launching pad for creating
their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers having only moderate confidence in
its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the narrative that Russia helped Trump win
the elections was aggressively pushed throughout 2017.
Spygate
Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political
campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread
intelligence community leaks as facts.
But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and
our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern
extending back decades?
The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They
represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider -- a reaction that has come to be known as
Spygate.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
Trump is definitely deeply compromised politician, a marionette of a lobby, but not Russian
lobby. Just look at
Jared Kushner and Ivanka role in WH (the books Kushner Inc
shed some light on Trump son-in-law) This is both nepotism and pandering to Israeli lobby. As one
Amazon reviewer put it "I'd also advise counting your fingers after you shake hands with any of
the Kushners..." and "The best way to describe Kushner and Ivanka is that they are both nothing
but "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels" - unpatriotic, self-enriching, lying, scheming, tax dodging
POS's."
Trump campaign was a large extent financed by Sheldon Adelson . Trump connection to
convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein are also of great concerns (
Flight logs reveal trips Bill Clinton and Alan Dershowitz took on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet
Daily Mail Online ) if we view this as an attempt to compromise and then control US
politicians. And the content of the hard drive of Anthony Wiener laptop was never revealed. Death
of Seth Rich was highly suspicious as was the content of Podesta email box. Mueller did not dare
to move his investigation in this direction.
Top-ranking Democrat, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Jerry Nadler did the rounds of
Sunday's political shows this morning but it wasn't until he reached the safety of CNN that he
decided to unleash his 'facts' in response to the narrative-crushing conclusions reached by
special counsel Robert Mueller.
"We know there was collusion," Nadler insisted several times during an appearance on CNN's
"State of the Union" while shrugging off Mueller's apparent facts - " Why there's been no
indictments, we don't know. "
Tulsi Gabbard is less than 20K individual donations away from getting on the debate stage!
Help her get there by donating just $1 to her campaign!
Tulsi Gabbard 5:21 PM - 22 Mar 2019
Thank you! So far we have 44,255 unique donors of the 65,000 needed to get on the debate
stage! Almost 4,000 people contributed in the last 2 days. I'm humbled by your support. Stay
tuned for updates! pic.twitter.com/UOd5Ky39vf
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
"... The people who paid for Trump's election campaign, foremost casino magnate and zionist Sheldon Adelson, want to keep the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahoo in office. ..."
"... Trump needs money for his re-election campaign and is willing to do anything to get it. ..."
"... Trump is colluding with Netayahoo to influence the Israeli election. It is the reason why he decided yesterday to claim that Israel has sovereignty over the Golan Heights : ..."
The people who paid for Trump's election campaign, foremost casino magnate and zionist
Sheldon Adelson, want to keep the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahoo in office.
Netanyahoo
is under investigation in several corruption cases and has a serious competitor in the upcoming
general elections in Israel. Trump needs money for his re-election campaign and is willing to
do anything to get it.
Trump is colluding with Netayahoo to influence the Israeli election. It is the reason why
he decided yesterday to claim that Israel has sovereignty over the Golan Heights :
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 16:50 utc - 21 Mar
2019
After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel's Sovereignty over
the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of
Israel and Regional Stability!
The Heights are Syrian lands that were occupied by Israel during its 1967 war of aggression
against Egypt and Syria.
72% of Jewish Americans voted for Hillary Clinton. If you think this is going to change
their minds in 2020, think again.
SteveNotDevinNunesCat 6:20 AM - 22 Mar 2019
Doesn't Kushner have vast construction projects in or around Golan Heights?
Trickle UP not DOWN 6:26 AM - 22 Mar 2019
More attempts to CREATE extremist reaction and terror to sway upcoming elections by Trump
and Netanyahu...two transparent criminals under investigation. Pathetic.
David Iossi 5:14 PM - 22 Mar 2019
...This president absolutely made it for money and support of Isreal!
"... What's comical about this debacle is the Zionist's declaring Trump's meddling in their politics : "Yet many people are saying that this is in response to Prime Minister Netanyahu's request that many leaders, especially the US President, help him in the coming elections, which we are going to have in two weeks' time. And this is seen, by some at least, as an intervention in the Israeli political process." ..."
"... I'm increasingly convinced that Trump is being blackmailed on account of videos taken in the airplane of the billionaire Epstein (maybe stuff involving 13-year-old-girls), he might be soothed by headlines like this ..."
"... Semi-OT item of interest about the emerging Turkey-Qatar-Iranian Alliance. An excerpt: "According to Russian think tank Katehon, the new Qatar-Iran-Turkey axis is already well underway and has the power to control Asia, west India and Pakistan and challenge the 'demonic trio' of the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia." ..."
"... Now we see the hand of some of those that REALLY meddled in the 2016 US Presidential election. ..."
"... Trump's son-in-law is a personal friend of Bibi's and probably has more influence over Trump. ..."
"... Nobody seems to have brought up a possible consequence of Trump recognizing the annexation of the Golan Heights. After this, Trump doesn't really have the legs left to stand on when it comes opposing the Crimea asking to re-join Russia after the referendum. ..."
"... I do think this action was prompted by Jared's relationship with Bibi probably wasn't even run by Pence, Pompeo nor Bolton; all of whom would love this sort of thing anyway. ..."
"... I'm stressing the fact that democracy in the U.S. is non-existant as in Israel and that it's no coincidence but a continuing cullusion between both parties to rig the system to protect Zionism and no one has colluded in this regard more than Trump even while he was still President-elect. ..."
"... Israel had hoped to usurp the Golan Heights once and for all by fueling a 7-year-long Syrian proxy war through its funding and supplying of Al Qaeda and ISIS-aligned "moderate rebels." That failed and now it depends on Trump's illegal decree. ..."
"... Water hoarding and theft has gone hand in hand with the erasure of Palestinian sovereignty and the real-world ethnic cleasing of Palestinian populations. Collaboration does not seem to be an option in the Zionist playbook. And just to be clear, I have no desire to see Jewish people in the Levant or elsewhere ethnically cleansed either. ..."
"... I wanted to add: of course, the many gifts Trump has given to Israel, and now this gift, recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli Territory before the Israeli elections, to Netanyahoo who was asking Trump to do this now, and who probably coordinated the whole effort to get Trump elected proves the point I've been making from day one 100%. Quid pro quo. It's all come full circle. ..."
"... Trump's victory was thanks to right-wing billionaires' support (Cambridge A.), who use(d) Israel as a tool to control the Middle East. Without this, the $ would be toast. ..."
"... Mueller's report has been rumored to be complete for weeks. How convenient that he delivered it one day after Trump's tweet about recognizing Golan./sarc ..."
"... Trump is the best Zionist asset ever and proven he's a great return on Israel's investment. Now, let's see...what has Trump done for Russia lately? Bupkis. ..."
"The people who paid for Trump's election campaign, foremost casino magnate and zionist
Sheldon Adelson, want to keep the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahoo in office. ......
Trump needs money for his re-election campaign and is willing to do anything to get it"
Zoinists, Israel-firster, and Israeli/Amecian dual citizens... these are the people Trump
has and continues to collude with. That's why the Dems, the Dem-sheeple and all those with
TDS (Trump derangement syndrome) are investigating Russia collusion.
What's comical about this debacle is the Zionist's declaring Trump's
meddling in their politics :
"Yet many people are saying that this is in response to Prime Minister Netanyahu's request
that many leaders, especially the US President, help him in the coming elections, which we
are going to have in two weeks' time. And this is seen, by some at least, as an intervention
in the Israeli political process."
The article covers other aspects of the situation in Palestine, but the meddling aspect
brought about lots of laughter.
In the old musical "The Sound of Music" was this line: A Spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down
Since I'm increasingly convinced that Trump is being blackmailed on account of
videos taken in the airplane of the billionaire Epstein (maybe stuff involving
13-year-old-girls), he might be soothed by headlines like this:
" Trump chosen by God as savior of Jewish people? Pompeo thinks it's 'certainly
possible' ... 22 Mar, 2019
There have been all the crazy happenings with Venezuela. This current bit of
generosity with the Golan awarded to the apartheid Jewish State. And quite recently there
was more coddling of that puissant nation:
Until now, top-ranking U.S. officials spent time at the wall unaccompanied by Israeli
officials, to avoid appearing to recognize Israel's rule over the area.
China has long said it draws a "red line" at the U.S. furnishing new-build advanced F-16 to
Taiwan. If the deal is approved, it is sure to infuriate Beijing at a particularly
contentious moment in U.S.-Chinese relations history.
Pompeo, Pence, and the rest clearly do not give a solitary damn about the
prospect of provoking a huge war - nuclear or otherwise. In fact they'd welcome this as yet
another step towards their dream of forcing The Rapture of the Second Coming.
Religious fanatics with nukes were the official thing to worry about with the prospect of
Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Turns out it's a reality right here in the US of A.
Semi-OT item of
interest about the emerging Turkey-Qatar-Iranian Alliance. An excerpt:
"According to Russian think tank Katehon, the new Qatar-Iran-Turkey axis is already well
underway and has the power to control Asia, west India and Pakistan and challenge the
'demonic trio' of the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia."
Which wasn't a surprise attack either. Anwar as-Sadat warned Israel for about 3 years
prior to the 1973 event that he would use military force to regain control over Egyptian
territory - Sinai - occupied by Israel.
What surprised Israel was the level of military prowess of the Egyptian forces when the
attack was launched.
If Washington confirms its recent indications of recognizing the Golan as officially part
of Israel, the development would mark an egregious flouting of international law.
. . .
Claims by Washington and the European Union of "illegal annexation" of Crimea by Russia
are the central basis for five years of economic sanctions imposed on Moscow. Those
sanctions have contributed to ever-worsening tensions with Russia and the build-up of NATO
forces along Russia's borders.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
There's always the possibility that after the Israeli election Trump will reneg on his own
declaration like he did with the pull-out from Syria. But that seems unlikely as it brings a
whole different set of problems for Trump and would be inconsistent with Trump's
whole-hearted support for Israel/Netanyahu: cutting humanitarian aid to Palestinians; moving
US Embassy to Jerusalem; keeping troops in Syria; etc.
thanks b... makes sense trumps string is being pulled for netanyahu... this is another minus
point for usa-israel, as they sink further into pariah status.. either this 'rules based'
order is going to hit a wall, or some of the players trying to maintain a semblance of
international order are going to realize a few players could give a shit about international
laws or organizations, or only in so far as they serve them..
i always knew money was a corrupting force.. good to get another window into the process..
money trumps religion.. all this talk of religion is so much bullshit.. money is their god -
plain and clear..
Hey FBI, hey Democrats: Will Trump investigated for selling out to a foreign power? Is
this offensive (to US enemies and allies alike) and embarrassing act an impeachable
offense?
Nah, any military prowess was down to planning by the Soviet Union which provided Egypt
with the ATGMs and SAMs to fight the war designed to encourage the Israelis to get out of
Sinai. The Egyptians got carried away by their initial success and went further than the plan
envisaged by launching an offensive attack on the Israeli which outran the area defended by
the SAMs at which point it went from victory into defeat in military terms.
In political
terms, the only one that really matters, the Egyptians persuaded the Israelis, that it would
only be a matter of time before the Egyptians were successful and the Israelis left Sinai.
And the Palestinians were shafted as usual.
"...foremost....Sheldon Adelson, want to keep the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahoo in
office."
Trump's son-in-law is a personal friend of Bibi's and probably has more influence over
Trump.
Israel gets a lot of its fresh water from the Sea of Galilee which is fed by the Jordan
River, an international watershed. Israel is also taking more that it is entitled to and,
yet, the 'sea' is still drying up. All Syria has to do is start taking its fair share and
it's big trouble for Israel's water supply and economy. As doing so might bring war, Syria
could issue permits to Russian companies that do irrigation.
Additionally, Lebanon could take more water from the Hasbani river and Wassani
Springs.
Nobody seems to have brought up a possible consequence of Trump recognizing the annexation of
the Golan Heights. After this, Trump doesn't really have the legs left to stand on when it
comes opposing the Crimea asking to re-join Russia after the referendum. We'll see if the
Europeans really oppose this by their response. Do they tell Trump that if he does this
they'll recognise Crimea as part of Russia and drop the sanctions. Nah!
BTW, SST has a
post up written by TTG about a presentation given by Sergei Shoigu to the Duma committee
on Defense of the State of the Russian Federation. The short of it is that the Russian
army has been dramatically enhanced but as a defensive force, although whether or not the
deep battle doctrine of the past still applies is difficult to make out.
Among the defensive systems touted by Shoigu are 20 S-400 missile regiments with 8 to 12
launchers/regiment, 23 Pantsir-S divisions (regiments?) with 18 launchers/regiment, 17
battalions Bal and Bastion antiship coastal defense systems with 12 launchers/battalion.
Note these are defensive systems. Sure they can provide a defensive umbrella for deployed
forces as in Syria, but they are still defensive systems. They are primarily deployed on
Russian territory to defend Russia from sea and air attacks.
@14 jr... that's been very obvious to many including our one trick pony circe! getting the
usa to jump out of bed with israel, would be like trying to get the msm, dem-repub party to
comment on the elephant in the room.. ain't gonna happen..
Apologies about my opening to the comment at 2:57:51 PM | 19 not recognizing your comment
but I started writing before your comment became public and was then interrupted by a
neighbour wanting to talk about parking.
I do think this action was prompted by Jared's relationship with Bibi probably wasn't even
run by Pence, Pompeo nor Bolton; all of whom would love this sort of thing anyway.
Despite this latest idiotic move I don't think the US will be treated as a pariah for quite a
while, no matter the private thoughts of govts. I think Trump is viewed as a diplomatic
aberration that will disappear possibly sooner than later, his actions erased and forgotten
to be replaced by some sort of somewhat more predictable DS groomed nightmare.
"A Spoonful of Sugar" is from "Mary Poppins", not "The Sound of Music". (Julie Andrews did
star in the movie versions of both musicals, though. And the situation we're discussing here
does suggest an outlook based on magical [un]realism.)
Of course, forming and maintaining 136 standing BTGs is costly and makes military sense
only if a major armed encounter of continental proportions seems imminent and could begin
without much prior notice or mobilization.
My link ought to be read with caution, for it comes from a site I label "neocon
and dishonest", but even they notice Russia is preparing for any confrontation initiated by
the increasingly unstable US "administration". That they're doing this despite the "expense"
is something to worry about, IMO.
b - Genie abandon their oil exploration efforts in Israel over a year ago and is no longer
doing any oil exploration there. Their main business is now selling residential gas in New
Jersey and the UK (Orbit). That's not the REAL story here, though. Sorry for the long post -
links to the Trump administration/Kushner info at the end.
Five exploratory wells drilled, four were dry or not economical to frack, and they never
said anything about the last well (Ness 10). They were 'awaiting results' last year. FWIW,
geologists have pretty much laughed at their efforts all along. Their drilling company in
Israel, Afek, is now part of what Genie reports as their money-losing GOGAS business segment
(tax avoidance). No exploration or drilling activity since Afek.
Afek apparently sold the drilling rig to yet another Genie subsidiary, Atid, which is
planning to either drill for water or take over the exploratory wells in 'northern Israel'.
That's really important to Israel - the Sea of Galilee has been sucked so dry that the
aquifer feeding it is being permanently damaged. Might as well steal some Syrian water to
fill it up again. I have to wonder if this wasn't the scheme all along.
From the Genie 2018 Annual Report PR in March:
Genie Oil and Gas (GOGAS)
Genie Energy's GOGAS segment includes its Afek oil and gas exploration project, several
dormant exploration operations and a minority position in a drilling services company in
Israel. Afek is currently awaiting the permits required for final testing on an existing
well. In 3Q18, GOGAS divested a majority stake in a drilling services company. For periods
prior to the divestiture, results include the full impact of that company's operations, and
for subsequent periods, results include only Genie Energy's portion of results.
In 4Q18, GOGAS incurred $778 thousand in SG&A expense. In 4Q17, GOGAS incurred $524
thousand in SG&A expense, $2.3 million in exploration expense, and a $6.5 million
write-off of capitalized exploration costs.
I would characterize Genie as the usual, run-of-the-mill oil exploration penny stock scam
- selling the promise of some mythical oil deposit in Israel. It did not start with
Afek/Golan. Their previous attempt via a sub called Israeli Energy Initiatives found another
worthless shale deposit somewhere between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and wanted to do in situ
thermal recovery. Environmentalists got that filthy scheme axed in 2014. But why let a good
stock scam/money-laundering/tax-avoidance scheme go to waste? Thus: Afek and the criminal
Golan drilling license.
Drilling license area map I got from somewhere shown my tweet (if it's not still
shadow-banned):
And the REAL story here thanks to the research of @Zanting (account deleted from Twitter)
from a year ago:
Ira Greenstein: Jared Kushner's Criminal Deal With Israel Behind U.S. Involvement In Syria
For Genie Energy's Control of the Golan Heights A major conflict of interest looms over the Rose Garden, whether it spells the end of the
Trump administration, has yet to be determined.
My tweet links to @Zanting's article on Medium from Feb. of 2018, but that has some
formatting issues. For whatever reason (probably to avoid censorship), @Zanting originally
published this on AnimeRightNews at the end of 2017. Yes, anime... don't be put off by it -
the article is filled with detail. In fact, there's an overwhelming amount of it considering
how well it's been ignored by the MSM. I see Zanting has a lot of other articles on that
site, but I haven't had time...
Bonus: The article also pointed out the connection to IDT Corp (Genie parent) - a shady
New Jersey telecom company I recognize linked to Israli Intelligence and suspected of
siphoning up data for israel years ago. IDT bought up huge chunks of (wait for it...) the
then-planned 5G spectrum in the US back in the day. They sold it to Verizon a year ago after
additional frequency bands were added, making their license monopoly far less valuable. Gosh,
I wonder why an Israeli Intel-linked company would be so interested in dominating the (then)
planned 5G service in the US? Are they still involved and is this somehow influencing the
Huawei jihad?
Oh please! Go back and read comments from 2017! You couldn't say a negative word about
Trump around here, especially, predicting he would turn out to be a Neocon and fake populist
as I was doing then.
I commented on many other issues, although, yes, for good reason, I'm
stressing the fact that democracy in the U.S. is non-existant as in Israel and that it's no
coincidence but a continuing cullusion between both parties to rig the system to protect
Zionism and no one has colluded in this regard more than Trump even while he was still
President-elect.
So, according to you, I'm a one-trick pony, huh, and even if that were the case; at least
I have the courage of my convictions. It's better than being the blog WEATHER VANE, as
yourself, turning in circles to whichever side the popular opinion blows around here.
When I was swimming against the current with my conviction here and getting hammered, you
were taking it easy going with the flow noding @@@ I agree , fanning a misguided echo
or a deluded direction. How does that further awareness?
My link ought to be read with caution, for it comes from a site I label "neocon and
dishonest"
Quite agree with the dishonest bit.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in contrast, has deployed four multinational
BTG-type units across the Baltic republics and in Poland to deter the Russian military.
Poor, weak NATO. LOL. They are forgetting all the BTG-equivalents that individual NATO
countries have. For example, according to Wikipedia, for the United Kingdom:
The Infantry of the British Army, part of the structure of the British Army, comprises 49
infantry battalions, from 19 regiments. Of these, 33 battalions are part of the Regular
army and the remaining 16 a part of the Army Reserve.
A British infantry battalion is between 500 and 1000 men so roughly equivalent to a BTG.
Add in armour, artillery and the various corps and you probably have a total of between 70
and 80 BTG equivalents. This is for a country with ~40% of the population and 1.4% of the
land area of Russia.
As for the rest of NATO, Germany's army is quite a bit smaller than the UK, while France
and Poland are about the same size as the UK, so Russia would probably face over 250 BTG
equivalents if it got into a shooting match with German, France, Poland and the UK. Pure
guess work but NATO probably has about 400 BTG equivalents from Europe alone. And don't
forget the United States.
History would suggest that Russia would need ~800-1200 BTG equivalents if it wanted to
attack Europe with any hope of success and could keep the United States out, while NATO
already has enough forces to attack Russia.
Looking at the author's (Pavel Felgenhauer) Wikipedia entry makes everything
clear.
Felgenhauer correctly predicted in June 2008 that Vladimir Putin would start a war against
Georgia in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August 2008.
Even the EU recognizes that it was Mikheil Saakashvili who started it. The Wikipedia entry
for that police action was probably written by a Saakashvili fan.
Because Israel took the Golan Heights by military means for strategic purposes, a U.S.
recognition could create a precedent for future governments to claim they can seize
territory they see as strategically vital to their security.
[...] Israeli defense officials stationed in the United States have conveyed messages to
American senators expressing their reservations over proposed legislation to recognize
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
[...] Despite the bipartisan support, Israel Hayom has learned that representatives of
Israel's defense establishment have told senior senators that passing the bill into law, at
least at the present time, was not ideal.
"The 'deal of the century' for peace between Arabs and the Zionists that Trump's son in law
Jared Kushner was supposed to arrange is now dead."
I hope you are right b, I am growing very concerned with Trump's new puppet friend at
Bolsonaro, yesterday Brazil voted against Palestine and UNHR findings, and abstained for the
1st time on the Golan Heights annual vote.
No matter what, the UN and the countries willing to stand by the international law should
start sanctioning Israel and the US for the abuses against the International Law and UN
resolutions, either that or close down this useless UN.
You're welcome -- and thank you for the chance to practice self-control. I didn't ace the
test, but at least I resisted the temptation to phrase the comment as an all-out "Lost in
Space" reference.
Like b said , no run of the mill oil company has an advisory board composed of: Dick Cheney
(former vice president of the United States), Rupert Murdoch (media mogul and chairman of
News Corp), James Woolsey (former CIA director), Larry Summers (former head of the US
Treasury), Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico, an ex-ambassador to the United
Nations and United States Energy Secretary, Michael Steinhardt, Lord Jacob Rothschild, etc
....
Thanks Paveway for those deep digs into what's really going on behind the scenes with Genie.
The United States can recognise whatever they like but it doesn't validate the Israeli
claims. Unlike Crimea where the native population had not been driven out and where there was
a free referendum and historical record casts that land as Russian, Israel's claims on the
Golan Heights are very shallow.
Hasn't stopped Great Britain from holding onto Gibraltar but they are always one conflict
away from having Gibraltar taken away from them. Living precariously.
Its not just the US. Despite Russia's condemnation it is Russian troops are enforcing an
anti-Iranian "buffer zone" there . Moscow itself has indirectly suggested that Damascus
surrender this territory via the Russian-written "draft constitution" it has proposed.
It strikes me US and Russia playing Good Cop-Bad Cop in Syria on behalf of Israel who
seems to have extraordinary control/influence over both countries
"I am growing very concerned with Trump's new puppet friend at Bolsonaro, ..."
I don't know that he will remain in charge, assuming he is even in charge now, for when he
attempted to "help out" the US with Venezuela his VP a former, or maybe not so former,
General shut him down. I think that will happen more and more often.
We'll see if the Europeans really oppose this by their response. Do they tell Trump that if
he does this they'll recognise Crimea as part of Russia and drop the sanctions. Nah!
Sanctions against Russia have a profound reason that Trump announcement will not change:
Russia. Annexations occurred in many instances and usually, with some tut-tuts, and sometimes even
without that.
Without going so far back like annexations during Indian partition, Morocco annexed former
Spanish colony where inhabitants wished to be independent, Western Sahara; Israel annexed
Golan and quite a swath of West Bank, Turkey practically annexed northern Cyprus and Armenia, Arzakh (a.k.a. Nagorno-Karabagh).
The reason no UNSC sanctions exist regarding the USA or Zionistan is that any proposal for
implementation would be vetoed by USA or one of its vassals. Indeed, the only reason the UN
got involved in the Korean War was due to the absence--boycott actually--of the USSR's
representative on the day the vote was taken. ALL non-UNSC sanctions enacted are
illegal under International Law; and those enacted by the Outlaw US Empire are
Unconstitutional as well. It puzzles me as to why sanctions haven't been challenged within
the US legal system, although there is a court case involving a Russian company that's
announced its intention to do so.
Max Blumenthal
Verified account @MaxBlumenthal
Mar 21
Max Blumenthal Retweeted Donald J. Trump
Israel had hoped to usurp the Golan Heights once and for all by fueling a 7-year-long
Syrian proxy war through its funding and supplying of Al Qaeda and ISIS-aligned "moderate
rebels." That failed and now it depends on Trump's illegal decree.
@32 Paveway IV; thanks for posting this. Interesting and it fits in with some of Israels
abiding concerns, including their geographical lack of strategic depth and regional issues re
a limited supply of fresh water resources. I've read on multiple occasions that much of
Israels interest in Lebanon is linked to a desire to secure the Latani River and surrounding
watershed/water basin.
With a nod to James in the previous Brexit discussions, the name I use for posting is
linked to an ancient and long extinct species of plant that was distributed across the
Gondwanaland super-continent. I find it fascinating how continental movements, geography and
mineral resources layed down millions of years in the past exert influence on modern-day
geopolitics. Fresh water and river access slots into this milieu, even if modern river
systems are not necessarily as ancient as the lands they cut across.
Water access has seemingly been a strategic pressure on Israel since its inception in the
late 1940s.
Glossopteris @49--
If Palestine had remained Palestine, then "strategic pressure" to water access wouldn't
have arisen. If Palestine were to become Palestine again, the water issue would likely wane
as the region would more likely collaborate by sharing instead of hoarding.
"There is absolutely no upside for the United States in endorsing illegal Israeli claims
to the Golan Heights. It is a cynical political stunt intended to boost Netanyahu and Likud's
fortunes in the upcoming election, and it is also a cynical stunt aimed at shoring up Trump's
support from Republican 'pro-Israel' voters and donors. Whatever short-term benefit Israel
gains from it, the U.S. gains nothing and stands to lose quite a bit in terms of our
international standing.
There has been no consideration of the costs and problems this will
create for the U.S. in its relations with other regional states and beyond because Trump
couldn't care less about the long-term effects that his decisions have on the country. Once
again, Trump has put narrow political ambitions and the interests of a foreign government
ahead of the interests of the United States.
That seems to be the inevitable result of
electing a narcissist who conducts foreign policy based on which leaders flatter and praise
him."
Although as with b, the author goes on to lay the fundamental blame at Bolton's feet. But
if that's the case, shouldn't Bolton be the one getting blasted?
Moscow has to take Israel's core interests into account if it wants to be the new hegemon
of the Middle East. Putin and Netanyahu have talked quite a few time in recent months,
coordinating their respective 'red lines'.
So far, both sides seem to stick to the script -
which involves ending the Iranian military presence in Syria, unacceptable to Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu is a Machiavellian power guy, but he isn't stupid, knows how far he can go. He
won't let go of Golan, for fear of it becoming militarized by Syria. Which may go against intl law, but can't be changed.
Water access has seemingly been a strategic pressure on Israel since its inception in the
late 1940s. Primarily because the Europeans squander it "Making the Desert Bloom". Similar to Phoenix,
AZ with swimming pools, green grassy laws, and non-native planting to make the arid land seem
like "home".
Max Blumenthal has it right on, but the proxy war in Syria was also about stopping a gas
pipeline from Iran through Syria as a shortcut to EU market to compete with the Levant
Israeli gas route.
I disagree with any analogy drawn between the Golan Heights and Crimea for various
reasons. It's wrong and counterproductive to draw such analogy. If anything sanctions should
have been imposed on Israel for usurping and settling that land which is a war crime under
the Geneva Conventions. Crimea went back and forth changing hands throughout history. Finally
when Catherine the Great defeated the Ottoman Empire, Crimea was traded in a treaty to
Russia. So technically, legally it was always Russian territory and merely went back to its
lawful owner with the present inhabitants of Crimea totally in agreement.
The Golan Heights were throughout history mostly under Arab control and later also part of
the Ottoman Empire until it was under French control and then became part of Syria, so Israel
has no legitimate claim whatsoever and sanctions should have been imposed on Israel for its
illegal occupation of the Golan Heights and not on Russia for taking back what was
legitimately Russian territory for centuries minus the brief blunder by the Soviet Presidium
of 1954 which transfer decree violated the Russian Constitution of 1937. So in essence it was
an illegal transfer and now that error has been rectified, therefore sanctions on Russia are
illegal.
◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇
The nothing-burger Mueller Report is done and arrived at the Justice Dept. What will be
missing from the report is how Trump colluded with Zionists to become President. Zionist
oligarchs funded Trump at various stages of his campaign and were involved in influencing
American public perception funding Cambridge Analytica and other cyber outfits. Facebook's
Zionist owner also helped in the operation to get Trump elected.
Once the fingerprints and
bread crumbs led away from Russia to Israel, and Netanyahoo and his oligarch friends, Mueller
stopped looking further as the writing on the wall became clear. Mueller stopped following
the money the moment he realized it was all leading back to Israel.
Manafort was the fall guy
for Trump. Originally, I thought Flynn was the fall guy and in a way he was because he quit
and lied for him (I don't believe he was fired) to save Trump's neck at the time. Trump was
never in jeopardy because his Zionist masters ensured there were others around him they knew
were compromised and would end up having to take the fall for their Chosen one.
This investgation was a convenient sham to cover for the real collusion and Trump was the
Zionist 1 percenters choice and nothing was going to foil that and many of you here fell for
the entire charade hook, line and sinker believing Trump was a poor victim all along.
@51 karlof1; Yes I generally agree. Water hoarding and theft has gone hand in hand with the
erasure of Palestinian sovereignty and the real-world ethnic cleasing of Palestinian
populations. Collaboration does not seem to be an option in the Zionist playbook. And just to
be clear, I have no desire to see Jewish people in the Levant or elsewhere ethnically
cleansed either.
I would submit that relative water scarcity is endemic to significant areas of the Middle
East (and North Africa for that matter). It is something that could lead to serious
interstate and intrastate tensions in the coming decades...if not today.
Additionally, Lebanon could take more water from the Hasbani river and Wassani Springs.
Nah, the United States has already decided that Israel is fully entitled to what it
already takes and any attempt to reduce that by Lebanon removing any water is a crime. They
are applying the principles adopted for the Colorado River to the rest of the world. Try
googling lebanon water war for more information
I wanted to add: of course, the many gifts Trump has given to Israel, and now this gift,
recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli Territory before the Israeli elections, to
Netanyahoo who was asking Trump to do this now, and who probably coordinated the whole effort
to get Trump elected proves the point I've been making from day one 100%. Quid pro quo. It's
all come full circle.
@54 Desolation Row; Good point. Something else to add into the mosaic. I read more and more
about water stress in some of the western states of the US.
The proposed constitution posits that Syria's borders can be changed only via a referendum:
"Syrian territory is inalienable. State borders can be modified only via a general
referendum conducted amongst all Syria's citizens and on the basis of the Syrian people's
manifest will."
It then goes on:
Draft Constitution Of The Syrian Republic
The People of Syria, continuing their generations-long traditions of statehood,
understanding its responsibility to the past, current and future generations, fully
determined to strengthen freedom and equity, assuring their adherence to the Charter of the
United Nations, Charter of the Arab League, Charter of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on the Rights of
Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, solemnly
proclaim their following intentions:
- To guarantee the state's security, independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity;
]...........
............
Article 9:
2) Syrian territory is inalienable. State borders can be modified only via a general
referendum con
Oh yes, I remember the discussions about Trump we had in the day.
Funny enough, while I always saw him as a threat to global peace, today I judge his foreign
policy more positively than most. But the Neocons are trying to drive him into a corner,
until he sees no option other than a military one. And his economic policy in favour of the
1% doesn't help.
Still completely disagree on the Israel/ "zion1sm" (definition?) bit.
The dog wags its tail, not vice versa.
Trump's victory was thanks to right-wing billionaires' support (Cambridge A.), who use(d)
Israel as a tool to control the Middle East. Without this, the $ would be toast.
The man is simply an idiot with no understanding of what damage he does - trampling
international law, ignoring the views of allies, and legitimizing armed conquest as a means
for national growth - a mighty dangerous set of precedents.
And by what conceivable authority is an American president granted power to set boundaries
for other states?
Isn't that just slightly presumptuous, to say the least? I do wish a gang of Mexican illegal migrants would seize Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in
Florida and proclaim it as eternally theirs.
It would make every bit as much sense as what Israel has done in Golan.
Those sanctions the EU imposed on Russia because of Ukraine, hurt the European farmers most
when Russia imported fruit and vegetables from elsewhere or became self sufficient, how will
those traders with Russia feel now that Trump has kicked the legs from under EU states with
this illegal recognition of the Golan as Israeli territory.
J Kushner's Israel/Palestinian
peace plan is to be unveiled shortly after the Israeli elections, I predict the US will offer
the Palestinians a series of Bantustans with funding mostly coming from Saudi Arabia and
other Gulf states, these Bantustans will have no sovereignty and the Palestinians will have
no representation in the Knesset [that would solve Israels demographic problem], this was set
out in a NYT article several years ago by Naftali Bennett who hinted that this offer could be
forced onto them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/opinion/naftali-bennett-for-israel-two-state-is-no-solution.html
The US continually shoot themselves in both feet in the Middle East, they will lose major
influence there by supporting all Israels objectives.
USA MSM is now focusing on these stories, which are all front-page news on NYTimes website
right now.
Mueller's report has been rumored to be complete for weeks. How convenient that he
delivered it one day after Trump's tweet about recognizing Golan./sarc The media had ONE DAY
to blast the Golan news (how good it is!) along with interviews with Pompeo in Israel (with
both US and Israeli flags behind him) before the conversation was effected ended by delivery
of the Mueller Report.
Trump also put in a lot of effort saving MBS. Now recognizing Golan Heights as Israel in an
attempt to save Netanyahu...
In between or in the background from Trump's moves in relation to Israel, Iran and
Venezuela is the constant build up of weapons for nuclear war. US about to test an anti ICBM
missile, new tactical nuke warheads in production and I think the medium range missile to
carry them are in production.
Regarding the Golan oil (or lack thereof), I'm going completely by Genie financial statements
and whatever passes as 'news' on Google. J Burrel @JBurrel47549198 rightly pointed out that
the people involved in Genie are not known for truth-telling. Maybe there is recoverable oil
there and they just don't want anyone to know. Reasonable suspicion. Anything is possible
with this bunch.
The above was in reply to @BarakRavid's Jan. 6th tweet that Israeli officials told him
that Netanyahu was going to ask Trump to recognize the Golan as Israeli
territory.
Re: Israel and Litani River - there was a plan (maybe 1950's?) to divert much of the river
into Israel. The Litani was a pristine mountain and spring-fed river at the time. Today, it's
heavily-polluted kind of an open sewer for the refugee camps upstream. Lebanon is trying to
crack down on polluters and clean the river up. Flow is still low due to the years-long
drought.
Here's the original diversion plans. Take note of diversion tunnel #3 and it's
coincidental proximity to where the Lebanese 'Terror Tunnels' were discovered. My snarky
comment was meant to suggest the possibility that Israel was tunneling into the nearby
Lebanese aquifers (to steal water) and was using the terror tunnel excuse to explain its
strange digging and drilling activity in the area. Some of the long-abandoned Lebanese
tunnels were really there. Others? Maybe new, but not all the way to the Litani, of course.
But maybe long enough to let Israel siphon off the Lebanon's Western South Hermoun or
Anti-Lebanon aquifers.
I agree with you in that a lot of distraction is badly needed.
But not because of Golan. Trump's tweet doesn't change anything - it may be Syrian territory,
but the IDF is there to stay. The real news this week is the Fed.
Over at Dailykos everyone is crying in their soup because the fact that there are no more
indictments presages the Mueller report will be a nothing burger, and Trump will be gloating
from now to 2020. Today, before Trump left for Mar a Lago he slammed the Democrats for being
anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, yet another gift for Netanyahoo who was snubbed and undermined
by Obama and the Dems (except Schumer and other rabid Zios in the party) . Trump is
vindicating Netanyahoo with this rebuke of the Dems. Again, quid pro quo.
However, try and tell those fools at Dk that the collusion was with Israel, Netanyahoo and
Zionist oligarchs...oh me, oh my they'll pounce on you! There is rabid Zionism on the
Democratic side and they're just jealous one of their own wasn't Chosen. Imagine the thought
that Hillary wasn't Chosen and that Zionists are the ones that exposed the dirty schemes
being used against Sanders? That fact would cause mass hysteria among Dems. The revelation
that Hillary was betrayed by Zionists would be like a stake through the heart of the
Democratic Party.
FYI, Pelosi and Schumer will be at the Aipac Convention next week no doubt grovelling for
crumbs from their masters while some Dem hopefuls for the Presidency are boycotting.
By the way, Trump's man on Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, will be a guest speaker at Aipac. I
wonder what he'll say, hmmm🤔: We successfully Zionized Brazil thanks to
Netayahoo's efforts there, and Venezuela is coming along thanks to Donald J. Trump!
Trump is the best Zionist asset ever and proven he's a great return on Israel's
investment. Now, let's see...what has Trump done for Russia lately? Bupkis.
Trump the best Zionistan asset? Nah, IMO the Clinton's, Obama, and the Bushes all pretty
much tie with Trump as they're all outstanding assets. But let's not forget about the US
Congress and its massive appropriations in support of Zionistan! Remember, it wasn't too long
ago--1981--that the US used its UNSC vote to disallow Zionistan's annexation of Golan. That
changed with the CIA's total takeover of the Executive with DCI/VEEP GHW Bush running the
criminal Reagan administration.
Probably the best accusation is to indict the entire Political Class of the Outlaw US
Empire and then weed out the very few exceptions to the rule. IMO, the failure of
Russiagate's goals provide an opening to attack the real foreign manipulators of US
politics--Zionistan and its numerous lobbies as AIPAC isn't the only one.
Thanks b, for the time invested in winkling out many of the peripheral issues relevant to
Trump's Golan gambit.
As usual with Trump, there's enough ambiguity to confuse/ annoy/ bamboozle everyone. And, as
usual, it's working. It's hard not to notice that although "Israel" is no closer to 'owning'
Golan than it was was last week, the notional strengthening and expansion of the axis of
resistance will have very real consequences. And we still don't know which self-indulgent
episode of bloodletting the "Israelis" will launch to mark their 'victory' with a gloat-fest.
From a Palestinian point of view it probably doesn't matter whether Bibi or someone else
wins the election. It's not as though there's a shortage of psychopaths/ fruitcakes to fill
his shoes. So from that perspective, Trump doing something perceived as helping Bibi is an
exercise in oxymoronic pointlessness.
... the elites, that are in charge don't care if you see what they are doing.
Wrong! They care a great deal.
That's why they create media circuses to entertain us, conduct psyops and propaganda
campaigns, and cower behind gated communities.
And what of the brewing conflict between Syria and Israel which would likely draw in other
countries (like Iran and USA)?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 22, 2019 10:07:45 PM | 73
Although it's an appealing concept, the "unprovoked" hazard tells me that it's baseless.
The only sensible way for Syria to prepare the ground for an attack on Israel would be to
respond to an "Israeli" threat, or attack, by drawing a red line and waiting for "Israel" to
cross it.
Syria isn't going to get that strip of land back unless the apartheid Jewish state
suddenly gets all caught up in a fit of morality. Something I believe the Fundies call
"finding God". The entire area has almost certainly been thoroughly riddled with Atomic
Demolition Munitions. Nuclear Land mines. These would be a small part of the Samson
Option.
Still an opinion, but I'd expect Syria will have to content itself with continually
smashing radars and observation points and other military targets. A ground invasion would be
very costly, and in the end quite pointless.
Sorry I ain't buying. The Zionist tugboat is leading the US Titanic, but then you'll
never admit that. Israel may be a speck in the universe but the Zionist Chosen have come to
rule it and their biggest flaw is that they no longer conceal that fact and are pretty much
flaunting their weight and influence. All your comments are not so subtly sympathetic to
Zionism so I won't bother further.
Jackrabbit
How do I have to convince you that I see both parties as infected to the same degree, and
rigging democracy, except with a few minor exceptions? I know we differ in that you believe
Hillary was in on Trump's win and Sanders was her sheepdog, and you could be right on the
former but I'm still not fully convinced on the latter. You made points regarding things
Hillary did that are hard to explain for a women who is as calculating in every detail of her
ambition, as she was. However, if that was the case, not everyone was aware of what was
happening. Who was and who wasn't is a complex discussion for another time. I still agree
however that the majority are compromised.
@70Karlof1
Although I'd lump them together as being all in for Zionistan , I wouldn't consider
their service to the Zionist cause viewed from Zionists' pov as being of equal fealty.
Zionists didn't like the fact that Obama made a deal with Iran and that he wouldn't put boots
on the ground in Syria, and that he didn't cut off funding to Palestinians, or vote NO on the
Resolution condemning settlement expansion at the end of his Presidency. Although I think
Obama did what he did more to spite Netanyahoo, who he personally couldn't stand, he didn't
really advance the cause of Palestinians either. On the whole however his foreign policy
sucked. In regards to Russia, after the "on" Mic moment with Putin it was all downhill. I
agree, Hillary would have done anything to please Zionists, and did while she was SoS, but
the reason she's not President is clear; she wouldn't deliver what Trump is delivering,
unless she changed parties first. I'd put Bush Sr. on the level of Obama in regards to Israel
and Bush jr. more on Trump's level, but so far Trump has delivered on a lot, and after he
gets another term, nothing will hold him back from moving in on Iran. He took on Venezuela
first, because it's a safer bet for his 1st term, but Bolton is there for a reason and Abrams
is now in not just to handle Venezuela. Also, watch for Trump to hire a hawk to replace his
acting SOD. Again, that might happen only at the start of his 2nd term, but I doubt the
Boeing guy remains.
On the second part, I totally agree and will add. Yes, the report opens the door for
everyone to see who Trump really colluded with. Just the fact that nothing was pinned on him,
Don Jr., or Kushner is proof that he's protected, was the choice and Zionists will pull
another one to get him re-elected, and if he weren't old, they'd get him to change term
limits, but they're probably already prepping someone for 2024.
Pretty crazy, depressing stuff. Trump is advancing domination everywhere, but would be
really mad to provoke China that way. Everyone's f#cked. That's why everyone else is already
preparing for the worst. Putin's been unveiling the latest hardware and has turned pretty
serious lately.
NK isn't buying the Trump good cop routine, and Iran isn't budging from
Syria, and is setting the terrain for an eventual wider conflict.
When bombers start flying
over Tehran it's more practical to strike back from Syria. For Iran and Hezbollah, Syria was
a training ground for what they believe is inevitable.
This isn't over and Trump sent Assad
and the other parties a message with the Golan Heights statement.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN | Mar 22, 2019 8:31:11 PM | 62
The man is simply an idiot
That's a dangerous assumption. He won the real election and supposedly beat the best
prepared candidate ever (at least according to certain liberals), and he's managed to keep
the Democrats running round like headless chickens for more than two years. I know there are
some who claim that is their natural state which is a concern.
... with no understanding of what damage he does
Is he any worse than his predecessors? At least he has't started any wars which cannot be
said of Obama, Bush fils, Clinton, Bush pere, Reagan or Carter.
As for the Golan Heights, what was so easily done can be just as easily undone,
particularly if it's by executive order. Maybe he's going to stick it to Saban, Adelson and
Netanyahu once he's been re-elected. Trump is unpredictable in some ways which makes it
difficult to get a clear understanding of what he's up to.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Hamlet (1.4), Marcellus to Horatio. This line
spoken by Marcellus (and not Hamlet as is commonly believed) is one of the most recognizable
lines in all of Shakespeare's works. Fully applicable to Sanders, Hillary and Trump
The context of the quote is also interesting and fully applicable: Marcellus, shaken by
the many recent disturbing events and no doubt angered (as is Hamlet) by Claudius's mismanagement
of the body politic, astutely notes that Denmark is festering with moral and political
corruption. Horatio replies "Heaven will direct it" (91), meaning heaven will guide the state of
Denmark to health and stability.
This investgation was a convenient sham to cover for the real collusion and Trump was
the Zionist 1 percenters choice and nothing was going to foil that and many of you here
fell for the entire charade hook, line and sinker believing Trump was a poor victim all
along.
I think you're mostly right but there's more to it, like:
>> Complicity of Christian Zionists and other enablers and hangers on;
>> Deep-State CYA after the lost war in Syria;
>> New Cold War as AZ Empire re-orients to respond to Russia-China challenge.
AIPAC/Israel's power in US politics is well known. And they have great influence
on BOTH Parties. Your focus on as the embodiment of this evil suggest that you think that if
he were not elected in 2016 then Zionist influence would be eliminated or greatly diminished.
That is certainly not the true.
What strikes me about the 2016 Presidential election is not that wealthy Jews donated to
Trump but that the election was manipulated in numerous ways. Highlights:
>> Trump was the only Republican populist (out of 19 contenders!);
>> Sanders and Trump were both long-time friends of the Clintons;
>> Sanders was a sheepdog that prevented progressives from breaking with the
Democratic Party;
>> Hillary didn't need to collude with DNC - that added very very little to
the money she raised for her campaign - but it did allow her to treat Sanders and his
supporters shabbily;
>> Hillary also alienated other important groups, like blacks and white
conservatives ("deplorables");
>> Trump played along by bringing on Manafort, asking Russia to find Hillary's
emails, and breaking his campaign promise to investigate Hillary within days of the
election;
>> Trump has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his Administration: VP
Pence was close to McCain (as was Lindsey Graham who was anti-Trump during the election);
Gina Haspel is Brennan's gal at CIA; Bolton and Abrams are neocons (neocons were 'Never
Trump'); Attorney General William Barr is close with Robert Mueller; etc.
When all they have to say about calling for justice for the victims of America's war
criminals is that it's "too much of a meme" you know they jettisoned their morality for a
spot in the establishment.
Mike Gravel 7:28 AM - 22 Mar 2019
When all they have to say about calling for justice for the victims of America's war
criminals is that it's "too much of a meme" you know they jettisoned their morality for a
spot in the establishment.
Mike Gravel 6:48 AM - 22 Mar 2019
U.S. out of Iraq. U.S. out of Syria. U.S. out of Afghanistan. U.S. out of South Korea.
U.S. out of Okinawa. U.S. out of Germany. U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. U.S. out of Cameroon.
U.S. out of Djibouti. U.S. out of Qatar. U.S. out of Niger. America, come home.
Mike Gravel 6:42 AM - 22 Mar 2019
The way to win the long war against the imperialists is to point out, at every turn, the
evil of their policies. U.S.-supported dictators/warlords (from Videla to Savimbi) murdered
millions. Vietnam, Iraq, etc. were all pointless bloodlettings. Don't let them forget
that.
Bernie only he served as a sheepdog for Hillary, he want to serve a sheep dog in elections 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Sen. John McCain was a friend and a man of great courage and integrity. We need a president who will fight for our veterans, not attack the memory of an American hero. ..."
"... "How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?...How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?" - Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket" ..."
While I respect Bernie, I disagree with him strongly on this. John McCain was a war hawk
who sent American youth to fight and die and never met a problem he didn't think could be
solved through invasion or intervention. The real heroes are those who fought for PEACE.
Bernie Sanders 4:17 PM - 20 Mar 2019
Sen. John McCain was a friend and a man of great courage and integrity. We need a
president who will fight for our veterans, not attack the memory of an American hero.
Mike Gravel 5:28 AM - 21 Mar 2019
"How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle?...How many of them knew what it
meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened
nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets?" - Smedley Butler, "War is a
Racket"
"... The story comes after a number of leading candidates- Sen. Bernie Sanders , Sen. Kamala Harris , Sen. Elizabeth Warren , Beto O'Rourke , Mayor Julián Castro , Governor Jay Inlsee , and Mayor Pete Buttigieg - said that they will not attend AIPAC's conference. ..."
"... "The influx of progressive candidates confirming they will not attend-even those who have gone in years past-shows how the momentum is shifting. In 2007, for example, ..."
"... both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attended, ..."
"... going so far as to throw parties at the conference. ..."
"... "AIPAC is clearly a partisan lobbying group that has undermined diplomatic efforts. It's no secret that that AIPAC has worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination, and inviting figures actively involved in human rights violations to its stage. Meanwhile, they give platforms to ..."
"... and refuse to condemn the anti-Semitism stemming from Republicans. It should come as no surprise that progressives don't want anything to do with this conference. ..."
"... "The fact that no 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have as of yet publicly committed to attending AIPAC's conference in DC this weekend-with seven candidates confirming they will definitely not ..."
"... stands in sharp contrast to the past. MoveOn members applaud the candidates for taking a stand against AIPAC's dangerous, partisan lobbying efforts." ..."
"... more than 74 percent of MoveOn members who responded agree or strongly agree with the statement that "any progressive vying to be the Democratic nominee for President should skip the AIPAC conference." ..."
"... AIPAC spent tens millions of dollars in 2015 to defeat the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama along with our European and international allies-a historic diplomatic agreement that Trump has tried to derail since taking office. ..."
"... This year's AIPAC conference is headlined by Benjamin Netanyahu under whose leadership, according to the U.N., Israel may have committed war crimes in attacks on Gaza. Netanyahu also has been indicted on bribery and fraud charges, and recently made a deal to bring the "Israeli KKK" party into the next government. ..."
"... AIPAC has been known to traffic in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while providing a platform to Islamophobes. ..."
Iram Ali, campaign director at MoveOn, explained the significance:
"The influx of progressive candidates confirming they will not attend-even those who have gone in years past-shows how
the momentum is shifting. In 2007, for example, both Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton attended, going so far as to throw parties at the conference.
"AIPAC is clearly a partisan lobbying group that has undermined diplomatic efforts. It's no secret that that AIPAC has
worked to hinder diplomatic efforts like the Iran deal, is undermining Palestinian self-determination, and inviting figures actively
involved in human rights violations to its stage. Meanwhile, they give platforms to Islamophobes
and refuse to condemn the anti-Semitism stemming from Republicans. It should come as no surprise that progressives don't want
anything to do with this conference.
"The fact that no 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have as of yet publicly committed to attending AIPAC's conference
in DC this weekend-with seven candidates confirming they will definitely not attend-stands in sharp contrast to the past.
MoveOn members applaud the candidates for taking a stand against AIPAC's dangerous, partisan lobbying efforts."
On Wednesday, MoveOn released the results of a member survey which found that more than 74 percent of MoveOn members who responded
agree or strongly agree with the statement that "any progressive vying to be the Democratic nominee for President should skip the
AIPAC conference."
Here are some of the reasons MoveOn called on 2020 candidates to skip AIPAC:
AIPAC spent tens millions of dollars in 2015 to defeat the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by President Obama along with
our European and international allies-a historic diplomatic agreement that Trump has tried to derail since taking office.
This year's AIPAC conference is headlined by Benjamin Netanyahu under whose leadership, according to the U.N., Israel may
have committed war crimes in attacks on Gaza. Netanyahu also has been indicted on bribery and fraud charges, and recently made
a deal to bring the "Israeli KKK" party into the next government.
AIPAC has been known to traffic in anti-Muslim and anti-Arab rhetoric while providing a platform to Islamophobes.
AIPAC has refused to condemn the anti-Semitism of Republicans, such as Trump's friend and advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon's wife
reported that he had their kids removed from a school because of "the number of Jews that attend," and that "he didn't want the
girls going to school with Jews. While many groups condemned Bannon, Politico reported that AIPAC "declined to weigh in." This
is one of many examples.
As the 2020 presidential field takes shape, Democratic voters by double digits say they are
more interested in nominating a candidate who can defeat President Trump than one they agree
with most on the issues, a new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds.
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard Mar 17
For decades, Space has been a model of cooperation between global superpowers. But such
cooperation is the latest victim of the new Cold War. Trump/Neocon efforts to start a space
war/arms race will lead to destruction of our country and planet. #Tulsi2020
Tulsi Gabbard Verified account @ TulsiGabbard Mar 17
For decades, Space has been a model of cooperation between global superpowers. But such
cooperation is the latest victim of the new Cold War. Trump/Neocon efforts to start a space
war/arms race will lead to destruction of our country and planet. #Tulsi2020
Another example of Trump and Netanyahu putting their own political interests ahead of the
interests of our respective countries. Will escalate tensions and likelihood of war between
Israel/US/Syria/Iran/Russia. Shortsighted. https:// twitter.com/nytimes/status /1108783266075684865
Omani 1:12 PM - 21 Mar 2019
How long will this continue to go on? They must be stopped. #Tulsi2020
Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress Friday that he may be able to
provide lawmakers with the special counsel's principal conclusions "as soon as this
weekend."
There were no instances in which Mueller was told not to take a specific action in his
wide-ranging probe, Barr said.
But Clintons are mobsters in disguise, so what's the difference. Jared Kushner father is as close to a mobster as one can get (hiring a prostitute to compromise relative is one of his tricks)
Notable quotes:
"... Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale ..."
Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to
work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale
Navi 9:50 AM - 22 Mar 2019
"It's already happening" while the DCCC is trying their best to stop primary challenges is a little shortsighted no? If you
don't call out what is wrong what are you really 'fixing'? We can walk and chew gum at the same time!
"... The divisions can always be jacked up. "My opponent is a white nationalist!" and so he doesn't just think you're lazy, he wants to kill you. Convince average Americans to vote against their own interests by manipulating them into opposing any program that might benefit black and brown equally or more than themselves. ..."
"... Listen for what's missing in the speeches about inequality and injustice. Whichever candidate admits that we've created an apartheid of dollars for all deserves your support. ..."
The birth lottery determines which of those three bands we'll sink or swim together in,
because there is precious little mobility. In that bottom band,
81 percent face flat or falling net worths (
40 percent of Americans make below $15
an hour) and so aren't going anywhere. Education, once a vehicle, is now mostly a tool for the
preservation of current statuses across
generations, to the point that it's worth paying bribes for. Class is sticky.
Money, not so much. Since the 9.9 percent have the most (except for the super wealthy at
least), they have the most to lose. At their
peak in the mid-1980s, the managers and technicians in this group held 35 percent of the
nation's wealth. Three decades later, that fell 12 percent,
exactly as much as the wealth of the 1 percent rose. A significant redistribution of wealth
-- upwards -- took place following the 2008 market collapse, as bailouts, shorts,
repossessions, and new laws helped the top end of the economy at cost to the bottom. What some
label hardships are to others business opportunities.
The people at the top are throwing nails off the back of the truck to make sure no one else
can catch up with them. There is a strong zero sum element to all this. The goal is to
eliminate the competition
. They'll have it all when society is down to two classes, the 1 percent and the 99 percent,
and at that point we'll all be effectively the same color. The CEO of JP Morgan
called it a bifurcated economy. Historians will recognize it as feudalism.
You'd think someone would sound a global climate change-level alarm about all this. Instead
we divide people into
tribes and make them afraid of each other by forcing competition for limited resources like
health care. Identity politics sharpens
the lines, recognizing increasingly smaller separations, like adding letters to LGBTQQIAAP.
Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, herself with presidential ambitions,
is an example of the loud voices demanding
more division . Contrast that with early model Barack Obama at the 2004 Democratic National
Convention, who pleaded, "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and
Asian America; there's the United States of America."
The divisions can always be jacked up. "My opponent is a white nationalist!" and so he
doesn't just think you're lazy, he wants to kill you. Convince average Americans to vote
against their own interests by manipulating them into opposing any program that might benefit
black and brown equally or more than themselves. Keep the groups fighting left and right and
they'll never notice the real discrimination is up and down, even as massive economic forces
consume all equally. Consumption becomes literal as Americans die from alcohol, drugs, and
suicide in record numbers
.
Meanwhile, no one has caught on to the fact that identity politics is a marketing tool for
votes, fruit flavored vape to bring in the kiddies. Keep that in mind as you listen to the
opening cries of the 2020 election. Listen for what's missing in the speeches about inequality
and injustice. Whichever candidate admits that we've created an apartheid of dollars for all
deserves your support.
** The author doesn't really drive for Uber but his conversation with the Spaniard was
real.
Mr Van Buren. This piece nails it. The Democrats made a huge mistake focusing on race and
LGBTQ instead of class. Their stated goal should be to replace race based affirmative action
with class-based programs.
If there is serious violence coming to America it will come during the next major
recession/financial crisis. The ARs will come out of the closet when, during the next
financial crisis, the elites are bailed out (again), yet the riff raff lose their homes and
pickups to foreclosure.
I am very pessimistic in this area. I believe the elites, in general, are agnostic to SJW
issues, abortion, job loss, BLM, religious liberty, and on and on. The look at the riff raff
with amusement, sparring over such trivial things. Meanwhile, the river of cash keeps flowing
to their bank accounts.
Imagine if the digital transfer of money was abolished. Imagine if everybody had to have
their money in a local bank instead of in an investment account of a major bank. Imagine if
Americans saw, day after day, armored vehicles showing up at local banks to offload sacks of
currency that went to only a few individual accounts held by the very rich.
Instead, the elites receive their financial statements showing an ever increasing hoard of
cash at their disposal. They see it, but nobody else does. However, if everybody saw the
river of wealth flowing to the elites, I believe things would change. Fast. Right now this
transfer of wealth is all digital, hidden from the view of 99.99% of Americans and the IRS.
And the elites, the banking industry, and the wealth management cabal prefer it that way.
It's easy to propose the ultimate goal of the elites is to have a utopian society to
themselves, where the only interaction they have with the riff raff is with subservient
technicians keeping it all running. Like the movie Elysium.
When feudalism comes to America, it will be justified by Libertarianism. With government
defined as the bad guy, there's nothing to stop the 1% from organizing everything to their
own benefit.
On the other side of the political spectrum, identity politics emphasizes people's
differences and tribal affiliations over their shared citizenship. This prevents them from
making common cause.
Fundamentally, these trends make the body politic so weak that it becomes susceptible to
takeover by authoritarians that represent narrow interests.
"His skin was clearly a few shades darker than mine, though he pointed out that was only
because my relatives came from the cold part of Europe and he came from the sunny part."
The Spanish in Europe got their color from the Moorish invasion, not the sun.
More of my annoying trivia that has little to do with the subject of an article.
Welp, the Democratic Party, by and large, believes all Americans regardless of class, race,
religion, and gender should have guaranteed equal access to affordable healthcare, a
substantial minimum wage, education and the rest.
Stacy Abrams wants these items too, along with equal access to the voting franchise.
"Until slavery was ended in the United States, human beings were legally considered
capital, just like owning stocks and bonds today. But the Spaniard knew enough about history
to wonder what reparations would be offered to the thousands of Chinese treated as animals to
build the railroads or the 8,000 Irish who died digging the New Basin Canal or the whole
families of Jews living on the Lower East Side of New York who were forced to employ their
children to make clothing for uptown "white" stores. Later in the same century, wages were
"voluntarily" cut to the bone at factories in Ohio to save jobs that disappeared anyway after
the owners had wrung out the last profits."
That would be an excellent point if your inner Spaniard concluded reparations should be
offered to the others as well, but ends up being merely tendentious if he contends that no
one gets reparations.
But will you like it if the Democratic Party makes that part of their platform too?
I was born in Middletown, Ohio alongside the elegiacal hillbillies, who, by the way,
didn't care for the blacks on the other side of the tracks anymore than my Armco-employed
grandfather did, and certainly the business owners who disappeared the jobs and cut wages
while voting for the so-called free traders were of the same ilk.
I didn't know any Democrats among any of my family's circle and, by the way, Middletown
might as well have been south of the Mason Dixon anyway for all the white Democrats in town
who gave not a crap about their fellow black citizens, certainly not the business owners who
disappeared the jobs while voting for the so-called free traders.
It was the Republican Party (Larry Kudlow, I'm gunning for you) who championed creative
destruction and the red tooth and claw of unfettered worldwide competition without asking, in
fact jumping for joy, what the unintended consequences would be because the consequences were
intended smash the unions for all, cut wages and benefits and hand the booty to shareholders,
move operations to lower-tax, lower wage, environmentally unregulated parts of the globe to
manufacture them thar high margin MAGA hats for the aggrieved.
What a beautiful grift!
Hello, Marianas.
That Democrats jumped on the bandwagon is no credit to them, especially while assuming the
prone position as the republican party frayed the safety net.
True, the republicans laid off everyone, regardless of race, gender, and class and then
cut everyone's benefits.
As the Spaniard rightly understood, one can look way back into our history and see that the
moneyed class has always used identity politics in economic control games to divide and
conquer. That the Republicans rail on this as some evil creation of the modern Democrat is
laughable at best. That the sheep who follow the party mouth pieces of the moneyed class in
this media age can still be so easily manipulated is rather pitiful. Making common cause for
the general welfare has never really sunk in as an American value.
Divide and conquer remains our true ethos. As the dole gets evermore paltry the only
seeming options remaining are common cause for a common good or greater violence. One
requires us to find a contentment beyond the delusional American dream of becoming that 1 to
10%. The other just requires continued anger, division and despair.
Ironically the view that race/culture isn't at all important and should be disregarded in
view of the class division (a "distraction"), is pretty much endorsing the classic Marxist
critique.
It's easy to notice divide and conquer when it's hate against those of the same class but are
of a different culture/race.
But what's *difficult* to notice is identifying with the elites of your race in a positive
way.
A lot of people, especially with the onset of realityTV, tend to think rich people are just
like them (albeit a little smarter). The methods and systems to keep power aren't considered.
They're made non-threatening. So many billionaires and politicians act effete today to stoke
this image.
" Whether your housing is subsidized via a mortgage tax deduction "
This jumped off the screen. I wonder how many people even realize that. Probably the same
number who still believe that social security is a "forced savings".
Not to put too fine a point on it but clearly we are wasting our time arguing. As long as the
current system of government remains in effect it will be same old same old.
Many changes are in order–starting with this archaic remnant of a bygone era called
"The Two Party System".
Spaniards are indeed Hispanic. The definition of Hispanic relates to a linguistic grouping
– that is, relating to Spain or Spanish speaking countries. Your friend would indeed
qualify for all sorts of preferences according to the definition.
As to being a POC, I could not locate any definition as to what threshold of skin tone
qualifies someone as a POC. I wager none yet exists but will be forthcoming.
Johann
As for the skin tone of Spaniards, many in the south have the Moorish influence,however,
in the rest of the country skin tones range from light beige to very fair. Rather similar to
Italians, actually.
First, kudos to Van Buren for getting a Seamless delivery while driving. That's not easy to
coordinate. Second, I look forward to more conservative policies addressing poverty, drug
addiction and access to health care. This article adds to the 10-year rant against what
Democrats have done or want to do.
Like nearly every Republican of the last 10 years, Van Buren offers none here. But I'm
sure once the complaining is out of his system, they will arrive.
Your Spaniard friend also has it all wrong. The real division line is between those willing
to initiate coercion for their own self-righteousness and those who refuse to. Anyone that
supports government is one-in-the-same, regardless of color or class.
Thirty years ago I'd be asking who printed the canned response pamphlet to give prepared
talking points to enable anyone to provide quick sharp tongued witty criticisms of anything
they may encounter that didn't tow the party line.
Now I gotta ask where do I download the Trollware to accomplish the same thing.
The Moors were a tiny class of invaders who left rather little imprint on the Spanish genome.
That was true of the Romans and the Goths as well. Spanish genes are mostly the genes of the
pre-Roman population: the Iberians in the south (who maybe migrated from North Africa), Celts
in the north, and the indigenous Basques along the Pyrenees.
What happened to "a rising tide lifts all boats"? We've been promised for decades that the
wealth generated by those at the very top would "trickle down." This was a cornerstone of
Reaganism that has been parroted ever since.
There have been naysayers who say that that theory was fantasy and that all we would have
is increased wealth disparity and greater national deficits.
The idea that this country has a true democracy is absurd. Everyone knows in their heart
of hearts that we're ruled by elites, Wall Street, etc. We need serious, fundamental
political reform - real, direct democracy: a Legislature of the People to decide policy.
Mike Gravel 8:28 PM - 20 Mar 2019
If you vote for the country to go to war, you should have to serve in the front lines in
that war. I served in the U.S. Army, fiercely opposed the Vietnam War, helped end the draft.
@JoeBiden never
served and still saw fit to send this country's kids to Iraq
Mike Gravel 10:57 AM - 20 Mar 2019
The philosophical underpinning of the neoliberal project is @FukuyamaFrancis ' thesis that
civilization had reached its final stage with modern capitalistic democracy. In effect: rule
by the elites. Fukuyama was wrong. The final stage is rule not by the elites but by the
PEOPLE.
Mike Gravel 10:45 AM - 20 Mar 2019
The neoliberal style in politics means delivering, in a wrapping of lofty words,
absolutely nothing. It's the style that got us into Iraq in 2003, that destroyed our economy
in 2008, that failed to effectively challenge Trump in 2016. Above all, It's the style of
@HillaryClinton .
Mike Gravel 2:05 AM - 20 Mar 2019
It's simply not enough to go back to "the pre-Trump normal." Because the pre-Trump normal
meant drone strikes, forever, massacres, and mass surveillance. Pre-Trump gave us Trump. The
way to escape the hell of Trump is by finding something better, not just returning to the
old.
Mike Gravel 10:01 PM - 19 Mar 2019
If I run, I'd run not to win, but to push great candidates like @BernieSanders and @TulsiGabbard toward more sensible
views on political reform and foreign policy through the debates. We need a strong left flank
for strong policy.
Mike Gravel 9:38 PM - 19 Mar 2019
. @CoryBooker
melodramatically declared releasing inconsequential files on Brett Kavanaugh his "Spartacus
moment." This is me, in 1971, reading the Pentagon Papers into the record for hours on end,
risking expulsion from the Senate. That's real courage, Cory.
With Democratic Party completely sold to Wall Street and multinationals and Republican Party
completely sold to MIC and multinationals both constitute single War Party pursuing the same
jingoistic foreign policy. So it is tricky whom we should support in 2002.
Consensus conservatism long ago ceased to inquire into the first things. But we will
not.
We oppose the soulless society of individual affluence.
Our society must not prioritize the needs of the childless, the healthy, and the
intellectually competitive. Our policy must accommodate the messy demands of authentic human
attachments: family, faith, and the political community. We welcome allies who oppose
dehumanizing attempts at "liberation" such as pornography, "designer babies," wombs for rent,
and the severing of the link between sex and gender.
We stand with the American citizen.
In recent years, some have argued for immigration by saying that working-class Americans are
less hard-working, less fertile, in some sense less worthy than potential immigrants. We oppose
attempts to displace American citizens. Advancing the common good requires standing with,
rather than abandoning, our countrymen. They are our fellow citizens, not interchangeable
economic units. And as Americans we owe each other a distinct allegiance and must put each
other first.
We reject attempts to compromise on human dignity.
In 2013, the Republican National Committee released an "autopsy report" that proposed
compromising on social issues in order to appeal to young voters. In fact, millennials are the
most pro-life generation in America, while economic libertarianism isn't nearly as popular as
its Beltway proponents imagine. We affirm the nonnegotiable dignity of every unborn life and
oppose the transhumanist project of radical self-identification.
We resist a tyrannical [neo]liberalism.
We seek to revive the virtues of liberality and neighborliness that many people describe as
"liberalism." But we oppose any attempt to conflate American interests with [neo]liberal
ideology . When an ideological [neo]liberalism seeks to dictate our foreign policy and
dominate our religious and charitable institutions, tyranny is the result, at home and
abroad.
We want a country that works for workers.
The Republican Party has for too long held investors and "job creators" above workers and
citizens, dismissing vast swaths of Americans as takers unworthy of its time. Trump's victory,
driven in part by his appeal to working-class voters, shows the potential of a political
movement that heeds the cries of the working class as much as the demands of capital. Americans
take more pride in their identity as workers than about their identity as consumers. Economic
and welfare policy should prioritize work over consumption.
We believe home matters.
For those who enjoy the upsides, a borderless world brings intoxicating new liberties. They
can go anywhere, work anywhere. They can call themselves "citizens" of the world. But the
jet-setters' vision clashes with the human need for a common life. And it has bred resentments
that are only beginning to surface. We embrace the new nationalism insofar as it stands against
the utopian ideal of a borderless world that, in practice, leads to universal tyranny.
Whatever else might be said about it, the Trump phenomenon has opened up space in which to
pose these questions anew. We will guard that space jealously. And we respectfully decline to
join with those who would resurrect warmed-over Reaganism and foreclose honest debate.
... ... ...
Y'all know that I don't usually have much good to say about the president, but to me, Trump
has accomplished two unambiguously good things: 1) put some good judges on the courts, and 2)
smashed Conservatism, Inc.'s hegemony on the Right, opening the door for real debate about the
future of the country, and of conservatism.
Any attempt by establishment conservatives to aspire to, and create, a Restoration after
Trump goes should be strongly opposed.
He has made a big mess, but out of that mess we have to fight for renewal and the
construction of something new, not the revivification of Zombie Reaganism.
"So you ask what I will change? I will change our priorities so we stop wasting trillions
of our dollars on wasteful counterproductive wars and dedicate them to taking care of the
urgent needs of our communities across this country." #ServiceBeforeSelf#PeaceDvidend
Tulsi Gabbard 7:44 AM - 20 Mar 2019
"I'm not running for president to BE president. I'm running for president to be able to
bring about this sea change in our foreign policy that is so necessary for us and for the
world, and I'm most qualified to do that." #ServiceBeforeSelf#Tulsi2020pic.twitter.com/wk2M7O0CgR
"... State sovereignty means nothing to these people. The post-Westphalia international system means nothing to them. Trump does not have a clue about the ME but Ivanka and Jared are pleased I am sure. pl ..."
"President Donald Trump on Thursday overturned longstanding US policy regarding the
Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, announcing "it is time" for the US to "fully recognize Israel's
sovereignty" over the region. "After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully
recognize Israel's Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and
security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability," Trump tweeted." CNN
This sounds like the Mustachioed Menace (Bolton) and his All Star team at work.
Help Bibi.
Weaken the Syrian government.
Demonstrate to the Lebanese that parts of their
strange little country could experience something similar in the south.
Show everyone that
the US is in charge of - everything.
State sovereignty means nothing to these people. The post-Westphalia international system
means nothing to them. Trump does not have a clue about the ME but Ivanka and Jared are pleased
I am sure. pl
"... Perhaps most dangerous of all is the signal that it sends to Israeli hard-liners that want to annex some or all of the West Bank. ..."
"... Trump's statement is just the latest in a string of bad decisions that are absurdly biased in favor of Israel. No U.S. interests are advanced by doing this, and it discredits any criticisms that the U.S. wants to make of any other government's illegal occupation and annexation of territory. The double standard that the U.S. applies when it comes to violations of international law by itself and its clients could not be more obvious, and it will make it much more difficult to challenge similarly egregious violations in the future. ..."
There were hints
in recent days that U.S. recognition of Israel's claim to the Golan Heights was coming, and now the president has done it. Israel's
control of this territory dates back to the 1967 war, when Israel grabbed this part of Syria and refused to return it. Israel has
no legitimate claim to this territory, and in recognizing Israeli sovereignty over land that it seized during a war the U.S. is sending
a potentially very dangerous message to governments all around the world.
Perhaps most dangerous of all is the signal that it sends
to Israeli hard-liners that want to annex some or all of the West Bank. It tells them that illegal occupation will eventually be
rewarded with full U.S. recognition, and it also tells them that the U.S. isn't going to pay any attention to international law when
it comes to making decisions regarding Israeli control over occupied territories.
Trump's statement is just the latest in a string of bad decisions that are absurdly biased in favor of Israel. No U.S. interests
are advanced by doing this, and it discredits any criticisms that the U.S. wants to make of any other government's illegal occupation
and annexation of territory. The double standard that the U.S. applies when it comes to violations of international law by itself
and its clients could not be more obvious, and it will make it much more difficult to challenge similarly egregious violations in
the future.
Senator Kamala Harris hinted Tuesday that if she wins the election in 2020, she will continue to "prosecute"
President Donald Trump even after he leaves the White House.
Appearing on
Jimmy Kimmel Live
on Tuesday, the
Democrat candidate for president said that her experience as a prosecutor would figure into her actions as president
and that she thinks the voters would want her to "prosecute" Trump.
"I also believe that what voters are going to want is they are going to want that there is someone who has the proven ability
to prosecute the case against this administration and this president," she said. "And that is going to be about having an ability
and a proven ability to be able to articulate the evidence that makes the case for why we need new leadership in this country."
Kimmel pressed her on the point and asked if she intended to continue trying to jail Trump after he leaves the White
House, but Harris dissembled saying, "I am very supportive of Bob Mueller being able to finish his process and do his
job."
During her appearance, Harris also signed onto the new Democrat
narrative of abolishing the Electoral College.
"I'm open to the discussion," she told Kimmel. "There's no question that the popular vote has been diminished in
terms of making the final decision about who's the president of the United States, and we need to deal with that."
As to other hot-button policies, Harris also
signed on
with the so-called Green New Deal offered up by controversial liberal New York Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In addition, the Californian
said
she supports "some type" of reparations for slavery.
"... I see this decision as being very instructive. The United States has now dropped any pretense of being an honest broker. ..."
"... I keep hearing how he is a puppet of Putin from the mainstream media, however they don't say anything about the endless work he does for Israel. ..."
"... It's curious that Trump must go out of his way to boost Bibi Netanyahu. Perhaps he thinks that AIPAC will really help him next year when he runs for re-election? AIPAC will give him money, but I doubt this move will get him many more Jewish voters. ..."
"... This is all for a big "hurrah" from the AIPAC Congress when Netanyahu visits next week. Trump does not think in longer time periods than his next public rally. ..."
"... I genuinely doubt that he comprehends the precedent this gives to other bully nations. Certainly, Bolton won't inform him. ..."
It's increasingly hard to view Trump as an American president. I don't know exactly what the
hell he is, but he obviously spends more time working for Israel and Saudi Arabia than he does
doing what the American people hired him to do. Israel's Netanyahu and that Saudi Arabian
prince who kills journalists seem to get everything they want from Trump, but America gets
zilch. No wall, no infrastructure, no America First foreign policy. The stuff he has delivered,
we didn't want it: more immigrants, the biggest national debt in history, more Mideast
wars.
Voted Trump in 2016. Never again. And not just "never again". I hope Mueller or some other
competent law enforcement type gets him dead to rights and puts him and his corrupt associates
in prison. A shame they can't put him in the same cell as Hillary Clinton.
So possession and ability to militarily defend what you occupy is enough justification.
Russia/Crimea
China/South China Sea and ultimately Taiwan
USA/East part of Syria
etc. It also opens the way for some expansion for the US, like parallel 53, especially if
Climate Change does end up having more impact in the Midwest and West
Well, even leaving aside the fact that this Administration seems to consider even the concept
of " international law" to be basically illegitimate, I wouldn't worry too much about the
Golan Heights being used as a precedent.
I'm sure that as soon as some government we don't like annexes some land it occupied, the US
will be properly outraged
Why does the US have to take a position on this matter at all? It is really not our problem.
The Israelis created this situation in 1967. Let them solve it.
It's curious that Trump must go out of his way to boost Bibi Netanyahu. Perhaps he thinks
that AIPAC will really help him next year when he runs for re-election? AIPAC will give him
money, but I doubt this move will get him many more Jewish voters.
This is all for a big "hurrah" from the AIPAC Congress when Netanyahu visits next week. Trump
does not think in longer time periods than his next public rally.
I genuinely doubt that he comprehends the precedent this gives to other bully nations.
Certainly, Bolton won't inform him.
The three-day visit to Washington by the president of Brazil brought together two of the
most right-wing figures in the world: Jair Bolsonaro, a former military officer and fervent
admirer of the blood-soaked military dictatorship that ruled Brazil from 1964 to 1985, and
Donald Trump, who has become the pole of attraction for authoritarians and fascists the world
over, including the gunman who slaughtered 50 Muslims at two New Zealand mosques last week.
During their joint press conference at the White House Tuesday afternoon, Trump repeated his
declaration, delivered to an audience of right-wing Cuban and Venezuelan exiles in Florida,
that "The twilight hour of socialism has arrived in our hemisphere." He emphasized, as he did
in his State of the Union speech, that this also involved putting an end to the threat of
socialism within the United States itself.
Both Trump and Bolsonaro have made the extirpation of socialism -- the political core of
fascist movements -- the central goal of their governments. At their joint press conference,
they railed against socialism only days after the massacre in New Zealand, carried out by
Brenton Tarrant. Tarrant posted a manifesto hailing Trump as a "symbol of renewed white
identity" and declaring his desire to put his boot on the neck of every "Marxist."
The mutual embrace of Trump and Bolsonaro at the White House is symbolic of the elevation of
far-right parties and cultivation of fascistic forces by capitalist governments and established
bourgeois parties all over the world. It underscores the fact that the growth of fascism in
Europe, Asia, Latin America and the US is the result not of a groundswell of mass support from
below, but rather the sponsorship and encouragement of so-called "democratic" governments that
are, in fact, controlled top to bottom by corporate oligarchs.
The global promotion of extreme right politics was embodied by the presence of right-wing
ideologue Steve Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs vice president and Navy officer, as a guest of
honor at a dinner with Jair Bolsonaro Monday night. Bannon has close ties with Bolsonaro's son,
Eduardo, who is a member of the Brazilian Parliament and a Latin American representative of the
political consortium set up by Bannon, known as the Movement, whose aim is to promote extreme
right-wing political parties throughout the world. "Some of the Bolsonaro team on the right see
themselves as disciples of the Bannon movement and representatives of Bannon for Brazil and
Latin America," one former Trump administration official told McClatchy.
At the press conference, both Jair Bolsonaro and Trump pledged their support to a fascistic
litany of "god, family and nation," as Trump put it. Bolsonaro declared, "Brazil and the United
States stand side-by-side in their efforts to share liberties and respect to traditional and
family lifestyles, respect to God, our creator, against the gender ideology of the politically
correct attitudes, and fake news."
Both presidents threatened the use of military force against Venezuela, demonizing President
Nicolas Maduro as a socialist dictator. (He heads a capitalist regime, but one whose foreign
policy tilts toward China and Russia rather than US imperialism).
Trump reiterated the mantra that "all options are on the table" against Venezuela. Bolsonaro
was asked if he would permit US soldiers to use Brazilian soil as a base for military
operations against Venezuela. Rather than dismissing that prospect as a violation of both
Brazilian and Venezuelan sovereignty, he declined to answer, citing the need for maintaining
operational secrecy and the element of surprise.
One of the bilateral agreements that Trump and Bolsonaro signed would allow the United
States to use Brazil's Alcantara Aerospace Launch Base for its satellites. Brazil also
announced an end to visa requirements for US visitors...
Before visiting the White House, Bolsonaro made an unannounced visit to the headquarters
of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia, an extraordinary move for the
president of a country that was subjected to 21 years of unrestrained torture and murder by a
military dictatorship installed in a CIA-backed coup.
The dire implications for the working class of the global rise of the far right are
indicated by Bolsonaro's glorification of the Brazilian military dictatorship. Trump hailed the
"shared values" between his government and that of a former military officer who praises a
regime that jailed, tortured and murdered tens of thousands of workers and students. Twenty
years ago, Bolsonaro told an interviewer that the Brazilian Congress should be shut down and
that the country could be changed only by a civil war that completed "the job that the military
regime didn't do, killing 30,000 people."
The capitalist ruling classes are turning once again to dictatorship and fascism in response
to the intensification of the world economic crisis, the disintegration of the postwar
international order and growth of trade war and geostrategic conflicts, and, above all, the
resurgence of the class struggle on a world scale...
"... In a copy of the letter obtained by NBC News, Trump highlighted a paragraph in the letter about the U.S. goals in Syria, which said, "Like you, we seek to ensure that all of the gains made in Syria are not lost, that ISIS never returns, that Iran is not emboldened, and that we consolidate our gains and ensure the best outcome in Geneva for American interests." ..."
Two months after saying all U.S. troops are leaving Syria, the president wrote members of Congress that he agrees with keeping
a U.S. presence in Syria. A bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives wrote to Trump on Feb. 22,
applauding
his decision to keep a small residual force in Syria.
"We support a small American stabilizing force in Syria," the group wrote, adding that a force "which includes a small contingent
of American troops and ground forces from our European allies, is essential to ensure stability and prevent
the return of ISIS ."
In a copy of the letter obtained by NBC News, Trump highlighted a paragraph in the letter about the U.S. goals in Syria, which
said, "Like you, we seek to ensure that all of the gains made in Syria are not lost, that ISIS never returns, that Iran is not emboldened,
and that we consolidate our gains and ensure the best outcome in Geneva for American interests."
"I agree 100%. ALL is being done," President Trump responded, writing directly on the letter and signing it.
In 2016, Cannon wrote that Warren would indeed bring more warmth than Clinton,
pointing to an anecdote she shared on Facebook about how she would bake her mother a "heart
shaped cake" as a child. He contrasted that with Clinton's sarcastic "I suppose I could have
stayed home and baked cookies"
comment from 1992 , which was a response to ongoing questions about why she chose to
continue her law practice when her husband was governor of Arkansas.
For some Bernie Sanders supporters, meanwhile, praising Warren was a way to deflect
accusations of sexism. In a 2016
Huffington Post opinion piece titled, "I Despise Hillary Clinton And It Has Nothing to Do
With Her Gender," Isaac Saul wrote that he "and many Sanders supporters would vote for
Elizabeth Warren if she were in the race over Hillary or Bernie." (
Saul apologized to Clinton for being a "smug young journalist" and "Bernie Bro" in a follow
up article months later, writing that his views of her changed after he endeavored to learn
more about her history).
So what's going on here? Has Warren become incredibly unlikable over the past two years? Or
is this change more an indication of her growing power. High-achieving women, sociologist
Marianne Cooper wrote in a 2013 Harvard Business
Review article , are judged differently than men because "their very success -- and
specifically the behaviors that created that success -- violates our expectations about how
women are supposed to behave." When women act competitively or assertively rather than warm and
nurturing, Cooper writes, they "elicit pushback from others for being insufficiently feminine
and too masculine." As a society, she says, "we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women.
In fact, we don't often really like them."
The former interim head of the Democratic Party just accused Hillary Clinton's campaign of
"unethical" conduct that "compromised the party's integrity." The Clinton campaign's alleged sin: A hostile takeover
of the Democratic National Committee before her primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders had concluded.
Donna Brazile's op-ed in Politico
is the equivalent of taking the smoldering embers of the 2016 primary and
throwing some gasoline on them. Just about everything she says in the piece will inflame Sanders's passionate
supporters who were already suspicious of the Democratic establishment and already had reason to believe -- based on
leaked DNC emails
-- that the committee wasn't as neutral in the primary as it was supposed to be.
But the op-ed doesn't break too much new provable, factual ground, relying more upon Brazile's
own perception of the situation and hearsay. In the op-ed, Brazile says:
Clinton's campaign took care of the party's debt and "put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on
her campaign for survival, for which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations." She described
Clinton's control of the DNC as a "cancer."
Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Clinton's campaign, told her the DNC was (these are Brazile's
words) "fully under the control of Hillary's campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp."
She "couldn't write a news release without passing it by Brooklyn."
Then-Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose
pressured resignation after the leaked emails
left Brazile in charge as interim chairwoman, "let Clinton's
headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired" because she didn't want to tell the party's leaders how dire the DNC's
financial situation was. Brazile says Wasserman Schultz arranged a $2 million loan from the Clinton campaign
without the consent of party officers like herself, contrary to party rules.
Brazile sums it up near the end: "If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control
of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw
it, it compromised the party's integrity."
None of this is truly shocking. In fact, Brazile is largely writing about things we already knew
about. The joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC
was already known about and the subject of derision
among Sanders's supporters. But it's worth noting that
Sanders was given a similar opportunity and passed on using it, as Brazile notes.
There were also those emails from the DNC hack released by WikiLeaks that
showed some at the DNC were hardly studiously neutral
. One email chain discussed bringing Sanders's Jewish
religion into the campaign, others spoke of him derisively, and in one a lawyer who worked for both Clinton and the
DNC advised the committee on how to respond to questions about the Clinton joint fundraising committee. The emails
even cast plenty of doubt on Brazile's neutrality, given she shared with the Clinton campaign
details
of questions to be asked at a pair of CNN forums
for the Democratic candidates in March 2016, before she was
interim chair but when she was still a DNC official. Brazile, who was a CNN pundit at the time, lost her CNN job over
that.
The timeline here is also important. Many of those emails described above came after it was
abundantly clear that Clinton would be the nominee, barring a massive and almost impossible shift in primary votes.
It may have been in poor taste and contrary to protocol, but the outcome was largely decided long before Sanders
ended his campaign. Brazile doesn't dwell too much on the timeline, so it's not clear exactly how in-the-bag Clinton
had the nomination when the alleged takeover began. It's also not clear exactly what Clinton got for her alleged
control.
This is also somewhat self-serving for Brazile, given the DNC continued to struggle during and
after her tenure,
especially financially
. The op-ed is excerpted from her forthcoming book, "Hacks: The Inside Story of the
Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House." Losses like the one in 2016 will certainly lead
to plenty of finger-pointing, and Brazile's book title and description allude to it containing plenty of that.
But taking on the Clintons is definitely something that most in the party wouldn't take lightly.
And Brazile's allegation that Clinton was effectively controlling the DNC is the kind of thing that could lead to
some further soul-searching and even bloodletting in the Democratic Party. It's largely been able to paper over its
internal divisions since the primary season in 2016, given the great unifier for Democrats that is President Trump.
Sanders himself has somewhat toned down his criticism of the DNC during that span, but what he
says -- especially given he seems to want to run again in 2020 -- will go a long way in determining how the party moves
forward.
Warren is trying to treat not just the symptoms but the underlying disease. She has
proposed a universal child-care
and pre-K program that echoes the universal high school movement of the early 20th century. She favors not only a tougher approach
to future mergers, as many Democrats do, but also
a breakup of Facebook
and other tech companies that have come to resemble monopolies. She wants to require corporations to include worker representatives
on their boards -- to end the era of "shareholder-value maximization," in which companies care almost exclusively about the interests
of their shareholders, often
at the expense of their workers, their communities and their country.
Warren was also the first high-profile politician to call for
an annual wealth
tax , on fortunes greater than $50 million. This tax is the logical extension of research by the economist Thomas Piketty and
others, which has shown how extreme wealth perpetuates itself. Historically, such concentration has often led to
the decline
of powerful societies. Warren, unlike some Democrats, comfortably explains that she is not socialist. She is a capitalist and,
like Franklin D. Roosevelt, is trying to save American capitalism from its own excesses.
"Sometimes, bigger ideas are more possible to accomplish," Warren told me during
a
recent conversation about the economy at her Washington apartment. "Because you can inspire people."
... ... ...
Warren's agenda is a series of such bold ideas. She isn't pushing for a byzantine system of tax credits for child care. She wants
a universal program of pre-K and child care, administered locally, with higher pay for teachers and affordable tuition for families.
And to anyone who asks, "But how will you pay for that?" Warren has an answer. Her wealth tax
would raise more than $250 billion
a year, about four times the estimated cost of universal child care. She is, in her populist way, the fiscal conservative in the
campaign.
@ testing that responded to my comment that wrote of Berniebots
I will support anyone who wants to take down global private banking and I don't think that
includes Bernie
That said, there is a growing mass of young folks that just might try to take over the
(s)election process this time around.....will they succeed? Not from what we see of protests
against US meddling in Venezuela.....nothing
We will see what TPTB put forward for a circus this time around.....if we make it that
far.....
@ testing who wrote
"
Yes indeed. So much candidates. Seems like fog of war.
"
With more candidates early on, it takes all that energy and diffuses it for petty warfare
instead of a firmly focused "machine" that would take over Congress through the Dem
party.
"... There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today. ..."
"... Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . ..."
"... "Enough with the emails!" ..."
"... Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa ..."
"... Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary ..."
"... Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote ..."
"... Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion ..."
"... Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election ..."
"... As one keen observer noted: Sanders is a Company Man . ..."
There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a
close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today.
Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in
a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed.
Sanders made it clear from the start that he ruled
out the possibility of running as an independent. That was only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep'
into the Democratic fold.
Others were:
; "Enough with the emails!"
; Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;
; Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;
; Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;
; Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;
; Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.
"... "Defiant leftwinger" is a bit rich. "Defiant leftwinger" only in relation to an artificially skewed spectrum represented by Fox News, Casino Trump, and a corporate funded neoliberal nominee toeing a rightwing foreign policy line. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders is a social democrat in the tradition of FDR whose policies are centrist in relation to other industrialised nations. ..."
"... He has focused on four planks he wants in the Democratic Party platform: the creation of an economy that works for all citizens, breaking up the five "too-big-to-fail" banks, a carbon tax to address climate change, and a single-payer healthcare system. ..."
"... Of course Bernie needs to stay. Hillary is under FBI investigation. If she ends up in an orange pantsuit in the big house Bernie will look very stupid and basically has thrown out over 200 mio. dollars which is the amount he has spent on his campaign so far. Given to him by his supporters. It is his duty to them to stay in. ..."
"... " the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.( Corbyn )" ..."
"... The Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Sanders to force him out before the convention to make sure that doesn't happen. The Sanders camp is just following the rules and playing fairly. ..."
"... Britain began its retreat from this post WWII social democracy in 1979, 37 years ago when Thatcher took over. The essentially neo-liberal agenda has been actively pursued by every government since then - Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown - and indeed has accelerated under Cameron. ..."
"... There is nothing to indicate that the average american will be worse off with Trump in office as opposed to Clinton. That's how far to the right her actual policies are. Not the crap she claims, but the stuff she has been doing for the past 20 years. ..."
"... People wonder why there is such animosity towards Americans. You support a woman for president whilst disregarding her most vile traits as a joke? Clinton is a real danger towards the Middle East and that is partly because of her warmongering and absolute support for Israel, wrong or right. There are girls in Sirte, Libya currently being used as sex slaves by ISIS who may think your not so funny. ..."
"... "He tapped into deeply held sentiments about a rigged economy and a broken political system, and built a mass movement of people who believe we can do better and demand solutions that match the scale of the crises." Corbyn has the same agenda in the UK and given the internecine struggle in the Tory Party has an even better chance of winning in 2020. Pity that progressive newspapers like the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him. ..."
"... And, who knows, elsewhere could possibly prove better - your guess is as good as mine. Clinton is neo-liberal establishment through-and-through. The darling of the global capitalist corporations. ..."
"... Yes, what is wrong with the idiots? Why don't they just lie on their backs and surrender to the neo-liberalist elite? ..."
"... Just a few years ago Americans prised themselves from an unelected monster, G. W. Bush - he and his monster crowd being the key architects/facilitators of the current economic woes and mayhem in the middle east. That's pretty well indisputable. People can try to dispute it but they are flat out wrong and they know it. So given that, why would America now want to place another monster in power? ..."
"... Funny, cancer works this way on the human organism confusing the immune system so much that the body thinks a tumour is okay, a genuine part of the body. Until it's too late. ..."
"... So the American presidential race is down to a contest between the supporter of Oligarchy (Clinton) and the Oligarch (Trump). Of course this would never lead you to believe that American politics serves only the Oligarchy and funds only their candidates. ..."
"... Dems are only about 29% of registered voters, btw, so that is 6% of 29% of voters backing her right now. Yep. Trump has a good chance of winning against that - a write-in campaign for a soggy loaf of bread has a good chance of winning against that. ..."
"... You really don't get what created Trump's opportunity do you, its the same that has seen a new options becoming a political force throughout Europe, its ever & constant growth of disenchantment with the Clinton's, Cameron's & the rest of the political establishment.......sadly the US people need Sanders far more than he needs them of so it would seem. ..."
"... It is no longer "God Bless America". It's "God Help America". With the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bill (Mr. Zippy) Clinton is already interviewing the interns and glad that he can now get Cuban cigars. From President to "First Man". Remember " I did not have sexual relations with this woman." Just a Blow Job. ..."
"... However they must take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and start getting their candidates elected as State and congress candidates. There is no point in having a radical president and a reactionary congress. ..."
"... No, those who propped up the corrupt Hitlery, knowing full-well that the system is rigged and the super delegates are bought and paid for, are to blame. ..."
"... Republicans have more of a spine than the Hitlery voters, because they voted for who they actually wanted, not who they were told to. ..."
"... Bernie is an Independent, he should run as one. F*ck Clinton and f*ck the DNC. ..."
"... The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches" and a series of strokes over the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book "Unlikeable - The Problem with Hillary." ..."
"... The Democrat Party is controlled by the Right and the the representatives at [almost] all levels appear untouchable. The key to the future, not just for Sanders but for the Left he has mobilised, will be in opening up the Party to democracy and accountability. ..."
"... It is truly depressing that the democrats had the chance to put a decent trustworthy person in the White House but instead opted for Clinton, who represents the interests of Wall Street and the Party of Perpetual War. By opting for her they have handed the keys to the repulsive Trump. ..."
"... For decades tens of millions of Americans who are left politically on major issues (whether they identify as "left-wing" or not) have voted for politicians who have carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus--often more effectively than the Republicans they depict themselves as the progressive alternative to. ..."
"... Money buys power - always has; always will. Read 'Clinton Ca$h'. Or just read something besides MSM. ..."
"... I'm not saying that there are not people who fully support her (and Obama's) IMF/World Bank/USAID/Clinton Foundation approach to international development and international trade, her center aisle approach to use of armed force, her (and Obama's) preference for private insurance based health reform, her approach to Haiti ..."
"... Remember!, it wasn't all sweetness and light under warmonger Hillary. C. ..."
"... "save America" - if Clinton or Trump gets into the White House, NOTHING will save America! ..."
"... "In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA" ..."
"... ISIS was not reversed in Syria until Russia became involved, and they were in full decline within a month. Years of Obama's war against them and they expanded to holding 80% of Syria , and beyond. ..."
There is a difference isn't it? The Clintons are career politicians who have amassed a bigger fortune than Trump (and they
are not the only ones that's become wealthy representing corporations) Bernie has amassed a few hundred thousand from a life in
politics representing the voters.
SoxmisUK -> Shelfunit 9 Jun 2016 04:50
Compared to all the vile insults, conspiracy theory wailing and holy-than-thou posts by Sanders supporters over the last
few months it's nothing
Let me amend that for you: "Compared to all the vile insults, conspiracy theory wailing and holy-than-thou posts by Clinton's
supporters over the last few months it's nothing.."
There. Fixed.
Not true in either case, as one has been as bad as the other, but good to see you sticking your British oar in where it's clearly
not wanted. You shit-stir enough for the Tories here in the UK.
WhigInterpretation 9 Jun 2016 04:50
"Defiant leftwinger" is a bit rich. "Defiant leftwinger" only in relation to an artificially skewed spectrum represented
by Fox News, Casino Trump, and a corporate funded neoliberal nominee toeing a rightwing foreign policy line.
Bernie Sanders is a social democrat in the tradition of FDR whose policies are centrist in relation to other industrialised
nations.
He has focused on four planks he wants in the Democratic Party platform: the creation of an economy that works for all
citizens, breaking up the five "too-big-to-fail" banks, a carbon tax to address climate change, and a single-payer healthcare
system.
Victorious1 -> Herr_Settembrini 9 Jun 2016 04:50
Sorry, but you cannot compare Ron Paul to Sanders and say they have little to show. One ran for many years and despite his
sincerity and common sense came nowhere being nominated at any point in time and the other started a political revolution in his
first run as nominee, drawing tens of thousands in crowds, more individual contributions than ever before and incredibly nearly
won the nomination and probably would have done if he wasn't largely ignored by the media and the superdelegates weren't a bunch
of establishment corrupt cronies.
ungruntled -> killedbydrones 9 Jun 2016 04:47
The election isnt over until the Party congress. In politics people often lie. A bunch of folk have said they will vote one
way........but they may vote another(they may have been lying, or they may just change their minds.)
When the dust settles, and a few more wobbly polls are applied, it may transpire Clinton has no chance against Trump.
In which case Clinton could easily be shown the VP's seat or...........
Seeing as there is little difference between Dems and Repubs, they might put the top heads of each party together in a room
and dream up some other staretegy to screw over the American people. Clinton might get arrested. The possibilities are pretty
endless
But the next POTUS is yet to be chosen
And Bernie is fighting on, just because he can. He isnt playing the stupid "I will bow out gracefully to keep the party together"
bollocks because the party needs to be blown apart. Democracy in the USA is a joke.
Its all about who can buy the power, and Clinton and Trump are living proof of that fact.
Sanders sees that as corrupt and unnaceptable to the American people, (so do I) and anything he can do to upset the apple cart/gravy
train, is fine with me
Ummmmm -> Suckspencil 9 Jun 2016 04:41
I agree with a fair amount of what you're saying, but with all due respect, you're missing the point, which is that what Sanders
is proposing is eminently affordable for any developed nation. The Czech Republic, Greece, Norway, Sweden and Estonia, among others,
do, I believe, provide free higher education. If Estonia, why not the US?
As things stand, most of Europe still has a healthcare system free at the point of delivery. Europe has more stringent climate
legislation than the US. That's one of the reasons that TTIP poses such a threat.
Of course Bernie needs to stay. Hillary is under FBI investigation. If she ends up in an orange pantsuit in the big house
Bernie will look very stupid and basically has thrown out over 200 mio. dollars which is the amount he has spent on his campaign
so far. Given to him by his supporters. It is his duty to them to stay in.
ID6512838 -> Herr_Settembrini 9 Jun 2016 04:35
corporations will just do business elsewhere (especially in emergent markets like India and China). The result will be a relative
decline in living standards for the lower and middle classes in the U.S. (good bye cheap kitchen appliances, cellular phones,
and big screen tvs) and a further erosion in jobs.
Corporations do business where the consumers. The USA is going to be a consumer society for many more years - they have been
trained over many years to consume more and more.
HNS1684 9 Jun 2016 04:30
As I said before: the very fact that Clinton has only "won" VERY NARROWLY in New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Missouri, Iowa,
Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts and probably other states as well, the fact Bernie got nearly half the votes in these states,
means that there is STILL at least some hope left for Bernie Sanders.
ArchibaldLeach 9 Jun 2016 04:30
Sanders campaign did a lot to move Hilary to the left but it's not enough. He needs to start moving from his campaign to building
a grassroots liberal activist movement. (Not just supporting people who endorsed him). My hope is that the next Democratic nominee
will be more liberal. Sanders showed us that liberalism is alive and well and he brought crucial issues to the debate that were
being ignored.
snakeatzoes kirby1 9 Jun 2016 04:30
" the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.( Corbyn )"
The latest, yesterday, in the middle of the Euro debate, was an astonishing attack by Blair, who clearly is about to" have
his collar felt " over Iraq .
aaronpeacock 9 Jun 2016 04:30
what a load... it's a bitter pill and no one wants to eat it.
Clinton supporters have done little to nothing in the way of policy/platform inclusion, and the general election means she
will pivot to the right shortly, where she always lived anyway.
It's going to take yet another cycle of right-wing idiocy, it seems, before the Democrats will realize that pushing a strong
left/liberal candidate is what's required for electoral success. Get ready for a President Trump.
Lagasse 9 Jun 2016 04:29
Right now the delegate count stands at 2,178 to 1,810. Neither can get enough in the final primary to clinch the nomination.
It has to go to the convention for a decision, therefore. Either candidate could be given the nomination at the convention, per
DNC rules.
The Clinton camp is attempting to pressure Sanders to force him out before the convention to make sure that doesn't happen.
The Sanders camp is just following the rules and playing fairly.
SoxmisUK -> Deborah Holloway 9 Jun 2016 04:27
That's twice you've posted that. Trolling for some reason? The only reason Bernie lost was that Clinton got a massive head
start from the DLC as part of the institution and she was married to a former president.
If Sanders had another 3 months (Possibly much less..) he'd have wiped the floor with her and re-written politics in the USA.
You can crow all you wish now, but the truth is come the next time around there will be a popular vote that stands firmly on the
foundations Sanders has (Quite remarkably..) built.
Suckspencil Ummmmm 9 Jun 2016 04:26
what Sanders proposes is no more than bog-standard, post WWII social democracy - the sort of infrastructure that most
of the rest of the developed world has enjoyed for the past seven decades
Britain began its retreat from this post WWII social democracy in 1979, 37 years ago when Thatcher took over. The essentially
neo-liberal agenda has been actively pursued by every government since then - Thatcher-Major-Blair-Brown - and indeed has accelerated
under Cameron.
These are the issues which Sanders has campaigned on:
getting big money out of politics, his plan to make public colleges and universities tuition-free, combating climate
change and ensuring universal healthcare,"
I wonder if Ummmmm could remind me which of those we still have in the UK. The struggle must continue here as well, I think.
I wouldn't mind a bit of Sanders' "crazed pipe dream".
Ziontrain -> anemag 9 Jun 2016 04:24
There is nothing to indicate that the average american will be worse off with Trump in office as opposed to Clinton. That's
how far to the right her actual policies are. Not the crap she claims, but the stuff she has been doing for the past 20 years.
Spare us the scaremongering. If you wanted to vote for a republican, why would you do so under the "Democratic party" banner?
p0winc -> Ummmmm 9 Jun 2016 04:22
Completely agree. What he wants to implement is what the rest of us take as ordinary and for granted. 643,000 People in the
states went bankrupt from Medical bills last year. He has however started something unique in the states, showing it's possible
to fund and at times out fund the political establishment from individual small donations and not have to compromise on policies.
Bookseeker -> snakeatzoes 9 Jun 2016 04:22
'La Lucha Continua' was also a slogan used by the CNT on its 100th anniversary.
JayJ66 -> R. Ben Madison 9 Jun 2016 04:21
People wonder why there is such animosity towards Americans. You support a woman for president whilst disregarding her
most vile traits as a joke? Clinton is a real danger towards the Middle East and that is partly because of her warmongering and
absolute support for Israel, wrong or right. There are girls in Sirte, Libya currently being used as sex slaves by ISIS who may
think your not so funny.
kirby1 9 Jun 2016 04:20
"He tapped into deeply held sentiments about a rigged economy and a broken political system, and built a mass movement
of people who believe we can do better and demand solutions that match the scale of the crises." Corbyn has the same agenda in
the UK and given the internecine struggle in the Tory Party has an even better chance of winning in 2020. Pity that progressive
newspapers like the Guardian are stuck in the old, failed new Labour/Lib Dem politics and do everything to undermine him.
chrisdix15 9 Jun 2016 04:18
Trump and Clinton are a double headed coin. I would hope Sanders keeps himself away from either but ensures his supporters
vote for neither - don't join the Corrupters Bernie, but stay where you are and keep the struggle going within Congress to show
that both Trump and Clinton mean and do the same things. Only doing this will ensure people see a real alternative to the strait-jacket
the Democrat/Republican parties stand for. The struggle has only just begun.
ryanpatrick9192 -> fedback 9 Jun 2016 04:39
If Hillary is indicted then that does not make Bernie the nominee by default. The superdelegates can still back Clinton and
let her pick a replacement they approve of. Why would they choose Bernie? He doesnt have enouh support to win a general election.
Trunp got more votes in the primary than Bernie for crying out loud.
Suckspencil -> Shotcricket 9 Jun 2016 04:35
How could you, even in jest, suggest such a thing possible? We in the West, are blessed to be led by fearless god-fearing moderates
who believe in justice, peace, equality and the rule of law. Shame on you!
Suckspencil -> Cleggatemyhamster 9 Jun 2016 04:31
And, who knows, elsewhere could possibly prove better - your guess is as good as mine. Clinton is neo-liberal establishment
through-and-through. The darling of the global capitalist corporations.
Suckspencil -> twiglette 9 Jun 2016 04:30
Yes, what is wrong with the idiots? Why don't they just lie on their backs and surrender to the neo-liberalist elite?
BruceRobbie 9 Jun 2016 04:15
Despite this dreadful situation one thing remains, Sanders and Trump supporters simply do not TRUST Clinton to deliver on her
promises and she needs them to trust her if she is to get people go out and to vote for her. Voting requires effort for many people,
and if they don't believe, they will simply stay at home on Election Day. In which case Clinton will lose, because a majority
of Americans actually don't like her.
She is also perceived by a large numbers of Americans as little more than a Manager of the American nation; the leaders, the
CEOs of America, sit in board rooms of corporate America waiting for their "manager" to deliver on their investment in her campaign.
Due to her untrustworthiness and serpentine character, Sanders has wisely shifted his efforts to Congress and the Senate, so
that Clinton if elected, is held to account for electoral promises, Clinton is adept at avoiding difficult situation, emails and
Goldman Speeches, and will try to wriggle out of any commitment if her leaders deem it necessary. She and the DNC have fought
a disgraceful, campaign of deceit, corrupt electoral practise and voter suppression. So when she spouts her Democratic rhetoric
in the coming months, her words will ring hollow as a drum. Good luck America, I fear you're going to need it as your choice of
leader this time around truly is the lesser of two evils.
LouisianaAlba 9 Jun 2016 04:13
The story foisted upon us so far in this electoral cycle is a reasonably but not very complicated narrative - a few players
strutting, ranting and pouting about the country in a predictable plot. In keeping with this predictability let's keep any analysis
simple - fairytale level. Let's talk about monsters.
Just a few years ago Americans prised themselves from an unelected monster, G. W. Bush - he and his monster crowd being
the key architects/facilitators of the current economic woes and mayhem in the middle east. That's pretty well indisputable. People
can try to dispute it but they are flat out wrong and they know it.
So given that, why would America now want to place another monster in power?
Another age of the political monster is looming. Two loom over the world in the coming battle, with a third in the wings by
marriage who wants another shot at power as well, the man who signed away the last threads of Glass Steagall's legal powers.
What is it with Americans and their love affair with these political monsters? Can't Americans choose a good and decent human
being who cares for the people and the country. A person who doesn't treat the country and the world as fools.
Even on the money front, it can be so simple, as economists often say - a confident happy people can lead to economic prosperity.
It won't guarantee it I concede and I won't trade arguments on government or no government intervention, but a happy people is
a better bet for a good economy than the opposite. Keeping it all at the fairytale level of course. Treating people well leads
them to be disposed, motivated towards treating others well. Most times. Okay then there is psychopathology and the narrative
gets complicated.
But the simple truth is - the simple story has been hijacked because a simple story is too easily managed and a country easily
managed is not so easily fooled. And if you can't fool a country and the world, it is not so easy to get away with complicated
crimes. Which is the usual way a monster gets away with them or gets to be rich, complicating things so much we aren't aware fast
enough to stop any of it. Then after we know we are so beaten down and weakened we're simply not strong or ready enough to fix
blame where it belongs.
Funny, cancer works this way on the human organism confusing the immune system so much that the body thinks a tumour is
okay, a genuine part of the body. Until it's too late.
NickDaGeek 9 Jun 2016 04:13
So the American presidential race is down to a contest between the supporter of Oligarchy (Clinton) and the Oligarch (Trump).
Of course this would never lead you to believe that American politics serves only the Oligarchy and funds only their candidates.
God help us if Trump wins and the idiots in Whitehall sign up to TTIP. If that happens Brexit will swap Brussels for Washington
and we will still be a vassal state of a huge power block run by tax avoiding globalist monopoly capitalists.
Lagasse -> MrBrownley 9 Jun 2016 04:13
the large majority who didn't vote for him
Where did that happen? Democratic primary turnout has been around 11%. So far she's got about 6% of Dem voters, meaning that
around 94% of registered Dems that could have voted for her, didn't.
Dems are only about 29% of registered voters, btw, so that is 6% of 29% of voters backing her right now. Yep. Trump has
a good chance of winning against that - a write-in campaign for a soggy loaf of bread has a good chance of winning against that.
She polls terribly with the largest group of registered voters: Independent (however Sanders does quite well).
Meanwhile, the GOP has had higher primary turnouts. More votes were cast in their primaries even though there are fewer registered
Rep voters.
GOP voters are fired up while Dem voters aren't fired up to vote for an unpopular, DNC-annointed candidate - that's a recipe
for losing, ask Martha Coakley.
Clinton and her supporters better up their games and quick.
Shotcricket -> pucksfriend 9 Jun 2016 04:10
You really don't get what created Trump's opportunity do you, its the same that has seen a new options becoming a political
force throughout Europe, its ever & constant growth of disenchantment with the Clinton's, Cameron's & the rest of the political
establishment.......sadly the US people need Sanders far more than he needs them of so it would seem.
Clinton is the old way, Sanders is the new way...the irony of that should not be lost on anyone.
SonOfFredTheBadman 9 Jun 2016 04:10
It is no longer "God Bless America". It's "God Help America". With the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Bill
(Mr. Zippy) Clinton is already interviewing the interns and glad that he can now get Cuban cigars. From President to "First Man".
Remember " I did not have sexual relations with this woman." Just a Blow Job.
ga gamba 9 Jun 2016 04:09
Shrewd move by Sanders, I think. Many believe that Clinton will veer sharply to the right when she nominated and campaigns
for the general election. Withholding an endorsement until late October keeps her honest; if she backtracks on her "progressive"
promises made during the primaries Sanders can endorse Jill Stein. In a sense, Sanders is the conscience Clinton doesn't possess.
He said it was a revolution, so Clinton and her supporters shouldn't be surprised that he's using revolutionary tactics.
Oudeis1 -> fahkingobserving 9 Jun 2016 04:09
I thank you -primarily for you actually typing-out your rationale. Mere 'carping' is the more common response to my posts,
thanks again - for processing and expounding. And yes, I know enough of American Football to appreciate your analogy.
On the Green invitation to Sanders: I have been aware of this for some time. I'm sure that it is sincere, I'm also certain
that it was a little too soon. Sanders does indeed know much about US Politics, and his conduct throughout this contest
has been consistent enough for most observers to discern a clear pattern:
-His ideas are more important to him that his personal success.
-His 'read' on the electoral niceties, possibilities, probabilities and 'desirabilities' is sagacious.
-His initiation of his campaign by way of the Democrat Party is entirely logical.
-A firm commitment from the DNC & HRC on some of his more important policy-planks would allow him to conclude that his job
was (well) done. And to then advise his supporters to get behind the renewed and revitalized HRC ticket.
Personally, inline with my own take on these things, Senator Sanders will not concede without (firm & meaningful) concessions.
Should no such concessions be forthcoming...
He may then - if this is how things pan out, turn to his supporters for their opinion, or 'knowing' full well there likely
response, turn directly to the Greens and add Jill Stein to his then Independent ticket, and run as a third option.
These last two options represent at least as much chance of the defeat of Trump, and very likely more chance of doing that, than
his caving-in (selling his soul) to the DNC.
-Yes, I am aware that Sanders has firmly denied that he has any wish at all to run as a third option - this stance is both inline
with his desire to see the Democrat Party turn away from the neoliberal/Republican-lite present and his overall objective of getting
his policies promoted in November.
However: Nobody can promote the fundamentals of US Democracy and then deny them.
MajorRoadRage -> abdul maulud 9 Jun 2016 04:05
I would rather see Trump in office and see Hillary's supporters endure the same punishment as if we had all voted for her to
begin with. Hillary is in it for herself and her corporate sponsors. So if I'm gonna be screwed, so will Hillary supporters, even
with mountains of evidence available that she is NOT the candidate to run for presidency people still smile and nod their heads
with complacency. Wake up and smell the corruption.
Bitty31985 -> powellscribe 9 Jun 2016 04:08
As I said; if you want some one to blame , blame the media and the DNC. I am never wasting my vote on the lesser of two evils
ever again. You WILL never ever convince me to do otherwise. I vote for who I BELIEVE IN. Good luck trying to guilt people into
supporting that sociopath.
wiseowler 9 Jun 2016 04:06
If Sanders can get people who support his core radical progressive changes onto key Democratic committees and positions of
power, plus get support at the convention for these policies then he may be bale to set in train a transformation of the Democratic
Party and the possibility of a real change candidate winning the next election.
However they must take a leaf out of the Tea Party's book and start getting their candidates elected as State and congress
candidates. There is no point in having a radical president and a reactionary congress.
If he can achieve this then maybe his momentum can help transform the Clinton campaign - which is in sore need of some radical
and youthful energy if she is to defeat Trump
artvandalay316 -> abdul maulud 9 Jun 2016 04:01
No, those who propped up the corrupt Hitlery, knowing full-well that the system is rigged and the super delegates are bought
and paid for, are to blame. Spineless cowards who would rather tow the establishment line and never see any real change than
vote for something a bit different for once. The most amusing thing is, the Republicans have more of a spine than the Hitlery
voters, because they voted for who they actually wanted, not who they were told to.
Shotcricket 9 Jun 2016 03:57
"Sanders will discuss a wide range of issues, including getting big money out of politics, his plan to make public colleges
and universities tuition-free, combating climate change and ensuring universal healthcare"
Almost The Guardian mantra of many a year
And yet The Guardian has been pro Clinton throughout the nomination campaign.....& very negative toward Sanders, just what
does The Guardian believe in, other than the longevity of the political establishment ?
SilverTui 9 Jun 2016 03:45
L.A. County Supervisors Demand Answers Day After CBS2 Investigation Uncovers Deceased Voters Casting Ballots
How can people believe their vote counts when it is opposed by endless money, lies and manipulation ? For example, how could
the media make free tuition, last signed into law, by Abe Lincoln and existing in California until a couple of decades ago, seem
strange ? And it's normal in all other countries as a matter of course. I cannot believe you can have that debt at such a young
age and manage. It seems the last economic conflict exploited by capitalism is conflict--which should not be--is between old people
and young people. Young people more and more are excluded from that American economic leveler, education.
blackerdog -> StephenChin 9 Jun 2016 03:20
The super delegates are all full paid up members of the establishment that's why Clinton get their vote.
She won't win against Tump, she has blood on her hands legal problems and can't control her own house never mind the lives of
hundreds of millions.
Trump is a buffoon but he hasn't been bought. Middle America won't vote for her.
Flugler -> Virginia Fast 9 Jun 2016 03:18
Bill Clinton stripped the social security fund dry and used it to balance the budgets. Americans retiring in the near future
are screwed. Cheers bill.
Virginia Fast -> Flugler 9 Jun 2016 03:14
With Clinton putting Hubby in charge of financial affairs, better get ready to bail out the banks and lose whatever you managed
to keep last time. If only the fools who voted for them suffered --
It's a nightmare of endless war and homeless filling th streets. More of the same forever and ever.......the future as igtmare
Mynameistoocommon -> turn1eft 9 Jun 2016 02:50
If this were true the FBI should get the hell on with it and not play political games. It is certainly not any of their concern
whether Clinton could be pardoned by Obama (which would surely kill her campaign in any event). Since she is innocent until proven
guilty, the suspicion that the investigation places over her is itself damaging. If it could ever be proven that the FBI had deliberately
taken their time in order to prolong the doubt, before clearing her, that would be a very serious allegation. I can't really see
why they would bother though.
JK1875 9 Jun 2016 02:50
Bernie is an Independent, he should run as one. F*ck Clinton and f*ck the DNC.
robinvp11 -> Highgatecemetry 9 Jun 2016 02:47
I lived in the US for twelve years. Bernie Sanders is not a 'socialist;' in the UK, he'd be a Tory - not entirely sure where.
Maybe liberal Tory but on a lot of things, he'd be to the right ie his views on guns (yes, he's pro-limited control but he buys
into the NRA idea that it's 'mental health' issue).
trow 9 Jun 2016 02:46
Clinton was not elected she was appointed by so called super delegates .The election process was exposed as a farce .
turn1eft 9 Jun 2016 02:44
Sanders is only hanging on because the FBI have said they will prosecute Hillary on treason and racketeering.
Which sound strange to our ears. But racketeering was revived during the 1920s and treason during the Cold War.
Clintons email server didnt just include top secret documents illegally it also included information about illegal donations
from foreign backers.
I think the FBI are undecided whether to press charges now - with a high chance Obama will pardon her - or press charges after
the election in November when she will be spending the rest of her life dealing with this case.
ShaneFromMelbourne saddam 9 Jun 2016 02:43
Under Obama's watch:
Too big to fail banks....they're even BIGGER
1.5 Quadrillion dollar derivatives market that scares the shit out of even the hedge funds.
Dodd-Frank Act that has loopholes you could drive a truck through.
Unemployment still out of the park (as if anyone believes the BS statistic of 4.9%)
The US economy is still so shit the the Fed can't increase interest rates (that's right, there will be no interest rate hike this
year or the next)
8 years hasn't improved much.....
qelt17 -> Aquarius9 9 Jun 2016 02:38
The 67-year-old Democratic front-runner has been "frequently plagued" by "blinding headaches" and a series of strokes over
the course of the campaign which have left her second-guessing her chances of winning in 2016, says the upcoming book "Unlikeable
- The Problem with Hillary." http://nypost.com/2015/09/22/hillary-is-dealing-with-mounting-health-issues-new-book-claims/
FrankLeeSpeaking -> Mea Mea 9 Jun 2016 02:26
You must be a Killkary feminist. Sanders has deep rooted integrity and a fire to make the US a better place, unlike Killary
ready to make the next killing, physically and financially speaking.
SilverTui 9 Jun 2016 02:15
A well funded and organised exit poll, which included mail in ballots, had a deficit of 16 percent from the reported results
in California.
A deficit of 2 percent is sufficient to trigger an official investigation in Denmark.
Also millions of California independents were given "placebo" affidavit ballots, that are not counted.
passtherockplease -> davidlen 9 Jun 2016 02:14
I believe we are already there. I think it will be very close but Trump will win -- republican tend to vote for their 'side'
no matter whom it is. Those of us on the left seem to like purity, more than getting power to get things done. It is why These
people only come out at Presidential elections forgetting there are three branches to governing in the US, Check out off year
voting patterns GOP vote numbers stay firm. Democrats less so it is why there is no Democratic control senate and house and the
house, well that is lost at least until the next census.
Go look at things like Young Turks and the like. They really think Clinton is worse than Trump.
gwynnechris -> Dennis25 9 Jun 2016 02:13
Lessor 'evilism' argument don't work. Trump may have different style, but politically/economically he's similar to Clinton.
(Technically he's not a Fascist. He does not have bullyboys physically attacking left-wing/Trade Union meetings. eg Germany 1930's).
I guess many people in USA want something different to Corporate dominance; which I believe will require a Labour Party formed
from the Trade Unions. So Trump gets elected. Big deal. People will soon see their mistake and change. Politics has moved beyond
the illusionary middle-ground as the election of Jeremy Corbyn indicates.
queequeg7 9 Jun 2016 01:52
The Democrat Party is controlled by the Right and the the representatives at [almost] all levels appear untouchable. The
key to the future, not just for Sanders but for the Left he has mobilised, will be in opening up the Party to democracy and accountability.
In much the same way as Corbyn's election must make Labour MPs and Councillors more accountable to the Party membership, so
Sanders' campaign must now find a way of challenging both the individuals and the process.
eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 01:51
Here some wondrous policies and initiative enacted or supported by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama during their presidencies,
almost all of which Hillary Clinton supports:
--Deregulation of telecom and finance
--The Omnibus Crime Bill
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--Don't Ask, Don't Tell
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage (and against attempts to raise it)
--Arctic Drilling
--$1 trillion 20 year modernization of nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that kill large numbers of civilian an inflame anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that fortifies the power of the insurance cartel
--The bail-out of Wall Street
eastbayradical -> MikaelRogers 9 Jun 2016 01:48
Mikael supports the candidate that has backed the destruction of welfare, the private prison industry, the objectively-racist
death penalty, fortification of the police state, deregulation of investment banks, NAFTA, the Iraq War, the bombing of Libya,
the right-wing coup in Honduras, Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza, and the fight against raising the minimum
wage in Haiti from 30 cents/hour to 60 cents/hour--all policies from which non-white people hav disproportionately suffered--yet
every chance she gets, Mikael accuses the Sanders' campaign and supporters of being the racists.
Nietzschestache 9 Jun 2016 01:37
It is truly depressing that the democrats had the chance to put a decent trustworthy person in the White House but instead
opted for Clinton, who represents the interests of Wall Street and the Party of Perpetual War. By opting for her they have handed
the keys to the repulsive Trump.
Guest Oo -> saddam 9 Jun 2016 01:30
If Bernie took in all the BIG MONEY like the corrupt politicians, he would accomplished a lot more for the oligarchy and corporations
and forget the people. He would also be a multi-millionaire by now.
Bernie chose the route to have a government for the PEOPLE and that does not work anymore. Majority of the corrupt Democrat
voters chose a GOVERNMENT FOR THE CORPORATIONS by voting for Hillary.
For decades tens of millions of Americans who are left politically on major issues (whether they identify as "left-wing"
or not) have voted for politicians who have carried water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus--often
more effectively than the Republicans they depict themselves as the progressive alternative to.
Every four years we're told "yes, X Democrat is a corporate-backed, warmongering stooge, but look at how horrible Y Republican
is! If you don't vote for the Democrat you're voting for the Republican!" It's the same scare tactics year after year after year--and
year after year the political center of gravity shifts further to the right. This is the anatomy of our demise.
Finally, millions that have for years dutifully voted for the corporate, warmongering pseudo-progressive stooge with the (D)
next to his name are waking up and saying to the Democrats: Try to win without out us you corporate scum!
joeblow9999 -> saddam 9 Jun 2016 01:16
Hilly's accomplishments?
Iraq War
Setting the stage for ISIS
Kicking off the next Cold War
She is a sham.
Jill McLean 9 Jun 2016 01:15
What I don't get is everyone's surprise. Just one example: A $29 billion deal with Saudi Arabia goes down, and the Clinton
Foundation gets a $10 mil contribution. What kind of payback could Bernie get for petitioning for 'equal rights'? Come one, people.
Money buys power - always has; always will. Read 'Clinton Ca$h'. Or just read something besides MSM.
duncandunnit 9 Jun 2016 01:03
Hillary Clinton is a warmongering she devil, that will only ever work with problems rather than solutions. She will be very
happy for the usa to continue selling billions of dollars of weapons to wasabi jihadists at saudi instruction (which caused the
European refugee crisis), she will continue the usa track record of the usa sticking in puppet presidentas into countries denying
them democracy. She will continue the usa using propaganda as a weapon.
sammy3110 9 Jun 2016 00:48
After Hillary's coronation, I'll change my registration from D to I, and I hope others will consider doing the same. I'm not
leaving the D Party, the D Party has left me.
ynnej1964 -> garth25 9 Jun 2016 00:42
I have to wonder. Among my pro-Clinton friends the dominant arguments were a) her 'qualification' b) it's time for a woman
c) Bernie is less qualified, and so to chose him over hillary might indicate unconscious sexism.
I'm not saying that there are not people who fully support her (and Obama's) IMF/World Bank/USAID/Clinton Foundation approach
to international development and international trade, her center aisle approach to use of armed force, her (and Obama's) preference
for private insurance based health reform, her approach to Haiti , but I don't think that is why my clinton friends supported
her. I can't speak for all. But i'd say these are more things they would forgive her for, rather than their first choice on policy.
daWOID -> eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 00:36
Sorry, friend, I happen to know a good deal about voter fraud in New York State, where I worked for a few decades as Inspector
of Elections. Don't know much about California. So here's what I can contribute:
a) In New York State at least, provisional ballots are exactly the joke you describe. All it takes is a poll worker who doesn't
like your looks and they'll pretend they can't find you on the rolls and why don't you simply fill out a provisional ballot?
b) And of course the provisional ballots never get counted, because to have your ballot counted you would have to go before
a judge to determine whether or not you were rightly denied your vote.
c) The amount of voter fraud and voter suppression perpetrated in the Democratic Primary this year has surpassed anything I've
ever seen in my lifetime, excepting my work during the Civil Rights Era, where it was just as bad but considerably less sophisticated.
So is it likely that the same applied in California? Well, duh...
macktan894 9 Jun 2016 00:32
These are crucial issues that most people have repeatedly bitched about over the years in these forums. It makes no sense to
plunge kids into bankruptcy and lifelong debt with outrageous fees and interest rates who are tying to get an education. We have
seniors whose social security checks are being garnished because they still owe on college loans. We have people who are afraid
to see a doctor or go to an emergency room, even though they pay yearly escalating premiums, because they fear the debt it will
trigger. Yet Elected Officials seem only able to act when it comes to Endless Wars and surveillance; no problem spending trillions
on defense, just don't ask them to spend it on the American people lest they feel entitled.
I'm hardly surprised that the Status Quo wants Bernie to just shut up and disappear. Who's lauding him for running a campaign
financed by people who voted for him, not by corporations and billionaires? And I'll continue to donate to him because he is the
people's lobbyist. Go, Bernie!
GigabitG 9 Jun 2016 00:31
So is the Guardian arguing that Clinton fought a fair campaign? Really? Try a little harder please, you know full well that
Clinton hobbled Sanders at every step. Throughout this campaign the Guardian has chosen to ignore all the reports of widespread
disenfranchisement and polling irregularities that prevented millions of Sanders supporters from voting and instead lazily point
to the inevitability of Clinton. Depressing news from a complicit Guardian.
RogersRoy ChrisD58 9 Jun 2016 00:29
Sad to see Sanders ego and self delusion providing even more opportunity for the monster that is Trump
Remember!, it wasn't all sweetness and light under warmonger Hillary. C.
The Republican & Democrat DNA is within 1% of each other. These parties have loads of Corporate corrupt White House monsters.
When our governments; the White House and their British Parliamentary lackeys use our taxes to pay their terrorists to overthrow
legitimate sovereign countries and their elected leaders and organise assassinations then I say; it's high time this incompetent
maverick nonsense stopped!!.
I Refuse To Pay These Illegal Bills.
eastbayradical 9 Jun 2016 00:07
Both my wife and I registered as Democrats in California in the last month.
My wife received a ballot in the mail but she was still listed as a Green. When she went to the precinct to vote she was given
a provisional ballot that allowed her to vote in the Democratic primary. I just asked her if her name was on the voter rolls and
she said she doesn't know, that the precinct workers "didn't know what they were doing, they just gave me a provisional ballot."
Unlike my wife I did receive confirmation that I had been registered as a Democrat and I received a ballot with the Democratic
primary choices on it. Despite getting the ballot in the mail I wanted to vote at the precinct. I found when I got to the precinct
that my name wasn't listed on voter rolls. The precinct worker recommended that I vote by provisional ballot, which I didn't like
the idea of. I decided to fill out my ballot at the precinct and I was told to put it into a blue bag with a slot on the top.
The precinct worker assured me that my ballot would be counted.
Journalist Greg Palast reports that provisional ballots, like the one my wife voted with, are essentially "placebo ballots"--that
a very large percentage of them are never counted. He additionally reports that there are hundreds of thousands of provisional
ballots in California that have yet to be counted. There is every reason to believe that provisional ballots, since they're given
to newly-registered voters, were disproportionately given to Sanders' voters like my wife. Palast also reports that very large
numbers of voters found that there names were not on voting rolls when they went to vote. It would seem that this would also disproportionately
affect newly-registered voters.
On top of all this, there are many thousands of ballots that were sent on Monday and Tuesday that have yet to be counted.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Is Greg Palast wrong about provisional ballots? Are all the votes going to be
counted? I'm happy to hear the thoughts of people who think that Palast is full of shit, so long as they're actually engaging
in thinking.
Janosik53 -> sandi78 8 Jun 2016 23:55
Published May 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere "security
inquiry."
But when asked Wednesday about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn't know
what "security inquiry" means -- adding, "We're conducting an investigation. That's what we do."
Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar.
iammaynard -> drpage1 8 Jun 2016 23:38
Your leaders, Clinton and Obama created ISIS
I wish I had the middle east figured out as well as you got it. If you understand the causes so clearly, when will you be bringing
your solutions? Those must obviously as clear to you, yes?
Carenshare -> Annie Rainier 8 Jun 2016 23:31
Re: Your points.....
"bags" - Both Clintons drag around more baggage than American Airlines
"old man" - Sanders isn't much older than Clinton
"God" - There is no God "save America" - if Clinton or Trump gets into the White House, NOTHING will save America!
But 'Good Luck' anyways!
Girl 8 Jun 2016 23:27
Super delegates don't count until the convention... The Guardian has aided the fruad and been a champion for the DNC...Hillary
is goin' down, either the e mails, the clinton foundation, or Trump, she is done...
drpage1 -> nevesone 8 Jun 2016 23:19
Your leaders, Clinton and Obama created ISIS. Here is a clue:
"In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA"
"...a string of embarrassing setbacks which included recruits being ambushed and handing over much of their U.S.-issued ammunition
and trucks to an Al Qaeda affiliate."
ISIS was not reversed in Syria until Russia became involved, and they were in full decline within a month. Years of Obama's
war against them and they expanded to holding 80% of Syria , and beyond.
DesertPear -> Jared Hall 8 Jun 2016 23:06
The US Military-Industrial Complex is possibly the largest user of fossil fuels in the world and the information is not transparent
nor available. We absolutely must turn away from war as a solution if we are to slow climate change! And the only way to change
the military is to get money out of politics.
mbidding -> notmurdoch 8 Jun 2016 21:34
Student financial aid is not extremely generous in the US and generally does not cover the full cost of tuition at modestly
priced state schools, let alone books. Loans, of course, are available, but financial aid is nothing like it was before Reagan
gutted federal financial aid in the eighties and the states started divesting from their public universities at the same time.
Kim Iversen did a good job attacking our interesting to this non-establishment
candidate.
Universal basic income must come with the strict criteria for eligibility (probably income
less then median) and "strings attacked"; for unemployment this might be doing some community
work.
Looks like Yang got a really interesting set of domestic policies...
Why does so much for what passes as "objective" journalism these days sound like
click-bait? Is it being rewarded by higher ranking in social media and search engine
algorithms? Good on Andrew Yang for drawing people from both sides of the political spectrum
to his universal human-centered platform. I like the fact he is not shy in campaigning on
Fox. He is not afraid to break our idealogical bubbles in the name of data and
compassion.
I've been following Mr. Yang for a while, and he's like Bernie and Tulsi in a way a
true progressive vs the rest of the candidates are label themselves as! And Andrew has a
sense of humor too!
She can serve in the army and still be anti interventionist because our military is
supposed to be a defense force not an offense force. You can be willing to fight to protect
your country without wanting to go running round the world creating conflict for oil and
regime change.
'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell
you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who
will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth.
NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket...
Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
"... The american entitlement, as if it is your buisness what happens in other countries to the point that you have a right to invade, kill, and oppress their citizens is disgusting. The U.S. sanctions are starving Venezeualans, as is the theft of billions of dollars by the wannabe puppet president. Sanders/Gabbard all the way. ..."
Why doesn't anyone say...Assad did not gas his own people...US backed rebels gassed the
Syrian people. It's called manufactured consent. Sometimes I really hate the ignorance too
many Americans choose.
Megan is such a lying fake news propagandist. Yes Assad is a brutal dictator. However, the
allegations of gassing his people are debunked fake news (her stating them as facts is fake
news). There was no ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria before the US backed regime change war.
Hundreds of thousands have been killed, millions displaced.
Her calm and poise in the face of these right wing hacks is impressive. The american
entitlement, as if it is your buisness what happens in other countries to the point that you
have a right to invade, kill, and oppress their citizens is disgusting. The U.S. sanctions
are starving Venezeualans, as is the theft of billions of dollars by the wannabe puppet
president. Sanders/Gabbard all the way.
"... Elizabeth Warren has infuriated bankers and alienated half of Washington, all in the name of a new consumer protection agency she may not get to run ..."
"... At this point, Warren says, the banker made a confession. "We recognize that we have an unsustainable model, and it cannot work forever," she says he told her. "If we told people how much these things cost, they wouldn't use them." ..."
"... Warren's life is a blur of building and promoting the agency she dreamed up -- and that she may never get to lead. On leave from Harvard, she has spent hundreds of hours on Capitol Hill visiting with members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, and flown across the country meeting with the heads of the nation's major banks and many smaller ones. If most financial firms have yet to embrace the bureau, she's made some headway, at least, among the community banks. "Some of my colleagues have not gotten there yet because they are convinced she's close to the antichrist," says Roger Beverage, the head of the Oklahoma Bankers Assn. "I don't think she's doing anything but speaking from the heart on community banks." ..."
"... While Washington bickers, Warren has built the CFPB largely to her specs and almost entirely free of interference from Congress and the Administration, which devotes most of its attention to fixing the economy. Few Cabinet secretaries can claim to have left as indelible a mark on the departments they lead as Elizabeth Warren has already left on the one she doesn't. ..."
Elizabeth Warren has infuriated bankers and alienated half of Washington, all in the name of a new consumer protection agency
she may not get to run
Elizabeth Warren's admirers often refer to her as a grandmother from Oklahoma. This is technically true. It's also what you might
call posturing. Warren, 62, is a Harvard professor and perhaps the country's top expert on bankruptcy law. Over the past four years
she has managed to stoke a fervent debate over the government's role in protecting American consumers from what she sees as the predatory
practices of financial institutions, and she has positioned herself as the person to oversee a new federal agency to rewrite the
rules of lending. Warren is a grandma from Oklahoma in roughly the same way Ralph Nader is a pensioner with a thing about cars.
If the grandmother perception is plausible, it's largely because Warren has a gift for parables and for placing herself in the
middle of them as the embodiment of moral force. Thus, her account of the precise moment she realized that changing the way banks
lend was going to require a new federal bureaucracy -- and that it was up to her to create it.
Warren begins her tale in the spring of 2007, before the housing crash and the financial crisis. She was on a plane back to Boston
after a series of discouraging meetings with credit-card company executives. She had tried to sell them on an idea called the "clean
card" that grew out of her academic work and her side gig as a guest on such shows as Dr. Phil , where she dispensed empathy
and advice to audience members who were one bad check away from losing everything. The concept was simple: Offer the equivalent of
a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval to any credit-card company that disclosed all of its costs and fees up front, no fine print.
After a few meetings in which she was politely rebuffed, one executive walked Warren to the door and, with his arm around her,
let her in on a trade secret: If he admitted that his card's actual rate was 17 percent, while his competitors were still claiming
theirs was only 2.9 percent, his customers would desert him for the seemingly cheaper option, seal of approval or not. No credit-card
company would ever go along with a clean card unless all of them did. And the only way to get all of them to do it was to require
it by law.
At this point, Warren says, the banker made a confession. "We recognize that we have an unsustainable model, and it cannot
work forever," she says he told her. "If we told people how much these things cost, they wouldn't use them."
Here she pauses for effect, and to take a sip of herbal tea. Warren is slight and kinetic, with wide, pale blue eyes behind rimless
glasses. She punctuates her sentences with exclamations like "Holy guacamole!" It's difficult to tell whether these are spontaneous
or deliberately deployed to soften her imposing professorial mien. Warren, who grew up poor and went to college on a debate scholarship,
understands the power of expression. When she wants to underline a point, she leans in to conspire with her listener; then her voice
goes quiet, as it does when she says she knew instantly the condescending executive was right. Her clean card was a flop.
And so, on the flight home, Warren turned to the problem of how to push those credit-card companies into doing the right thing.
By landing time, she says, she had her answer: a powerful new federal agency whose sole mission would be to protect consumers, not
only from confusing credit cards but from what she calls the "tricks and traps" of all dangerous financial products. The same way
the Consumer Product Safety Commission guards against dangerous household products or the Food and Drug Administration watches out
for contaminated produce and quack medications. The way Warren tells it, she pulled a piece of paper out of her backpack and got
to work right there on the plane. "I started sketching out the problem and what the agency should look like."
It's a good story, even if the timeline is a little off. Warren's aides say she first pitched the idea of a consumer financial
protection agency to then-Senator Barack Obama's office months before her fateful meeting with the executive. Whatever the idea's
provenance, there's no doubting its influence. In a summer 2007 article in the journal Democracy , Warren outlined what her
guardian agency would look like. "It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning
down your house," she wrote. "But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance
of putting the family out on the street -- and the mortgage won't even carry a disclosure of that fact to the homeowner." One was
effectively regulated. The other was not.
The annals of academia are stuffed with provocative proposals. Most die in the library. A little over four years after she first
dreamed it up, Warren's has become a reality. Last summer, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, a package of financial reforms meant to prevent another economic meltdown. One of the bill's pillars is Warren's
watchdog agency, now called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
On July 21, exactly a year after Dodd-Frank became law, the CFPB is scheduled to open for business with a broad mandate to root
out "unfair, deceptive, or abusive" lending practices. Consolidating functions previously scattered across seven different agencies,
the bureau will have the power to dictate the terms of every consumer lending product on the market, from mortgages and credit cards
to student, overdraft, and car loans. It will supervise not only banks and credit unions but credit-card companies, mortgage servicers,
credit bureaus, debt collectors, payday lenders, and check-cashing shops. Dozens of researchers will track trends in the lending
market and keep an eye on new products. Teams of examiners will prowl the halls of financial institutions to ensure compliance. The
bureau is already at work on its first major initiative: simplifying the bewildering bank forms you sign when you buy a house.
Warren's life is a blur of building and promoting the agency she dreamed up -- and that she may never get to lead. On leave
from Harvard, she has spent hundreds of hours on Capitol Hill visiting with members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, and flown
across the country meeting with the heads of the nation's major banks and many smaller ones. If most financial firms have yet to
embrace the bureau, she's made some headway, at least, among the community banks. "Some of my colleagues have not gotten there yet
because they are convinced she's close to the antichrist," says Roger Beverage, the head of the Oklahoma Bankers Assn. "I don't think
she's doing anything but speaking from the heart on community banks."
One other person she has not yet won over: Barack Obama. The President has not nominated her to head the bureau. Instead, last
fall he gave her the title of special assistant to the President and special adviser to the Treasury and tasked her with getting
the place up and running. For now, she is the non-head of a non-agency. The White House refuses to say whether Obama will eventually
put her up for the job, allowing only that he is considering several candidates. In the coded language of appointment politics, it
is a signal that they are seriously considering passing Warren over for someone else. A White House official says the Administration
would like to have a nominee in place before Congress leaves for its August recess.
There's a reason for their wariness. The White House is reluctant to antagonize congressional Republicans in the middle of contentious
negotiations over the federal debt ceiling. Warren's position requires Senate approval, and Republicans, many of whom regard the
CFPB as more clumsy government meddling in the free market, are vehemently opposed to allowing its creator to be installed at its
helm. Republicans have used a parliamentary maneuver to keep the Senate from officially adjourning for its traditional summer break,
thus depriving Obama of the opportunity to sidestep their objections and make Warren a recess appointment.
"She's probably a nice person, as far as I know," says Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Banking Committee,
which will hold hearings on the eventual nominee for the post. Shelby has said Warren is too ideological to lead the agency, a judgment
shared by many of his Republican colleagues. "She's a professor and all this," he says in a tone that makes it clear he is not paying
her a compliment. "To think up something, to create something of this magnitude, and then look to be the head of it, I wouldn't do
that," Shelby says. "It looks like you created yourself a good job, a good power thing."
Warren is not waiting for permission to do the job she may never get. She and her small team have hired hundreds of people, at
a recent clip of more than 80 per month. The agency has already outgrown its office space and is divided between two buildings in
downtown Washington -- with branches to be opened across the country. A fledgling staff of researchers is cranking out the CFPB's
first reports, and its first bank examiners are being trained. Meanwhile, the office softball team has compiled a 2-3 record.
Above all, an institutional culture is emerging, and it is largely loyal to Warren and her idea of what the agency should be.
She has attracted several top hires from outside the federal government. The bureau's chief operating officer, Catherine West, was
previously president of Capital One; its head of research, Sendhil Mullainathan, is a behavioral economist and star Harvard professor;
the chief of enforcement, Richard Cordray, is the former attorney general of Ohio; Raj Date, her deputy and head of the bureau's
Research, Markets and Regulation Div., is a former banker at Capital One and Deutsche Bank. Warren, whose reputation as a scholar
rests on her pioneering use of bankruptcy data, has imbued the place with her faith in quantitative analysis. Researchers she recruited
and hired have begun to build the bureau's database of financial information, with a broad mandate to keep track of lending markets
and find ways to make financial information more easily digestible.
While Washington bickers, Warren has built the CFPB largely to her specs and almost entirely free of interference from Congress
and the Administration, which devotes most of its attention to fixing the economy. Few Cabinet secretaries can claim to have left
as indelible a mark on the departments they lead as Elizabeth Warren has already left on the one she doesn't.
The CFPB's main offices are on two floors of a russet-colored office building a few blocks northwest of the White House. The government-gray
cubicles and hallways spill over with new hires -- many of them young -- working 12- and 14-hour days elbow to elbow, pale and exuding
a dogged cheerfulness that suggests that, no, they do not miss the sun. By the elevator bank is a calendar counting down the days
until July 21.
Ten years ago, before she became a liberal icon, Warren was a popular Harvard professor known for taking a maternal interest in
the students she chose as research assistants. She was famous, but only in the small corner of academia that cared about bankruptcy.
"In my opinion she is the best bankruptcy scholar in the country," says Samuel Bufford, a law professor at Penn State who got to
know Warren decades ago as a bankruptcy judge in California's Central District.
Work Warren did with Jay Westbrook, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and Teresa Sullivan, a sociologist who
is now president of the University of Virginia, reshaped the scholarly understanding of bankruptcy. Analyzing thousands of filings
and interviewing many of the debtors themselves, they found that those who go bankrupt weren't, as commonly assumed, primarily poor
or financially reckless. A great many of them were solidly middle class and had been driven to bankruptcy by circumstances they did
not choose or could not control: the loss of a job, a medical disaster, or a divorce. The explosion in consumer credit in recent
decades had only exacerbated the situation -- almost without realizing it, households could now slide faster and further into debt
than ever before.
Warren, Westbrook, and Sullivan all saw their bankruptcy findings as a window into the broader travails of the financially fragile
middle class. More than her co-authors, though, Warren sought a larger audience for the message. In 2003, along with her daughter,
Amelia Warren Tyagi, she wrote The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke , a book that combined
arguments about the political and economic forces eroding middle-class financial stability with practical advice about how households
could fight them. The language was sharper than in her academic work: "Subprime lending, payday loans, and the host of predatory,
high-interest loan products that target minority neighborhoods should be called by their true names: legally sanctioned corporate
plans to steal from minorities," Warren and Tyagi wrote.
The book got attention and Warren became a frequent TV guest. She was invited to give speeches and sit on panels on bankruptcy
and debt. She was a regular on comedian Al Franken's radio show on the now defunct Air America network. "She's quite brilliant. She
was always just an excellent guest," recalls Franken, now a Democratic U.S. Senator from Minnesota. "She has a very good sense of
humor."
In 2003, Warren attended a fundraiser in Cambridge for Barack Obama, then running for U.S. Senate. When she walked up to shake
his hand, he greeted her with two words: "predatory lending." As a senator, Obama would occasionally call Warren for her thoughts,
though the two never became close.
It was the financial crisis that made Warren a star. In November 2008, in a nod to her growing reputation as a consumer advocate,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chose Warren to chair the congressional panel overseeing the TARP financial rescue program. The
reports she helped produce over the next two and a half years and the hearings she helped lead gave the panel a higher profile than
even its creators had predicted, as she articulated concerns that many Americans had about the wisdom of a massive Wall Street bailout.
In perhaps her most famous moment, Warren grilled Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on AIG's share of the aid money and how it
was that so much of it had ended up simply reimbursing the investment banks the insurer owed money.
Warren used her role on the panel, and the newfound visibility it gave her, to push for her agency. She worked the idea into a
special report the committee released in January 2009, among a list of recommendations to head off fut ure financial crises. She
wrote op-ed pieces, was on TV constantly, and met with at least 80 members of Congress. She also brought the idea to the Administration.
Over a long lunch at an Indian restaurant in Washington, she pitched the concept to White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers,
whom she knew from his tenure as Harvard's president. Inside Treasury, the idea was taken up by Michael Barr, a key architect of
Dodd-Frank and a lawyer Warren had known for years. At least within the White House, Barr recalls, it wasn't hard to build support.
"I think there was a general consensus that built pretty quickly that this was a good option," he says. "I didn't get any significant
pushback on the idea." Barr's inside advocacy, combined with Warren's PR blitz, paid off. In June 2009, Obama released a "white paper"
laying out his own financial regulatory proposals, and Warren's agency was in it.
Among the CFPB staff there is a strongly held belief that they have the opportunity not only to reshape an industry but reinvent
what a government agency can be, to rescue the idea of bureaucracy from its association with sclerosis and timidity. People there
emphasize that they are creating a 21st century agency. Still, there's a throwback Great Society feel to the place, with its faith
in the abilities of very smart unelected administrators, armed with data, to iron out the inefficiencies and injustices of the world.
"Nobody looks at consumer finance regulation as it existed over the past decade and says, 'Yeah, that seemed to work all right, let's
do more of that,' " says Raj Date, a square-jawed 40-year-old who speaks in the confident, numbers-heavy parlance of Wall Street.
Regardless of whether the CFPB has a director by its July 21 "transfer date," there are certain things it will immediately begin
to do. One is to send teams of examiners into banks and credit unions to make sure they are complying with existing consumer finance
regulations. When the bureau is fully staffed up -- initially, it will have some 500 employees and an annual budget of around $500
million -- a majority of the people who work there will be examiners. The bureau has only supervisory power over banks with assets
of more than $10 billion, though the rules it writes will still apply to smaller banks. Banks on the low end of the scale will see
a team of examiners for a few weeks every two years, unless there are specific complaints to investigate. Most of the biggest banks,
those with assets of $100 billion and up, will have CFPB examiners in residence year-round. The examiners will go to work parsing
the terms of mortgages and other loans, searching for evidence of consumer harm. They'll look at how the products are marketed and
sold to make sure it's done transparently, that costs and fees are disclosed up front.
What the bureau will not be able to do without a director is send its examiners into nonbank financial institutions. Dodd-Frank
gives the CFPB jurisdiction over payday lenders, check cashers, mortgage brokers, student loan companies, and the like. Because this
is an expansion of regulatory powers, it will not take effect until a permanent director is in place.
The bureau is less willing to discuss the specifics of what will happen when it finds evidence of wrongdoing. The press office
refused to make the head of enforcement, Richard Cordray, available for an interview. Like other enforcement agencies, the CFPB will
have a variety of measures at its fingertips: It will be able to give firms a talking-to, or issue so-called "supervisory guidance"
papers on problematic financial products. It will be able to send cease-and-desist orders. And if all else fails, the bureau will
be able to take offenders to court.
The CFPB will also have broad rule-making powers over everything from credit-card marketing campaigns to car loan terms to the
size of bank overdraft fees. For now, it has confined itself to initiatives less likely to arouse wide opposition among financial
firms. The major one at the moment is developing a clear, simple, two-page mortgage form that merges the two confusing ones borrowers
now confront. Bureau staff met with consumer advocates and mortgage brokers last fall, then put up two versions of a possible new
form on the bureau's website, where consumers were invited to leave critiques. About 14,000 people weighed in. The forms are now
being shown to focus groups around the country. A new version is due out in August.
This lengthy process is meant to demonstrate the bureau's commitment to a sort of radical openness to counter accusations that
it's a body of unaccountable bureaucrats. In another gesture, Warren's calendar is posted on the website so that anyone can see who
has a claim on her time. The undeniable sense among bureau staffers that they are political targets tempers that commitment to transparency
a bit. The press office is jittery about allowing reporters to talk to staff on the record, and Warren agreed to two interviews on
the condition that Bloomberg Businessweek allow her to approve quotes before publication.
If the supervision and enforcement division is the long arm of the bureau, its eyes and brain will be Research, Markets and Regulations,
headed by Raj Date. Teams of analysts will follow various markets -- credit cards, mortgages, or student loans -- to spot trends
and examine new products. Economists and other social scientists on staff will help write financial disclosure forms that make intuitive
sense. The benefits of this sort of work, Date argues, will extend beyond just protecting consumers. It will help spot signs of more
systemic risks. If the bureau and its market research teams had been in place five years ago, he says, they would have spotted evidence
of the coming mortgage meltdown and could have coordinated with the bureau's enforcement division to head it off. "If it was someone's
job to be in touch with the marketplace and monitor what was going on," Date says, "it would have been very difficult not to notice
that three different kinds of mortgages had gone from nothing to a very surprising share of the overall marketplace in the span of,
honestly, like three years."
Were it not for a head of prematurely gray hair, Patrick McHenry could still pass for the college Republican he once was. Elected
to Congress from North Carolina seven years ago at age 29, he speaks through an assiduous smile and arches his eyebrows as he listens
-- furrowing them quizzically at arguments he disagrees with. In late May, McHenry assumed the role of Warren's chief antagonist
in Congress. At an oversight hearing he was chairing, McHenry accused Warren of misleading Congress about whether she had given advice
to Treasury and Justice Dept. officials who were investigating companies for mortgage fraud. McHenry said she had concealed her conversations.
Warren insisted she had disclosed them.
The hearing then took a bizarre turn. McHenry called for a recess so members of the committee could go to the House floor for
a vote. Warren replied that she had agreed to testify for an hour and could not stay any longer. "Congressman, you are causing problems,"
she said. "We had an agreement." Offended, McHenry shot back: "You're making this up, Ms. Warren. This is not the case." Warren's
response, an outraged gasp, was played on cable news.
In a conversation a month later in his Capitol Hill office, McHenry is eager to emphasize that his problem is not with Warren,
but with the bureau itself. That's not to say he feels he has anything to apologize for. "I've asked questions of a litany of Administration
officials from Democrat and Republican Administrations, and I've never seen an action by any witness like I saw that day," he says.
Like most congressional Republicans -- and a broad array of business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the Financial
Services Roundtable, and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions -- McHenry opposed the creation of the CFPB and voted
against Dodd-Frank. At the time, the bureau's opponents argued that its seemingly noble goals would not only hurt financial firms
-- depriving them of the ability to compensate for risky borrowers by charging higher interest rates -- they would also hurt borrowers.
The prospect of limits on the sort of rates and fees they could charge would cause banks and payday lenders alike to lend less and
to not lend at all to marginal borrowers at a time when the economy needed as much credit as it could get.
Where it's not actively harmful, McHenry argues, the bureau will be redundant. If there's fraud or deceptive marketing in the
consumer lending market, the federal government can prosecute it through the Federal Trade Commission. Clearer mortgage forms are
all well and good, but Congress can take care of that, he says, noting that he introduced legislation for a simpler mortgage form
three years ago. In response to arguments like these, Warren simply points to the record of those existing regulators: the Fed and
the Housing & Urban Development Dept. have haggled over a simpler mortgage form for years. As for fears that the bureau will cap
the interest rates companies can charge, she notes that Dodd-Frank explicitly prevents it from doing that.
Warren has been uncharacteristically tightlipped about her own ambitions. She refuses to say whether she even wants the job and
has never publicly expressed a desire for it. In a way, the White House may do her a favor by not nominating her. If the President
decides to go with a compromise candidate to appease Republicans, she will be spared the indignity of being tossed aside. She can't
be said to have lost a job she was never offered.
Yet Warren gives the distinct impression that she will not suffer long if the President passes her over. Harvard has more than
its share of celebrity professors who have gone to Washington and returned. The experience could also lead to a different kind of
life in politics: Democrats in Massachusetts have been urging her to come home to run for Senate against Republican Scott Brown.
There would be books to write, television appearances to make, and, who knows, maybe a show of her own. And whatever happens, she
will get to tell the second half of the story of how she started a government agency. Whether the story ends with her confirmation
or being driven from town, it's almost certain that the character of Elizabeth Warren will come out looking just fine.
( Corrects the year Elizabeth Warren moved to Washington to work at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau )
I grew up watching and loving Colbert. Over the last few years I have not really liked him
or his views, but still had a sot spot in my heart for him. This interview makes me never
want to even watch another clip of his again. I felt disgust and anger after watching his
interrogation of Tulsi.
I have never before heard a politician give a straight yes or no answer to a direct
question and follow through with, "in my opinion". She is fantastic.
What Tulsi should point out is that we created the vacuum in the first place. If we had
not intervened there would be no power vacuum for China or Russia to fill. The first rule of
getting out of a hole: stop digging
China is going to become the worlds biggest super power because they're playing the long
game. Although you can say their building is a "debt trap" it's still business deals that the
other countries need and it's not like we Americans dont use credit cards and are in a bunch
of debt.
The US keeps losing trust in the world because of how we've gone about things. We
need someone like Tulsi to gain that trust back and actually do good in the world
Great video as usual. Stephen Colbert is a total disgrace and surprisingly really stupid.
However, it doesn't matter if Tulsi doesn't win the presidency in 2020. What is most
important is she becomes a part of Sander's team so that she can put a stop to the crazy US
military ambition.
Tulsi is perfect as the Sec of State. She can be the president a few years
into a Sanders presidency. Her time is not in 2020, but in 2024 or 2028. Her support will
grow over time.
Foreign policy is no longer controlled by the President of the USA. It is controlled by the Deep state.
This article is from 2015 but can easily be written about Trump administration
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis communautaire). ..."
"... First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state" officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way? ..."
"... In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe, while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule". ..."
"... Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently in Ukraine. ..."
"... Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all. ..."
"... Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant, ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. ..."
"... Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. ..."
"... Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine – Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. ..."
"... 'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'. ..."
"... "We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED] ..."
Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy... European
democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
The avalanche of commentary since the Ukrainian crisis erupted a year ago has overshadowed any reflections on the immense forgone
benefits (technically speaking, the "opportunity cost") of what might have been if Washington had been working for peace and stability
instead of war and chaos.
Imagine the following: After the unraveling of the Communist bloc, Europe, in partnership with the US, had forged a new security
system in which Russia was treated as a valued and equal partner – one whose interests were respected. Russia, decimated by a century
of wars and Communist imperialism, would doubtless have eagerly reciprocated in kind. Most countries of the former Soviet Union would
have then proceeded to build a new Eurasian structure of which Russia would have served as the natural umbrella, given its long-standing
interaction with the region's diverse nations and cultures.
Indeed, as Putin himself had proposed in his visionary October 2011 article, the Eurasian Union could have become one of the
pillars of a huge harmonized economic area stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and based on the EU's single-market rules (acquis
communautaire).
The rising Far Eastern economic powerhouse, with the world's most populous country, China, at its centre, would have linked up
with the world's largest economy (the EU). An enormous Eurasian production and financial bloc would have been created – one that
drew primarily on secure supplies of Russian energy and other natural resources. Untold investment opportunities would have opened
up in Siberia and Russia's Far East as well as in Central Asia. Hundreds of millions of people in Eurasia and elsewhere would have
been lifted out of poverty. And, not least, the EU would have been refashioned as an integral part of the dynamic trans-Eurasian
economy (rather than as a German-centred empire, as appears to be the case today), thereby making a major contribution to overcoming
the ongoing global economic depression.
All of this was not to be, however. Why not? First and foremost, because the self-proclaimed "exceptional" power (actually, a
mere "outlying island" in the Atlantic, according to the founder of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder) and its dysfunctional "deep-state"
officialdom did not want it to be. How could they have permitted such a thing? How could they have allowed other countries to
get on with improving the lives of their citizens without being obliged to seek Washington's approval every step of the way?
European democracy is threatened by US, not Russian, foreign policy
In order to make sure that they were not side-lined, the US elites had to intervene. The Western propaganda machine started
churning out all sorts of nonsense that Putin is a new Hitler who is bent on restoring the Soviet empire and who is bullying Europe,
while continuing to bang on about his "increasingly autocratic rule".
Deadly attacks by chauvinistic proxies were launched on the Russophone people in South Ossetia, Georgia in 2008 and more recently
in Ukraine.
And in what is eerily reminiscent of Stalinist "bloc discipline", the EU/NATO nomenclature was ordered to implement the absurd
strategy of severing the Russian economy from the EU. For their part, the cowering Eurocrats willingly obliged by imposing sanctions
on Russia that, perversely, have had a negative impact on their own economies (but, let it be stressed, not that of the US). No questions
raised and no public debate on the wisdom of such a strategy permitted.
Stuck in an Orwellian nightmare, Europe has to demonstrate its unfailing loyalty to Big Brother and go along with the view
that Russia, an intrinsic and valuable part of the European mainstream both historically and culturally, represents universal evil
and that the Earth will not be safe until the Federation has been dismembered and Putinism wiped out once and for all.
This abuse and humiliation of Europe is unparalleled. The continent that gave the world the wonders of the Antiquity, modern democracy,
the industrial revolution and what is arguably the greatest tradition of philosophy, fine arts and classical music is being bullied
by its oversized offspring. Having self-destructed in two world wars, it has become an easy and even willing prey to an arrogant,
ignorant and power-drunk predator that has never experienced the hardships and horrors that Europe has. War and extermination
camps are etched into the European DNA. America "knows" about them only from afar – and, not least, from the Hollywood entertainment
industry.
Even more terrifying, intellectually third-rate Washington viceroys such as Victoria Nuland and the freelancing armchair warrior
Senator McCain are allowed to play God with our continent. The so-called European "leaders" are colluding with them in plunging
Europe into the abyss and thereby risking nuclear confrontation.
America, too, is a loser
But this is not just a tragedy for Europe and Eurasia. We are also witnessing the wilful misrule of America and, by default, of
the entire West. Indeed, Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy. The
"democracy-promoters" running Washington's foreign-policy apparatus apparently do not understand that America has nothing to lose
and a lot to gain from the Eurasian economic project: the rising tide of global economic welfare would lift everyone's boats, including
its own. Why should it matter to Washington if the rising tide comes from other quarters beyond its control?
Indeed, the damage extends beyond the economy. By aligning with the forces of chaos – such as chauvinistic extremists in Ukraine
– Washington and its Euro-vassals are corrupting the moral (and intellectual) core of the West. If it continues to support such
forces against Russia, united Europe will lose not only its backbone but its very soul. The moral consequences of this loss will
be enormous and could lead to the precipitous erosion of Western democracy.
The 'autocrats' want to work with the West, not against it
US and EU leaders believe that the Russian and Chinese "autocrats" are out to destroy the West because the latter hate freedom
(as George W. Bush might have put it). And hence, they argue, the autocrats must be stopped in their tracks. The simple truth is
that Western leaders are too blinkered to understand that far from desiring to destroy the West, Russia and China want it to prosper
so that they can work with it to everyone's benefit. Having enjoyed a privileged position over several centuries and having attained
unprecedented prosperity in recent decades, the West simply cannot understand that the rest of humanity has no interest in fomenting
the "clash of civilizations" but rather craves peace and stability so that it can finally improve its economic lot.
Perhaps, however, all is not yet lost. It is still possible that reason – and economic forces – will prevail and force the West
to correct the errors of its ways. What we need, perhaps, more than ever is the ability to step out of the box, question our fundamental
assumptions (not least about Russia and China) and find the courage to change policies that have proved disastrous. After all, critical
thought, dispassionate analysis and the ability to be open to new ideas is what made the West so successful in the past. If we are
to thrive once again in the future, we must resurrect these most valuable and unsurpassed assets.
What I cannot understand is the naive belief that elected politicians would act in the interests of those whom they represent.
Under what other circumstances do we see human beings act with disinterested altruism? So why would a bunch of people who have
been ruthlessly selected for selfishness, arrogance, and callousness - a bunch of carefully chosen psychopaths, if you will -
behave in that way?
'My Ph.D. dissertation chairman, who became a high Pentagon official assigned to wind down the Vietnam war, in answer to
my question about how Washington gets Europeans to always do what Washington wants replied: "Money, we give them money." "Foreign
aid?" I asked. "No, we give the European political leaders bagfuls of money. They are for sale. We bought them. They report to
us." Perhaps this explains Tony Blair's $50 million fortune one year out of office'.
- Paul Craig Roberts
jabirujoe
"Washington is betraying the best interests of the American people through its current foreign policy".
Not only it's foreign policy but it's domestic policy as well. Let's call it for what it really is. The Wall Street/Corporate
policy which is the driving force behind behind everything the US does
Toddrich
"We, the [CENSORED] people, control America and the Americans know it." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
"When we're done with the U.S. it will shrivel up and blow away." -- Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of [CENSORED]
The welfare or future of the American people are not part of the equation.
Trump betrayed all and every of his main election promises, except may be building the wall. For example "Trump said that
he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse."
Notable quotes:
"... Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks to his view, it means a big political change in Washington's EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed. ..."
It also remains to be seen how the Oligarchy will respond to Trump's victory. Wall Street and
the Federal Reserve can cause an economic crisis in order to put Trump on the defensive, and they
can use the crisis to force Trump to appoint one of their own as Secretary of the Treasury. Rogue
agents in the CIA and Pentagon can cause a false flag attack that would disrupt friendly relations
with Russia. Trump could make a mistake and retain neoconservatives in his government.
With Trump there is at least hope. Unless Trump is obstructed by bad judgment in his appointments
and by obstacles put in his way, we should expect an end to Washington's orchestrated conflict
with Russia, the removal of the US missiles on Russia's border with Poland and Romania, the end
of the conflict in Ukraine, and the end of Washington's effort to overthrow the Syrian government.
However, achievements such as these imply the defeat of the US Oligarchy. Although Trump defeated
Hillary, the Oligarchy still exists and is still powerful.
Trump said that he no longer sees the point of NATO 25 years after the Soviet collapse. If he sticks
to his view, it means a big political change in Washington's EU vassals. The hostility toward Russia
of the current EU and NATO officials would have to cease. German Chancellor Merkel would have to
change her spots or be replaced. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would have to be dismissed.
We do not know who Trump will select to serve in his government. It is likely that Trump is unfamiliar
with the various possibilities and their positions on issues. It really depends on who is advising
Trump and what advice they give him. Once we see his government, we will know whether we can be hopeful
for the changes that now have a chance.
If the oligarchy is unable to control Trump and he is actually successful in curbing the power
and budget of the military/security complex and in holding the financial sector politically accountable,
Trump could be assassinated.
Trump might still win the re-election: you can't underestimate the US voters. After all they reelected George W Bush and
Barack Obama for the second term.
Notable quotes:
"... This political paradox stems from the seeming inevitability of this president leaving his constituency high and dry through political incompetence, behavioral incontinence, an inability to maintain a focus on anything, and an incapacity to think or act coherently. His presidency so far has been characterized by political failure, and it's going to get worse before the end of his term, by which point the voters will have expelled him from the White House. ..."
"... Trump's great political feat was that he opened up a new fault line in politics: the elites of the coasts versus the heartland masses; the globalist upper crust versus the nationalist middle; anti-working class liberalism versus conservative populism. In truth, this fault line was already there, roiling American politics just beneath the surface. But Trump had the instincts to see what just about everyone else missed -- that these subterranean angers could be pulled up and harnessed into an electoral coalition that could win the White House. ..."
"... The operative word here is "instincts," for it was clear that Trump operated only on the surface of things. He lacked the thinking skills and even the vocabulary to go any deeper. ..."
"... And so the die is probably cast. Trump will be a one-term president. The Democratic Party will take over. ..."
"... Trump's inability to forge a governing coalition and his ongoing uncouth behavior have accreted his constituency, as manifest in those persistently lackluster approval numbers. The result is that those Trump voters hoping for a new direction won't get it from this president. He is in the process of letting them down. The eventual winners will be the anti-Trump Democrats. ..."
"... Trump's 88% of Republicans gets him to about 25% of the popular vote. Depending on the map, he needs somewhere between 45-55 percent to win. So before you finish laughing yourself to death, better ask yourself where that 20-30 percent is coming from. Tell you this much. It aren't coming from me or most of the other 2016 Trump voters I know. We're sick of him. ..."
"... But yeah, he has been co-opted by the neocon/neoliberal foreign policy wackos. ..."
"... I voted for Trump in 2016. I'm a middle aged STEM worker. A "coder". Trump said it would be "Buy American , Hire American" from here on out. And I did my part. I buy American-made whenever I can, and I avoid places that hire immigrants. I was pretty good at my job and made decent middle class money until 2008. I hoped Trump would turn things around. I thought Trump would cancel the H-1B program, but he kept it going, and then he raised the limits on how many foreigners could be hired. ..."
"... "Just wait till the tariff and tax-cut for the 1% caused Recession hits. The Trump voters will get what they richly deserve in the form of layoffs, diminishing purchasing power, and ultimate replacement by automation and immigrants." ..."
"... I think Trumps election was actually the tipping point to the great crash that was inevitably coming. ..."
"... We are $21Trillion in debt. That debt will have to be repaid, or written off. I suspect it will be written off, however that happens. Either way, the disruptions introduced to the world's economies will be horrific. The economic collapse will put everything into total chaos. How long is the question. ..."
"... Our situation is analogous to two families loading up their credit cards and then declaring bankruptcy. Family One blew it all on vacations, and had nothing to show for their profligacy. Family Two improved their house, bought cars, tools, washing machines, and everybody got college degrees. Family One had nothing after bankruptcy. Family Two kept their stuff. Both suffered until they were forgiven by the capital markets (which capital markets always do because they exist to lend money). ..."
His incompetence and incoherence guarantees that he'll be a one-term president.
The
saddest victims of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory, it now seems clear, are going to
be his voters. The greatest beneficiaries of that election are going to be his haters.
This political paradox stems from the seeming inevitability of this president leaving his
constituency high and dry through political incompetence, behavioral incontinence, an inability
to maintain a focus on anything, and an incapacity to think or act coherently. His presidency
so far has been characterized by political failure, and it's going to get worse before the end
of his term, by which point the voters will have expelled him from the White House.
That will be bad news for those who voted for Trump in 2016. They correctly saw in him an
unconventional politician willing to talk about national problems that the country's ruling
classes wanted to ignore or finesse. Trump put forth a distinct political outlook that couldn't
be found anywhere else within either party (although Bernie Sanders also offered an
unconventional narrative of the American plight).
Trump's great political feat was that he opened up a new fault line in politics: the elites
of the coasts versus the heartland masses; the globalist upper crust versus the nationalist
middle; anti-working class liberalism versus conservative populism. In truth, this fault line
was already there, roiling American politics just beneath the surface. But Trump had the
instincts to see what just about everyone else missed -- that these subterranean angers could
be pulled up and harnessed into an electoral coalition that could win the White
House.
The operative word here is "instincts," for it was clear that Trump operated only on the
surface of things. He lacked the thinking skills and even the vocabulary to go any deeper. But
it is below the surface where the great political battles are waged. That's where coherent
arguments and narratives are pieced together. It's where politicians craft the language they
need to communicate effectively with the people. It's where coalitions are galvanized.
Trump can't get there. That's one reason he repeats himself so often. After making a bold
statement, other politicians elaborate on it, hold it up to the light for illumination, offer
explanatory language, parse the complexities. Trump can't do that, so he merely says the same
thing over and over again. That contributes also to the ham-handed way he deals with political
and diplomatic challenges, even highly delicate ones.
But it takes more sophistication than that to build a governing coalition -- a body of
favorable sentiment from various population segments that forces other politicians to take
notice and tread carefully in opposition. Trump's approval ratings, based on composite
calculations by the FiveThirtyEight and Real Clear Politics websites, remains stuck around 42
to 44 percent, far below what history tells us is necessary for reelection.
Fred Barnes, writing
inThe Weekly Standard , correctly notes that the midterm elections demonstrated
that Trump "has real-life reelection trouble." He adds that millions of voters expressed their
disdain for Trump in the congressional balloting, brushing aside the president's achievements
on taxes, judges, and deregulation. This showed "how strongly they felt about his personal
behavior." Worse, says Barnes, Trump doesn't appear to understand this, as reflected in his
suggestion that defeated Republican House members could have survived had they more avidly
accepted his "embrace."
Barnes hypothesizes that there's still time for a Trump recovery. The idea that he can't
change, says the conservative commentator, is "ridiculous." Perhaps. But there's also no
evidence that he wants to change in significant ways or that he could even if he wanted to.
And so the die is probably cast. Trump will be a one-term president. The Democratic Party
will take over.
The result will be ever-greater frustration on the part of those who voted for Trump --
nearly 63 million Americans -- because he dared to herald border security as a paramount
national imperative, to press for trade "reciprocity" in the interest of the working class, to
assault the American foreign policy establishment, to question the prevailing (inherently
unstable) global order, to advocate tax reductions and deregulation, and to embrace judicial
conservatism.
All that will be reversed or undone under the succeeding Democratic presidency. In the
meantime, Trump himself has already reversed his campaign stance regarding the country's
foreign policy, having installed Mike Pompeo as secretary of state and John Bolton as national
security adviser -- men who personify the prevailing establishment outlook of hegemonic
liberalism.
Thus, because of Trump's political and leadership shortcomings, Trump voters will see their
hopes of a new direction for America trampled and thwarted.
Resurgent Democrats naturally will do all they can to stamp out Trumpism -- on immigration
policy, taxes, trade, regulation, global thinking, and much else. The party is lurching towards
a tight embrace of European-style democratic socialism and doubling down on identity politics.
It evinces no apparent interest in a rapprochement with the working class. It seems
increasingly comfortable as the party of racial minorities, immigrants, Millennials,
highly-educated whites -- and, as political analyst Ron Brownstein put it about Barack Obama's
2012 strategy, "just enough blue-collar Midwestern whites to put the president over the
top."
Hillary Clinton, unlike Barack Obama, didn't get "just enough" of those blue-collar
Midwestern whites to capture the presidency in 2016. That's because Donald Trump brilliantly
pulled them under the GOP banner. But Trump's inability to forge a governing coalition and his
ongoing uncouth behavior have accreted his constituency, as manifest in those persistently
lackluster approval numbers. The result is that those Trump voters hoping for a new direction
won't get it from this president. He is in the process of letting them down. The eventual
winners will be the anti-Trump Democrats.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author
most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century.
I don't regret my vote at all. He was the best choice. The matter was not taken lightly.
The end of the world has not occurred not has he made the world less safe.
He is not incompetent. He is however, not the political animal that DC expects. And in my
view that is a very very good start. A vote for this candidate was not a vote down a sewer.
It was a vote for the candidate who best reflected the views of the voters, even if there are
some issues with that is expressed.
He was astute enough to beat two very powerful political machines. He mistake is thinking
that would be enough or that eventually they would embrace him as one of their own -- I don't
believe that was ever the case.
He relied on the power structure to advance police when he first should have leaned on
voters.
He may not have done all that he promised, but I think he tried. No one else would even have
done that. I regard the reversals of his preferred policies to be the pragmatic decisions to
get the political backing he needed to survive. He got that backing, but it came at the cost
of giving them what they required in return. Whether it is even enough for his survival
remains to be seen. One thing that has become entirely clear that there is no stopping War,
Inc. That and financial vigorish are now the mainstays of the new economy the elites have
chosen for us ordinary Americans. As Trump said, it's a bad deal for the American people. But
when you stare into the swamp, the swamp stares back and it is a lot deeper than any single
man can wade through, even a thick-skinned self-assured maverick with the necessarily large
ego to take it on. I think it was a big mistake to fire antiwar populist Steve Bannon.
MM, short and easy answer: wishful thinking, just the permanent GOP majority some folks were
touting in 2004 --
Which lasted exactly two years.
Progressivism is a minority position counting maybe 30% of
the electorate under the broadest possible definition. That isn't going to grow to 60% any
time soon.
To be sure specific progressive positions (e.g., SSM or single payer healthcare)
may become generally accepted just as, say, women's suffrage did. But when that happens it
ceases to be progressive and becomes traditional instead.
@Mike Anderson : "With 88% Republican support, TRUMP is sure going to be a one termer!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA [etc]"
Party registration, per Gallup:
Democrat : 31%
Independent : 39%
Republican : 28%
In other words, Trump's 88% of Republicans gets him to about 25% of the popular vote.
Depending on the map, he needs somewhere between 45-55 percent to win. So before you finish
laughing yourself to death, better ask yourself where that 20-30 percent is coming from. Tell you this much. It aren't coming from me or most of the other 2016 Trump voters I know.
We're sick of him.
"There's no such thing at the federal level in the US as "absolute and permanent power".
Please review our history. The couple of times we had just one party didn't last that long
and nothing on the future is likely to change those dynamics."
JonF – I think that you missed my point: demographic change (i.e., replacing the
historic American nation with a Third-World majority via mass immigration) will
irreversibly change US politics. One-party rule is not our history; but it likely to
our future.
What I find hilarious is this incessant talk of demographic destiny that will put the Dems in
permanent control of government. How stupid. This claim presumes that immigrants will forever
vote democrat. Why? They tend to be more religious which gives them some favor with
conservatives. But more importantly, if they succeed and become wealthy many will drift to
the Republicans. After all "if I can come to this country dirt poor and make it big by virtue
of hard work then everybody else should too". If the Republicans were smart they would
embrace policies that allow for more class/wealth mobility. You want to make immigrants
permanent Democrat voters? Keep them poor.
I voted for Trump in 2016 and I will vote for him in 2020. His voters are very strong behind
him. This article is based on this author's dislike for the President. Like most Trump
haters, he doesn't use any of the facts because that would confuse him.
The true issue is the congress and entrenched bureaucracy that have no use for the People or
what is good for the country
The system was out to get him during the campaign and still is, unless one is accepted by the
game to play they cannot.
The system is beyond corrupt and evil. Sadly Trump is the only voice telling the truth
Because God now clearly hates this country -- for which He has all sorts of good reasons --
Trump will be re-elected. What happens after that, only God knows. But it won't be pretty. As
Jefferson said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
@Johann "Its the economy stupid. And the economy has benefited Trump voters overall. A list
of accomplishments that created more Trump voter jobs follows."
I voted for Trump in 2016. I'm a middle aged STEM worker. A "coder". Trump said it would
be "Buy American , Hire American" from here on out. And I did my part. I buy American-made
whenever I can, and I avoid places that hire immigrants. I was pretty good at my job and made
decent middle class money until 2008. I hoped Trump would turn things around. I thought Trump
would cancel the H-1B program, but he kept it going, and then he raised the limits on how
many foreigners could be hired.
The first few months after he was elected I got callbacks for
the first time in a long time, but as it became clear he was selling us out to Wall Street on
immigration and foreign worker visas, they ticked back down.
Yes, I'm employed at the moment,
but my life savings were eaten up by the long dry spell after the financial collapse, and I'm
making less in absolute terms now than ten years ago. I don't think this deficit-spending
driven economy can keep going much longer, and if we go into another downturn, which seems
likely, I don't know how we'll get through it.
Meantime, the immigrants keep coming, and Trump issues more and more work visas to
foreigners in the STEM fields that were supposed to be the future of American workers.
So I'm in no mood to be lectured about how grateful I should be to this SOB. He didn't
just fail to deliver on his core promises. He did the opposite. He paid off his rich
cronies.
Just wait till the tariff and tax-cut for the 1% caused Recession hits. The Trump voters will
get what they richly deserve in the form of layoffs, diminishing purchasing power, and
ultimate replacement by automation and immigrants.
Oh, and the environment will be trashed for your grandchildren, if any, but man, those four
(perhaps three) years of sticking it to the Libs sure was a great ride, wasn't it?
Regrettably, the rest of us will have to deal with the benighted America that Trump
supporters voted for.
"Just wait till the tariff and tax-cut for the 1% caused Recession hits. The Trump voters
will get what they richly deserve in the form of layoffs, diminishing purchasing power, and
ultimate replacement by automation and immigrants."
But his election slowed that process down. The events you reference are the result of some
thirty years plus of very careless market activity. The bailouts only prolonged what should
have been a full scale restructuring and easing on consumers, not just business.
Nothing has made adjusting to market forces more difficult for employment than "minimum
wage laws, which often do not reflect the actual economy of many communities.
"But his election slowed that process down. The events you reference are the result of
some thirty years plus of very careless market activity. The bailouts only prolonged what
should have been a full scale restructuring and easing on consumers, not just business."
Well sir, on this we almost agree. I think Trumps election was actually the tipping point
to the great crash that was inevitably coming.
We are $21Trillion in debt. That debt will have to be repaid, or written off. I suspect it
will be written off, however that happens. Either way, the disruptions introduced to the
world's economies will be horrific. The economic collapse will put everything into total
chaos. How long is the question.
Americans will either go the way of Greece at one extreme, Iceland at the other end of the
continuum, or somewhere in between.
Greece tried to satisfy the capital markets and burdened their citizens with onerous bills
and unemployment, guaranteeing capital markets would only collect pennies on the dollar.
Iceland said 'Screw you' to the capital markets, took the hit, and positioned their country
for growth. Now Iceland is prospering while Greece remains stagnant.
Even though we owe $21T, we still have lots of physical goods. Nobody from China is going
to come here and dig up the Brooklyn bridge and haul it back to Beijing.
Our situation is analogous to two families loading up their credit cards and then
declaring bankruptcy. Family One blew it all on vacations, and had nothing to show for their
profligacy. Family Two improved their house, bought cars, tools, washing machines, and
everybody got college degrees. Family One had nothing after bankruptcy. Family Two kept their
stuff. Both suffered until they were forgiven by the capital markets (which capital markets
always do because they exist to lend money).
America is Family One. Too bad we P****d away all that borrowed money on wars for the
neocons instead of bridges, highways, airports, hospitals, parks, etc. Oh wait, we did build
those things. In Afghanistan.
" . . . on this we almost agree. I think Trumps election was actually the tipping point to
the great crash that was inevitably coming."
excuse the delay, I thought I had responded to this.
I don't have any easy answers. I am not sure that Mr. trump can be held responsible for
the debt or the market crash -- certainly not as the sole cause.
When I think of what happened and no doubt may happen again, whether or not it will be the
result of the in appropriate actions of the financial community as previous incidents, I have
no idea. Given that there is no change in behavior or a change in the rules, I am ever
mindful of a comment made by a friend/acquaintance on the matter,
"Just wait until you see what we do next."
And I have to say, there was a matter of factness in the delivery , that was a tad
discomforting. When I consider my own debt, I am comforted by this,
if you want people to pay their bills it's probably a good idea not make up lies about
them, throw them in jail and then blacklist them from employment.
So goes the merry go round. While personally my personal conscience is bothered, I learned
that the game can be rigged by anyone and can be done as it suits without a lick of thought
to the long term consequences.
I have no intention of being politically correct or intimidated because connected people
get their feelings hurt because I call their ancestors traitors, or Texas have come to
understand that Texas has given us three presidents who have more loyalty to foreigners than
they do their own citizens. Given the bailouts, to those with most, and their congressional
pals --
I am just not intimated. I would hate to live in my car, but I have been there before. I
have learned it's a positive when the attacks get personal. I just consider my volunteer time
as having paid the matter with a 600x times refund for services rendered.
Because God now clearly hates this country -- for which He has all sorts of good reasons -- Trump will be re-elected. What happens
after that, only God knows. But it won't be pretty.
As Jefferson said: "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just."
Once again Tulsi Gabbard was smeared by War Friendly Agents this time it was The View's
Meghan McCain. Tulsi Gabbard explains her positions on a series of issues. #TulsiGabbard#TheView#TimBlackShow Pinned by
TBTV
Meghan McCain is a disgusting little Neocon warmonger who has been brought up in an elite
bubble she wouldn't have the guts or integrity to serve like Tulsi did. Tulsi handed this
with class.
For the record, I always cringe when Meghan McCain opens her mouth Anyone remember her
appearance on Bill Maher's show when she engaged Paul Begalla in a little debate on a
specific moment in history and she replied, "I wasn't born yet," and then Begalla immediately
stated, "I wasn't round during the French Revolution but I know about it"? Time to stop
employing the uninformed daughter of a deceased Senator, dontcha think? Especially one who is
so unmercifully unread.
The fact that Americans are still convinced the reasons they intervene in other countries
are humanitarian help and defending freedom and not economic or strategic reasons is
laughable. Get real, people, you are rarely the good guys. And no, the rest of the world do
not want you barging in and patronize them.
First time I've seen this beautiful intelligent compassionate lady named Tulsi. That
blonde haired land shark thinks she's smart because she has been allowed to masquerade as
some sort of respectable human for so long, she's just a fool even she's fooled by her own
foolishness
Damn! Tulsi Gabbard just gained my respect. She walked through minefield and came out
unscathed because she kept her composure and stuck to her beliefs. And she is right--Assad
has never threatened us!
hated the way Tulsi was attacked by these women there was literally hate on their faces
they were clearly biased unfortunate she had to be interviewed by them but kudos to her, she
answered every question and hell yes, there is vagueness in the green new deal Tulsi is
talking about environment since a long time now but there is suddenly a new deal and new
blood in Congress and all of a sudden ppl are noticing 'women' in Congress talking and making
valid points while women like Tulsi have been making their arguments and many valid points
w/o shouting
You're the only person that I've heard be honest enough to say that the Green New Deal is
just a framework. It is a starting point to a conversation. Thank you. Secondly, it is always
amazing to me when political Talking Heads say we can't pay for universal healthcare or free
higher education but are willing to fund regime changes in other countries. Willing to spend
unnegotiated billions of dollars and Wars and conflicts in other countries. Where's the sense
in that? And finally what would Meghan McCain have done had Hillary Clinton not accepted the
Electoral College results and declared herself president in the United States because she won
the popular vote? What would all of those Talking Heads and politicians have thought or done
at all had all of those voters marched against the White House and Congress to force Hillary
into the presidency? Hmmmm
wow. that was just wow. when she said "I am not someone who will go into the white house
and sit back and rely on the foreign policy establishment in Washington to tell me what to
do, I don't have to. I'm not intimidated by the stars that someone wears on their shoulders.
I am not intimidated by the military industrial complex and what they're pushing for." she
literally could have just dropped the mic. I bet the aforementioned military industrial
complex just peed themselves a little. This is why MSM and DNC hate her. And why we all love
her. I'm all in on #Tulsi2020 .
Hello, Mrs. Gabbard excuse my English which is my third language. I respect you so much,
I'm from Syrian, I live in SF you are the only one who really stood up for the Syrian people
by talking about the lies of the media toward my country, and also by meeting with The Syrian
President who is the legal representative of the Syrian people by election. You had the honor
to visit my country and saw the miserable situation caused by the war that was made and
supported by the US; please if you become the president end this war and end the suffer of
the Syrian people
99 year Old Mother, WWII ARMY Nurse Corp Vet on the Comfort when it was hit by a kamikaze,
"adores" you Tulsi. So moved when watching the CNN Town Hall. You are her hero!
I don't think I've ever seen a politician who I've listened to and said "This person, THIS
is the one I want to be our President. THIS is the one who will truly represent the people,
and lead this nation with a true vision and actually fight to do the things they say they
want to do". But when I see and hear Tulsi, I feel like I'm seeing just that, for maybe the
first time in my life.
Who should I support? An incredible woman who is a combat veteran with original ideas, or
a white skateboarder who pretends to be Latino and married a rich girl? #Tulsi2020
I was overwhelmed with so much warmth when I heard you speak, I swear I have never felt
this before. Thank You for all your hard work! No matter what happens, you have my full
support and my vote :)
I've been all in for Bernie but listening to Tulsi is equally if not more inspiring
given that her focus is on our insane interventionist foreign policy
No teleprompters, no notes, no platitudes or empty rhetoric. Calm and logical and
intelligent. No wonder the establishment is scared of her. GO TULSI!!!!
Elizabeth Warren had a good speech at UC-Berkeley. She focused on the middle class family balance sheet and risk shifting.
Regulatory policies and a credit based monetary system have resulted in massive real price increases in inelastic areas of demand
such as healthcare, education and housing eroding purchasing power.
Further, trade policies have put U.S. manufacturing at a massive disadvantage to the likes of China, which has subsidized
state-owned enterprises, has essentially slave labor costs and low to no environmental regulations. Unrestrained immigration policies
have resulted in a massive supply wave of semi- and unskilled labor suppressing wages.
Recommended initial steps to reform:
1. Change the monetary system-deleverage economy with the Chicago Plan (100% reserve banking) and fund massive infrastructure
lowering total factor costs and increasing productivity. This would eliminate
2. Adopt a healthcare system that drives HC to 10% to 12% of GDP. France's maybe? Medicare model needs serious reform but is
great at low admin costs.
3. Raise tariffs across the board or enact labor and environmental tariffs on the likes of China and other Asian export model
countries.
4. Take savings from healthcare costs and interest and invest in human capital–educational attainment and apprenticeships programs.
5. Enforce border security restricting future immigration dramatically and let economy absorb labor supply over time.
As I have said in other comments, I like Liz Warren a lot within the limits of what she is good at doing (i.e. not President)
such as Secretary of the Treasury etc. And I think she likes the media spotlight and to hear herself talk a little to much, but
all quibbling aside, can we clone her??? The above comment and video just reinforce "Stick to what you are really good at Liz!".
I am not a Liz Warren fan boi to the extent Lambert is of AOC, but it seems that most of the time when I hear Warren, Sanders,
or AOC say something my first reaction is "Yes, what she/he said!".
The column praises Elizabeth Warren. Leonhardt (like his colleague Paul Krugman) is careful
to refrain from declaring his intention to vote for her in the primary. I am planning to vote
for her. I mostly agreed with the column to begin with, but was not convinced by Leonard's
praise of Warren's emphasis on aiming for more equal pre-fiscal distribution of income rather
than just relying on taxes and transfers to redistribute.
In particular, I was not convinced by
This history suggests that the Democratic Party's economic agenda needs to become more
ambitious. Modest changes in the top marginal tax rate or in middle-class tax credits aren't
enough. The country needs an economic policy that measures up to the scale of our
challenges.
Here two issues are combined. One is modest vs major changes. The other is that
predistribution is needed in addition to redistribution, as discussed even more clearly
here
"Clinton and Obama focused on boosting growth and redistribution," Gabriel Zucman, a
University of California, Berkeley, economist who has advised Warren, says. "Warren is
focusing on how pretax income can be made more equal."
The option of a large change in the top marginal tax rate and a large middle class tax
credit isn't considered in the op-ed. I think this would be excellent policy which has
overwhelming popular support as measured by polls (including the support of a large fraction of
self declared Republicans). I note from time to time that, since 1976 both the Democrats who
have been elected president campaigned on higher taxes on high incomes and lower taxes on the
middle class (and IIRC none of the candidates who lost did).
After the jump, I will make my usual case. But first, I note Leonardt's excellent argument
for why "soak the rich and spread it out thin" isn't a sufficient complete market oriented
egalitarian program. It is phrased as a question.
"How can the next president make changes that will endure, rather than be undone by a future
president, as both Obama's and Clinton's top-end tax increases were?"
Ahh yes. High taxes on high income and high wealth would solve a lot of problems. But they
will be reversed. New programs such as Obamacare or Warren's proposed universal pre-K and
subsidized day care will not. Nor will regulatory reforms such as mandatory paid sick leave and
mandatory paid family leave. I am convinced that relatively complicated proposals are more
politically feasible, not because it is easier to implement them, but because it is very hard
to eliminate programs used by large numbers of middle class voters.
I'd note that I had already conceded the advantage of a regulatory approach which relies on
the illusion that the costs must be born by the regulated firms. Here I note that fleet fuel
economy standards are much more popular than increased gasoline taxes. One is a market oriented
approach. The other is one that hides behind the market as consumers don't know that part of
the price of a gas guzzler pays the shadow price of reducing fleet average milage.
OK my usual argument after the jump
It is unusual for me to disagree with Baker, Leonhardt, and (especially) Krugman. I am quite
sure that the Democratic candidate for president should campaign on higher taxes on the rich
and lower taxes for the non-rich.
To be sure, I can see that that isn't the only possible policy improvement. Above, I note
the advantages of hiding spending by mandating spending by firms and of creating entitlements
which are very hard for the GOP to eliminate. I'd add that we have to do a lot to deal with
global warming. Competition policy is needed for market efficiency. I think unions and
restrictions on firing without cause have an effect on power relations which is good in
addition to the effect on income distribution.
But I don't understand the (mildly) skeptical tone. I will set up and knock down some straw
men
1) Total straw -- US voters are ideological conservatives and operational liberals. They
reject soaking the rich, class war, and redistribution. To convince them to help the non rich,
one has to disguise what one is doing.
2) Extremely high marginal tax rates are bad for the economy. Here this is often conceded,
in particular by people arguing for modest increases in the top marginal tax rate. The claim is
not supported by actual evidence. In particular the top rate was 70% during the 60s boom.
3) High tax rates cause tax avoidance. This reduces efficiency and also means that they
don't generate the naively expected revenue. There is very little evidence that this is a huge issue . In
particular there was a huge increase in tax sheltering after the 1981 Kemp-Roth tax cuts and
reforms. It is possible to design a tax code which makes avoidance difficult (as shown by the
1986 Kemp-Bradley tax reform). It is very hard to implement such a code without campaigning on
soaking the rich and promoting class uh struggle.
4) More generally, redistribution does not work -- the post tax income distribution is not
equalized because the rich find a way. This is super straw again. All the international and
time series evidence points the other way.
I don't see a political or policy argument against a large increase in taxes on high incomes
(70% bracket starting at $400,000 a year) used to finance a large expansion of the EITC (so
most households receive it).
I think a problem is that a simple solution does not please nerds. I think another is that a
large fraction of the elite would pay the high taxes and it is easier to trick them into trying
to make corporations pay the costs.
First, whenever anybody (that I hear or read) talks about what to do with the revenue from
higher taxes on the rich, they always suggest this or that government program (education,
medical, housing). I always think of putting more money back in the pockets of my middle 59%
incomes to make up for the higher consumer prices they will have to pay when the bottom 40%
get unionized.
Of course the 59% can use that money to pay taxes for said government programs -- money is
fungible. But, that re-inserts an important element or dimension or facet which seems
perpetually forgotten (would not be in continental Europe or maybe French Canada).
Don't forget: predistribution goal = a reunionized labor market. Don't just look to Europe
for redistribution goals -- look at their predistribution too.
Bert Schlitz , March 17, 2019 10:14 pm
Nobody in the 60's that was taxed at a marginal 70% rate paid 70%. The top effective rate
was about 32-38%, which was far higher than today, but you get the point. The income tax code
was as much control of where investment would take place as much as anything ..Ronald Reagan
whined about this for years. Shove it grease ball. There was a reason why.
Redistribution won't work because the system is a debt based ponzi scheme. The US really
hasn't grown much since 1980, instead you have had the growth in debt.
You need to get rid of the federal reserve system's banks control of the financial system,
which they have had since the 1830's in terms of national control(from Hamilton's Philly,
which was the financial epicenter before that) and de Rothschild free since the 1930's(when
the bank of de Rothschild ala the Bank of England's reserve currency collapsed). Once we have
a debt free currency that is usury free, then you can develop and handle intense changes like
ecological problems ala Climate Change, which the modern plutocrats cannot and will not
solve.
They have been ramming debt in peoples face since 1950 and since 1980 it has gotten
vulgar. They know they are full of shit and can't win a fair game.
run75441 , March 18, 2019 6:09 am
Robert:
Would you agree a secure healthcare system without work requirements for those who can not
afford healthcare is a form of pre-distribution of income? Today's ACA was only a step in the
right direction and is being tampered with by ideologs to limit its reach. It can be improved
upon and have a socio-economic impact on people. Over at Medpage where I comment on
healthcare, the author makes this comment:
"Investing in improvements in patients' social determinants of health -- non-medical areas
such as housing, transportation, and food insecurity -- is another potentially big area, he
said. "It's a major opportunity for plans to position around this and make it real. The more
plans can address social determinants of health, [the more] plans can become truly
organizations dedicated to health as opposed to organizations dedicated to incurring medical
costs, and that to me is a bright future and a bright way to position the industry."
Many of the "social determinants of health" are not consciously decided by the patient and
are predetermined by income, social status or politics, and education. What is being said in
this paragraph makes for nice rhetoric and is mostly unachievable due to the three factors I
suggested. And yes, you can make some progress. People can make healthy choices once the
pre-determinants to doing so are resolved.
Another factor which was left dangling when Liebermann decided to be an ass is Long Term
Healthcare for the elderly and those who are no longer capable. Medicare is only temporary
and Medicaid forces one to be destitute. There is a large number of people who are
approaching the time when they will need such healthcare till death. We have no plans for
this tsunami of people.
The tax break was passed using Reconciliation. In 7-8 years out, there is a planned shift
in taxes to be levied on the middle income brackets to insure the continuamce of Trump's tax
break for the 100 or so thousand households it was skewed towards. If not rescinding the tax
break then it should be fixed so it sunsets as did Bush's tax break due to its budget
creating deficit. Someone running for the Pres position should be discussing this and
pointing out how Republicans have deliberately undermined the middle income brackets.
We should not limit solutions to just income when there are so many areas we are lacking
in today.
Mu $.02.
Robert Waldmann , March 18, 2019 4:47 pm
I guess I consider food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security old age pensions and
disability pensions to be redistribution. My distinction is whether it is tax financed.
Providing goods or services as in Medicare and food stamps seems to me basically the same as
providing cash as in TANF and old age pensions.
There is also a difference between means tested and age dependent eligiability, but I
don't consider it fundamental.
I assert that Medicare (especially plan B) is a kind of welfare basically like TANF and
food stamps.
(and look forward to a calm and tranquil discussion of that opinion).
run75441 , March 18, 2019 9:01 pm
Robert:
Medicare is 41% funded by general revenues. The rest comes from payroll taxes and
beneficiary premiums. Advantage plans cost more than traditional Medicare for providing the
same benefits and also extract a premium fee. I do not believe I have been mean to you. I
usually question to learn more. I am happy to have your input.
I am writing for Consumer Safety Org on Woman's healthcare this time and also an article
on the Swiss struggling to pay for cancer fighting drugs.
amazing, simply amazing. You need to watch this Town Hall in full to appreciate the skills she demonstrated in defense of
her principles. What a fearless young lady.
And this CNN warmonger, a prostitute of MIC was/is pretty devious. Question were selected with malice to hurt Tulsi and people who
ask them were definitely pre-selected with an obvious intent to smear Tulsi. In no way those were spontaneous question. This was a session
of Neocon//Neolib inquisition. Tulsi behaves like a modern Joan of Arc
From comments: "People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000
unique donors required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25"(mrfuzztone)
Notable quotes:
"... Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people are starting to get fed up with the show. About time ..."
"... WE CURRENTLY HAVE A CRONY CAPITALIST PYRAMID SCHEME AND CNN PLAYS IT'S PART TO KEEP THAT SYSTEM IN PLACE ..."
"... I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins. Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi. ..."
Braver then 99.9% of all men in power. They just enjoy watching the blood sports they create for profit. Looks like people
are starting to get fed up with the show. About time✌️ 😉
I'm 66, a Progressive formerly from Boston where we eat and breathe politics and I'll tell you... never in my life have
I seen a Democratic candidate like this fearless young woman who will simultaneously attract veterans AND anti-war folks AND moderate
Republicans AND youth. NO OTHER CANDIDATE CAN DO THIS. My absolute belief is that if Tulsi's not on the ticket... Trump wins.
Sorry Bernie, this time I'm going with Tulsi.
Tulsi handled these hacks like a pro LOOL Are you a capitalist? LOL What s stupid question.....CCN usually stacks there town
halls with corporate cronies. I bet Bernie picks her for a high position in his government.
People need to donate to Tulsi Gabbard for president so she is allowed on the DNC sponsored debate stages. 65000 unique donors
required to be in the debates. Donation can be as small as $1 if you can't afford $25.
Wow. The same people blaming "bernie bros" for Trump are gonna teach us a lesson by giving
us more of what they are mad about. Now, that's some "unity" for ya! #Bernie2020
Someone should send this clip to Sanders/Gabbard. Just have them play this on repeat
during their campaign so people will wake up to how awful America is if the people don't vote
correctly in 2020
"Of course it has to be reformed" yes, and how many times do we reform capitalism before
we realise that there's something intrinsically wrong with it?
The media and the establishment are focused on Trump and his personality. They don't want
to delve into the zeitgeist that allowed him to defeat two political dynasties. That's what
they should be focused on.
It's a similar zeitgeist that caused Brexit. That elected Salvini and 5 Star in Italy.
That's behind Gilets Jaunes who are now in their 18th week of protests in France. China going
more totalitarian by the day under Chairman Xi.
The Party of Davos have ruled for 40-50 years. We've got unprecedented wealth inequality.
We've got endless wars with no benefit for the Deplorables. All they have are opioids. More
dying of that than automobile accidents. Health care, tuition, rents all rising. A double
standard in tthe application of the law. Hypocrisy oozing from every pore of the ruling
elites. Bribing their way to elite colleges while espousing meritocracy.
Is this what Howe & Strauss mean by the Fourth Turning?
CNN is just mouthpiece for intelligence community and MIC
The question of a type "did you finished to beat your wife" are very difficult to ask. So how
skillfully Tulsi handled those "sinking" question comment her skills.
The problem with Jimmy Dore is he has some kind of mental block or is somehow completely
unaware of the reasons we bomb countries that are hostile to Israel and located right on
their border or at least near them. You also have to be completely unaware of the power of
the Jewish lobbies and their obvious bias towards their own interests to ignore Jews role in
promoting wars that benefit Israel. It's not the "military industrial complex" Jimmy, it's
who controls that complex. Jeff Zucker, the head of CNN is a Jew, that like Jake Tapper (also
a Jew) sees any destruction of Syria as beneficial to Israel. The neo-Con Max Boot was born
in Russia and still wants to bomb Russia because he's a Jew that doesn't want Putin
preventing Jewish controlled US from destroying Syria. I can level some similar criticism at
Jimmy that he levels at the mainstream media.
Boeing Co. tumbled early Monday on heightened scrutiny by regulators and prosecutors over
whether the approval process for the company's 737 Max jetliner was flawed.
A person familiar with the matter on Sunday said that the U.S. Transportation Department's
Inspector General was examining the plane's design certification before the second of two
deadly crashes of the almost brand-new aircraft.
Separately, the Wall Street Journal reported that a grand jury in Washington, D.C., on
March 11 issued a subpoena to at least one person involved in the development process of the
Max. And a Seattle Times investigation found that U.S. regulators delegated much of the plane's
safety assessment to Boeing and that the company in turn delivered an analysis with crucial
flaws.
Boeing dropped 2.8 percent to $368.53 before the start of regular trading Monday in New
York, well below any closing price since the deadly crash of Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 on
March 10. Ethiopia's transport minister said Sunday that flight-data recorders showed "clear
similarities" between the crashes of that plane and Lion Air Flight 610 last October.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration employees warned as early as seven years ago that
Boeing had too much sway over safety approvals of new aircraft, prompting an investigation by
Transportation Department auditors who confirmed the agency hadn't done enough to "hold Boeing
accountable."
The 2012 investigation also found that discord over Boeing's treatment had created a
"negative work environment" among FAA employees who approve new and modified aircraft designs,
with many of them saying they'd faced retaliation for speaking up. Their concerns pre-dated the
737 Max development.
In recent years, the FAA has shifted more authority over the approval of new aircraft to the
manufacturer itself, even allowing Boeing to choose many of the personnel who oversee tests and
vouch for safety. Just in the past few months, Congress expanded the outsourcing arrangement
even further.
"It raises for me the question of whether the agency is properly funded, properly staffed
and whether there has been enough independent oversight," said Jim Hall, who was chairman of
the National Transportation Safety Board from 1994 to 2001 and is now an aviation-safety
consultant.
Outsourcing Safety
At least a portion of the flight-control software suspected in the 737 Max crashes was
certified by one or more Boeing employees who worked in the outsourcing arrangement, according
to one person familiar with the work who wasn't authorized to speak about the matter.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the inspector general's latest inquiry. The watchdog
is trying to assess whether the FAA used appropriate design standards and engineering analysis
in approving the 737 Max's anti-stall system, the newspaper said.
Both Boeing and the Transportation Department declined to comment about that inquiry.
In a statement on Sunday, the agency said its "aircraft certification processes are well
established and have consistently produced safe aircraft designs," adding that the "737 Max
certification program followed the FAA's standard certification process."
The Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed minutes after it took off from Addis Ababa, killing all
157 people on board. The accident prompted most of the world to ground Boeing's 737 Max 8
aircraft on safety concerns, coming on the heels of the October crash of a Max 8 operated by
Indonesia's Lion Air that killed 189 people. Much of the attention focused on a flight-control
system that can automatically push a plane into a catastrophic nose dive if it malfunctions and
pilots don't react properly.
In one of the most detailed descriptions yet of the relationship between Boeing and the
FAA during the 737 Max's certification, the Seattle Times quoted unnamed engineers who said the
planemaker had understated the power of the flight-control software in a System Safety Analysis
submitted to the FAA. The newspaper said the analysis also failed to account for how the system
could reset itself each time a pilot responded -- in essence, gradually ratcheting the
horizontal stabilizer into a dive position.
Software Fix
Boeing told the newspaper in a statement that the FAA had reviewed the company's data and
concluded the aircraft "met all certification and regulatory requirements." The company, which
is based in Chicago but designs and builds commercial jets in the Seattle area, said there are
"some significant mischaracterizations" in the engineers' comments.
"... Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and only now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results. ..."
"... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ..."
"... "The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims, for over 70 years... " WARNING: Graphic Images ..."
"... Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble ... GOP and Democrat. ..."
"... The ruling comes after Senators on the Judiciary Committee asked that the DOJ open an investigation into the deal, which was offered at a time when Robert Mueller was running the FBI . ..."
"... I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again . The $wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed, etc.' ..."
Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and
only now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results.
While Trump has recently distanced himself from Epstein, a 64-year-old financier, it wasn't always that way.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, one of dozens of lawyers who successfully sued Epstein on behalf of roughly 30 women who claimed
he lured them to his Palm Beach mansion for sexually-charged massages when they were as young as 14, said he always found the
comment curious.
"How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came nearly
six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida charges
of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney asked.
Be nice if someone found the guest list because Bill Clinton wouldn't be able to kill that many people to cover it up. It'd
be sweet if they found evidence that Trump went, because he definitely did. He's probably the one to name it "Lolita Express."...no,
that was probably Bill.
"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." THE SAME can be said for
this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims,
for over 70 years... " WARNING:
Graphic Images
I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The
$wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become
'depressed, etc.'
I will further bet that JE has had adequate notice of all this to be getting out of the USA to Balfourstan - a non-extradition
country - ASAP.
As you dig into these stories, one singular theory emerges again and again: Sexual deviants and psychos have been groomed for
office because they are easier to blackmail and control.
"... Patronage by that soulless rat bastard Petraeus is certainly detrimental. They went for
Flynn with everything they had, Bannon is indeed next ... An isolated Trump with adversarial or
hidden agenda advisors would be easily rolled/influenced ... ..."
"... Dismayed by their insistence on using military force, John F. Kennedy said he would warn
his successor "to watch the generals and to avoid feeling that just because they were military
men their opinion[s] on military matters were worth a damn." ..."
"... But Lyndon Johnson needed no such advice, for like JFK, he had a disdain for the
military. "Johnson brought with him to the presidency a low opinion of the nation's top military
men and a long history of taking positions on military issues to enhance his political fortunes,"
says McMaster. ..."
"... Eisenhower's administration, in conjunction with the Dulles brothers in CIA & State,
was even more hawkish than Truman. ..."
"... Nuclear weapons increased from 1,000 to 22,000 and tactical nuclear weapons were
routinely deployed and considered 'conventional weapons' re possible usage from '53 onwards. The
JCS recommended and the NSC endorsed using nuclear weapons against China in '53 and Eisenhower
and Dulles communicated these threats to China. Under Eisenhower's NSC we overthrew Iran's
Mossadeq in '53 and Guatemala's Arbenz in '54 on behalf of the 'United Fruit Company', etc.
..."
"... For McMaster to champion Eisenhower's JCS/NSC over the Kennedy's efforts to de-escalate
nuclear Armageddon, is indicative of a rabid aggressive warhawk perspective. ..."
"... I've read elsewhere that in the early 1960's the US Mil wanted to (find a reason to)
launch a first strike on Russia because THEY KNEW that the US had an overwhelming advantage that
would dissipate over time. ..."
"... It will be interesting to see if Trump tries to regain the upper hand in this "battle"
and what that might entail. Until and unless Trump losses Bannon, he maintains the optics of a
threat to the neocon agenda. ..."
"... But since Trump is not a threat to those that own private finance of the world, what
does it matter? Pick your CON...... Is it neocon? or Trumpcon? ..."
"... I don't think Trump & Flynn were fooled into the resignation/departure. I think they
were responding to a real risk. ..."
"... Isn't it just a bit surreal that the entire Deep State Media (DSM) and most of the
military is seemingly chomping at bit for WW3? Can that be real? And why has this Oroville Dam
collapse of digital ink been spilled over global warming? Too much fluoride in the D.C. drinking
water? ..."
"... Even the putatively "liberal" documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has branded Donald
Trump a "Russian traitor" and has called for his impeachment for advocating good relations with
Russia! Some of his Tweets: ..."
"... Given that the strategy is to reign in China (the only way to get jobs back to the US),
the triad of Russia-China-Iran must first be broken. Iran is the current weak link. Break the
links to Iran, buy/intimidate Russia off support for China. This also fits Israeli interest so
will buy Trump time to put out other fires... but Flynn jumped the gun. ..."
"... In response Russia openly questions the motives of the new administration states it is
reconsidering if it can negotiate with Trump at all. Two days later Flynn resigns. Do not confuse
the announcement of the incident (14th - a day after Flynn resigns) with the timing of the event
(10th, two days before his resignation). ..."
"... If there is one thing Trump detests, it is signalling the opposition what your true
position really is. Same holds true with appointments, it is all smoke and mirrors, to confuse
while real deals are cut. ..."
"... When has war NOT been in the service of wealth? Is that not what war is for? To create
wealth in two ways: 1. by taking the wealth of others; 2. by creating a means by which surplus
can be destroyed in order to be replaced? ..."
"... So, the deep state wins ... the world loses. Where is Trump in all of this? It doesn't
matter ... and a real bloody revolution won't be enough. I truly can't wait until we provoke the
Russians or the Chinese into starting a war that ends with lots of good old life cleansing
mushrooms! ..."
"... yes, indeed. the pickings are slim. culling a more humane alternative from this gaggle
of shit-stained, blood-soaked scumbags seems like an exercise in futility to me. ..."
"... Could Pence have been threatening to resign if Flynn was not fired? ..."
"... Any interesting idea, but Trump immediately after Flynn's anti-Iran speach launched his
own anti-Iran tweetstorm. If anything, Flynn's speech might have been given in an effort to
appease the Neocons demanding his head. Keep in mind he must have known he was in trouble before
the rest of us did. ..."
"... Trump was viciously anti-Iran throughout his whole campaign, so nothing new there. It is
doubtful Russia did not long ago see the idea of splitting them from China and Iran. It was
talked about in the blogosphere for months. Russia was never going to be dumb enough to fall for
it, but probably didn't mind letting the US try. ..."
"... At Trump's stage of life he could have opted for luxurious retirement in splendid
isolation, but he's set himself one last challenge - to be the most famous person in History.
He's already halfway there and he hasn't even done anything startlingly POTUS-ish yet...
..."
"... He is not as "anti-Russian" as it may seem. After all, Flynn himself had very little
"love" for Russia and was merely a situational "ally", who understood, correctly, operational and
strategic limitations of US Armed Forces. ..."
"... Anti-Russian mantras today are more of a self-psychotherapy nature than of real desire
to fight Russia. Everybody in both militaries understand everything by now, but that is a totally
different story altogether. Once brand new Russian military doctrine was published couple of
years ago--many pieces of puzzle fell into their places. ..."
"... Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC: "Our job is to control exactly what people think . She's
annoyed that Trump is interfering with their doing that job. ..."
"... Trump was thinking of John Bolton, a neo-con for the job. He obviously wanted to get one
of them in his rank to better fight them. He also wanted to make a conciliatory gesture to the
hardline republicans. ..."
"... Reminds me a lot of the Reagan White House. An Actor and poser as President, and
sycophants doing the real work. ..."
"... Our lying eyes must still be deceiving us. Trump is being rolled cause he gets to keep
his billionaire empire, fly back and forth with all the security detail to his estate in Florida
on the taxpayers dime; keep his wife in the penthouse with security detail; have his sons do
business for him all over the world with security detail – all this on the taxpayers dime.
He's not sacrificing a thing for the job and he's so innocent. We must never, never blame Trump.
..."
"... I am glad that b pointed out that McMaster is a Petraeus protege. It gives us something
to watch out for. Yes he's a student of and regrets the Viet Nam war. But we heard that before
from Powell and Schwarzkopf. And look where they took us and how. (It's like Bernanke the student
of the Great Depression admitting the Fed caused it and that it wouldn't happen again.) ..."
"... This time, it was Sergey Lavrov who caused a scandal, by calling for a post-Western
world order. We are obliged to admit that NATO has lost its superiority in terms of conventional
warfare – even though it easily maintains first place in terms of nuclear war. We are
obliged to admit that after 15 years of uninterrupted war in the "Greater Middle East", the
mirage of remodelling the region into micro-states, each with less than 10 million inhabitants,
and the fantasy of eradicating secular régimes for the benefit of dictatorships run by the
Muslim Brotherhood, have failed. ..."
"... Astoundingly, the Europeans persist in pursuing these goals, which have been imposed on
them by Washington, but which the People of the United States and their President Donald Trump do
not want any more. So the Europeans are counting on the deep US state (that is to say the Raven
Rock Mountain Continuity of Government group who organised the attacks of 11 September). Their
political leaders continue, as a preventive measure, to denounce Donald Trump's supposed racism
and Islamophobia, the same people who applauded when George W. Bush and Barack Obama killed more
than 3 million people. Their Press continually insults Donald Trump, whom it presents as
capricious and incapable [3]. ..."
"... I don't think the neocon/neolib element, frantically as they may clog comments across
the board, are going to win this battle, even if they take Trump down. They are never going to
win over the US public, and what Trump is helping to do by shedding light on the tactics of his
opponents is going to bring change even if he himself can't manage to do it. It is just a
question of time. ..."
"... Now, instead of having a faker kicking the can down the road, we have somebody in office
attempting to stem the tide of corruption. It may well be that he doesn't succeed. But what he
doesn't succeed in doing, someone else will. Personally, I thank him for trying, and I thank the
posters who tell us positive things about his efforts. I pray for him, and I pray for this
country. The nasties will continue to drag us through the mire like the parasites they are. It's
going to be unpleasant, but they cannot win. They are just going to make it hard on everyone for
some time to come. ..."
"... Trump (or any other President, for that matter) will have to confront all of America's
parasitic "friend and allies" with the devastating trade wars that are surely coming - since
cumulative trade deficits are endangering the country's economic viability - and in that context,
rapprochement with Russia is crucial for the US. It's not an option anymore, but an absolute
necessity. Right now Americans are desperately trying to soften Russians up with the fake
hysteria, but Moscow should just sit tight, and move on a chessboard in silence. ..."
"... i guess that explains why the whole world is against your exceptional 'warmongering'
nation.. ..."
"... Some of McMaster's more provocative statements seems to be that he acknowledges that
Russia and China are strategic threats to US domination of the world. Duh. Isn't that totally
obvious? ..."
"... The question is what he will do about that problem? Col Lang at Turcopieler has come out
strongly supporting McMaster as NSC advisor. Lang thinks he is the right person for that job
right now. I have no idea but it may very well be that Flyn's obsession with Iran could have been
very dangerous. Mc Master might just do the right thing in these very dangerous times. We will
just have to wait and see. ..."
"... It's essential to look beyond the headlines to get a sense of what's really afoot. From
the onset, as I've stated many times, the Trump Presidency is about deception and about replacing
Obama's failed "Plan A" for global dominion with what we might call Henry Kissinger's "Plan B."
..."
"... Since the election campaign, certain themes have been clearly sounded: The nuclear deal
with Iran was "bad" and new hostile sanctions are in order. Relations with Bibi Netanyahu's
right-wing Likud government must again become special Washington priority. Relations with Saudi
Arabia, the world's biggest financier of terrorism, must also be elevated. What has taken place
in the four weeks since the inauguration? ..."
"... One has to ask themselves why aren't these protesters throwing a fit about this betrayal
..."
"... Fundamentally because the average person on this planet is effectively mesmerized &
incapable of independent thought. This is not unique to the American Zombie. It is a global
phenomena. ..."
"... But even the barely educated Coastal American Zombie -- who should not be confused with
the completely uneducated Flyover American Zombies -- know at a subconscious level that their
standard of living comes at the price of trampling of rights, both foreign and domestic.
..."
"... here in Italy youth unemployment has surpassed 40%. i see distant roiling clouds of
uncertainty and glints of unrequited dreams in my daughters dark eyes. ..."
"... I watched the news conference Trump gave on Feb 17. You can find it at whitehouse.gov. I
watched and listened to every word, and I saw nothing but an extremely strong man having fun, as
he said, in bouncing the corrupt presstitutes around, working to play the Fake News meme against
them, taunting and challenging them to ask an intelligent question. He praised those few
journalists who asked about real things. He will change the press corps into true reporters
eventually I think. It will pay their publishers better, as he says. ..."
"... Trump in his conference was talking to the people of the country. I have no doubt
they're out there. I'm astonished to see so much formerly alt-news becoming the new public
culture. Russia plays its part in fighting back against fake news, and Trump is a one-man
juggernaut in this regard. I don't know how far he'll go. I don't know if they'll stop him. At a
certain point, the energy required to stop him can only backfire into an explosion of truth and
light that shows up the background subterfuges for what they are, in the clear light of day. And
eventually, the establishment will have to make this same calculation, and every day they leave
him alive is another day they drift further away from influence and it may already be too late.
..."
"... I don't know why anyone's missing Flynn. The guy's as dumb as a post. I don't know much
about NcMaster but I know that Trump picked him, nobody else. ..."
"... If the CIA and the liberals wanted to load Trump up with hawks they would have
"inserted" Bolton. But nobody gets to insert anybody for that job. No hearings, vetting or fuck
all. ..."
"... I'm inclined to agree with you three, that Trump represents a way or style of leadership
that confuses hell out of Capitol Hill and the Washington press corps, and which the latter lacks
the language to describe and to communicate to the public at large. Trump has been President for
barely a month but The Powers That (Shouldn't) Be are determined to cut him no slack. Everyone
else is over-reading their own narrative over Trump and over-analysing what Flynn's resignation
means for Trump. ..."
"... The other thing people have to remember is that the O'Bomber administration deliberately
left unsigned bills or orders for the new administration to deal with once the Democrats realised
that Killary Klinton had lost the election and the Electoral College. A lot of the flack Trump's
government is getting stems from business left behind by Obama, such as the refugee visa ban
targeting seven countries, based on a list of targeted nations in previous legislation approved
by the Obama government. ..."
te> McMasters gave "acknowledgement" to his great friends and wise contributors in the
forward of his book "Dereliction of Duty" to Fred and Kim KAGAN. Yes. Yes. The brother of
Robert Kagan, husband of Cookies (aka fu*k the EU) Nuland. Then again. The comment board of MOA
never met a ZIO-con-fascist-Russophobe-warmonger they didn't like. So what's the prob?
P.S. How many Soros-paid-thugs does it take to push over a hundred grave stones? Eh???
Betcha lots fewer than the ones in Maidan...
McMasters gave "acknowledgement" to his great friends and wise contributors in the forward of
his book "Dereliction of Duty" to Fred and Kim KAGAN. Yes. Yes. The brother of Robert Kagan,
husband of Cookies (aka fu*k the EU) Nuland. Then again. The comment board of MOA never met a
ZIO-con-fascist-Russophobe-warmonger they didn't like. So what's the prob?
P.S. How many Soros-paid-thugs does it take to push over a hundred grave stones? Eh???
Betcha lots fewer than the ones in Maidan...
te> right-wing pence, mad dog mattis, and tyrannus rex are running this
administration. (priebus is the gofe with the republican party monsters and hacks, to keep them
soothed and inline.)
unless they are geniuses, bannan and the Orange One are gonna continue to get further
rolled by these guys
right-wing pence, mad dog mattis, and tyrannus rex are running this administration. (priebus
is the gofe with the republican party monsters and hacks, to keep them soothed and inline.)
unless they are geniuses, bannan and the Orange One are gonna continue to get further
rolled by these guys
Indeed. Anyone McCain & Cotton endorses is extremely suspect. Commissioned as Lieutenant
in 1984, started writing his 'Dereliction of Duty ' book in 1992, published in 1997, so ~20 years
ago.
Patronage by that soulless rat bastard Petraeus is certainly detrimental. They went for
Flynn with everything they had, Bannon is indeed next ... An isolated Trump with adversarial or
hidden agenda advisors would be easily rolled/influenced ...
"I wondered how and why Vietnam had become an American war–a war in which men fought and
died without a clear idea of how their actions and sacrifices were contributing to an end of
the conflict." In searching for the answer, McMaster "discovered that the military's role in
Vietnam decision-making was little understood and largely overlooked." Dereliction of Duty is
his attempt to correct that deficiency.
As Henry Kissinger has said, "Presidents listen to advisers whose advice they think they
need." In the Kennedy administration the most important determining factor would not be the
advisers' relative position in organizational charts, but instead their "ability to establish a
close personal rapport with the President." Thus, "under the Kennedy/Johnson system, the Joint
Chiefs lost the direct access to the president, and thus the real influence on decision-making
that the Eisenhower NSC [National Security Council] structure had provided."
McMaster says "Diminished JCS [Joint Chiefs of Staff] access to the president reflected
Kennedy's opinion of his senior military advisers. Kennedy and the young New Frontiersmen
viewed the Eisenhower JCS with suspicion .The Old Guard in the Pentagon were relegated to a
position of little influence." McMaster follows this theme throughout his work, beginning with
the rise of General Maxwell Taylor, brought back from retirement to serve as the "military
representative of the president" and later chairman of the JCS.
McMaster also traces the rise of Defense Secretary Robert McNamara's "whiz
kids"–particularly Alain Enthoven, McNamara's point man, whose "flair for quantitative
analysis was exceeded only by his arrogance." Enthoven, writes McMaster, "held military
experience in low regard and considered military men intellectually inferior." In return, "the
military viewed Enthoven and the rest of McNamara's staff as adversaries."
The Cuban missile crisis only deepened the gulf between the JCS and the president.
Dismayed by their insistence on using military force, John F. Kennedy said he would warn his
successor "to watch the generals and to avoid feeling that just because they were military men
their opinion[s] on military matters were worth a damn."
But Lyndon Johnson needed no such advice, for like JFK, he had a disdain for the
military. "Johnson brought with him to the presidency a low opinion of the nation's top
military men and a long history of taking positions on military issues to enhance his political
fortunes," says McMaster. Taylor, by then JCS chairman, "demonstrated the same loyalty to
Johnson that he had shown Kennedy. The other Chiefs and the JCS as an institution were the
losers in status, influence and power..."
Eisenhower's administration, in conjunction with the Dulles brothers in CIA & State,
was even more hawkish than Truman.
Nuclear weapons increased from 1,000 to 22,000 and tactical nuclear weapons were routinely
deployed and considered 'conventional weapons' re possible usage from '53 onwards. The JCS
recommended and the NSC endorsed using nuclear weapons against China in '53 and Eisenhower and
Dulles communicated these threats to China. Under Eisenhower's NSC we overthrew Iran's Mossadeq
in '53 and Guatemala's Arbenz in '54 on behalf of the 'United Fruit Company', etc.
For McMaster to champion Eisenhower's JCS/NSC over the Kennedy's efforts to de-escalate
nuclear Armageddon, is indicative of a rabid aggressive warhawk perspective. The JCS wanted
to actually invade Cuba, whether it risked war with the USSR or not.
Should he still hold these views ... a bad choice indeed.
Allegedly Flynn did not fully inform Vice-President Pence about his talk with the
Russian ambassador. But that can not be a serious reason.
It is a serious reason. Flynn likely ran afoul of a old law called the "Logan
Act", which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in disputes
involving the American government . It might be hard to prosecute Flynn but there are
nevertheless serious political ramifications.
If Trump had tried to retain Flynn, over the objection of VP Pence, Trump risked being
removed via impeachment or 25th Amendment because:
- If Trump asked Flynn to guide the Russian response to sanctions, then Trump could be
guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors", or
- VP Pence could determine that Trump's keeping Flynn showed a pro-Russian bias that
indicated that Trump was compromised (US intel agencies have already 'determined' that Russia
influenced the elections to favor Trump).
That Flynn had not been truthful to Pence (from what we are told) and that Pence
would not 'play ball' hint at Pence as an untrusted 'frenemy' . Indeed, Pence is
apparently close to McCain. they traveled to Iraq together about 10 years ago, and Pence
endorsed McCain in the 2016 election over Trump's wishes.
<> <> <> <> <>
I've read that Pence had made public statements that Flynn had NOT spoken to the Russians
about sanctions but that was proven false by the transcripts.
Did Pence demand to know if Trump had asked Flynn to talk to the Russians about sanction?
It would be a logical question - and one that would've been very threatening to Trump.
Trump hinted that he HAD asked, or authorized, Flynn to talk to the Russians about
sanctions when Trump defended Flynn at the press conference saying:
- he's a great guy;
- he did nothing wrong - he did his job;
- If he HADN'T done what he did, Trump would've asked him to!!!
Allegedly Flynn did not fully inform Vice-President Pence about his talk with the
Russian ambassador. But that can not be a serious reason.
It is a serious reason. Flynn likely ran afoul of a old law called the "Logan
Act", which prohibits private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments in
disputes involving the American government . It might be hard to prosecute Flynn but
there are nevertheless serious political ramifications.
If Trump had tried to retain Flynn, over the objection of VP Pence, Trump risked being
removed via impeachment or 25th Amendment because:
- If Trump asked Flynn to guide the Russian response to sanctions, then Trump could be
guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors", or
- VP Pence could determine that Trump's keeping Flynn showed a pro-Russian bias that
indicated that Trump was compromised (US intel agencies have already 'determined' that
Russia influenced the elections to favor Trump).
That Flynn had not been truthful to Pence (from what we are told) and that Pence
would not 'play ball' hint at Pence as an untrusted 'frenemy' . Indeed, Pence is
apparently close to McCain. they traveled to Iraq together about 10 years ago, and Pence
endorsed McCain in the 2016 election over Trump's wishes.
<> <> <> <> <>
I've read that Pence had made public statements that Flynn had NOT spoken to the Russians
about sanctions but that was proven false by the transcripts.
Did Pence demand to know if Trump had asked Flynn to talk to the Russians about sanction?
It would be a logical question - and one that would've been very threatening to Trump.
Trump hinted that he HAD asked, or authorized, Flynn to talk to the Russians about
sanctions when Trump defended Flynn at the press conference saying:
- he's a great guy;
- he did nothing wrong - he did his job;
- If he HADN'T done what he did, Trump would've asked him to!!!
The excuse of the ~216 year old Logan Act is a non-starter.
Not only has no-one ever been convicted, no-one has ever even been prosecuted under it. It's
questionable if it would even survive a challenge re being constitutionally valid. So no grounds
for impeachment or 25th amendment, especially when the GOP holds Presidency, House & Senate,
a clean sweep, thanks to the Trump-faction.
Only politically suicidal lunatics would impeach their own party President if they
wished to be re-elected ...
I've read elsewhere that in the early 1960's the US Mil wanted to (find a reason to)
launch a first strike on Russia because THEY KNEW that the US had an overwhelming advantage
that would dissipate over time.
Of course this was before scientists warned that a full-scale nuclear war would mean
human extinction.
I wonder about JCS unwillingness to be forthright with civilian leadership. Was Johnson
trying to appease the anti-Russian hawks (without realizing that it would be impossible to
withdraw until victory was achieved)? Was JCS happy to go along with a gradual escalation
knowing that the conflict would grow?
In other words, how valid are McMaster's lessons? Monday morning quarter-backing? Would
JCS go along with gradualism TODAY if they thought it was "in the right direction?"
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Isn't the use of extremists to fight a proxy war a form of gradualism?
I've read elsewhere that in the early 1960's the US Mil wanted to (find a reason to)
launch a first strike on Russia because THEY KNEW that the US had an overwhelming advantage
that would dissipate over time.
Of course this was before scientists warned that a full-scale nuclear war would mean human
extinction.
I wonder about JCS unwillingness to be forthright with civilian leadership. Was Johnson
trying to appease the anti-Russian hawks (without realizing that it would be impossible to
withdraw until victory was achieved)? Was JCS happy to go along with a gradual escalation
knowing that the conflict would grow?
In other words, how valid are McMaster's lessons? Monday morning quarter-backing? Would
JCS go along with gradualism TODAY if they thought it was "in the right direction?"
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Isn't the use of extremists to fight a proxy war a form of gradualism?
te> It will be interesting to see if Trump tries to regain the upper hand
in this "battle" and what that might entail. Until and unless Trump losses Bannon, he maintains
the optics of a threat to the neocon agenda.
But since Trump is not a threat to those that own private finance of the world, what
does it matter? Pick your CON...... Is it neocon? or Trumpcon?
Somewhere out there is a anti-humanistic war-hawk analyst that is telling his boss that
using nukes for military/empire purposes would give cover for Fukushima ecological
damage..........maybe our species is not meant to evolve and grow........because we are not
hearing these corporations (who are people, as Romney would say) screaming for global remediation
of Fukushima for the sake of their future customers.......are we?
It will be interesting to see if Trump tries to regain the upper hand in this "battle" and
what that might entail. Until and unless Trump losses Bannon, he maintains the optics of a
threat to the neocon agenda.
But since Trump is not a threat to those that own private finance of the world, what
does it matter? Pick your CON...... Is it neocon? or Trumpcon?
Somewhere out there is a anti-humanistic war-hawk analyst that is telling his boss that
using nukes for military/empire purposes would give cover for Fukushima ecological
damage..........maybe our species is not meant to evolve and grow........because we are not
hearing these corporations (who are people, as Romney would say) screaming for global
remediation of Fukushima for the sake of their future customers.......are we?
There's always a first time. It's as good an excuse as any. And Republicans would not be
throwing the Presidency to the Democrats, they would be choosing an alternative Republican. One
that many of them would prefer.
I don't think Trump & Flynn were fooled into the resignation/departure. I think they
were responding to a real risk.
There's always a first time. It's as good an excuse as any. And Republicans would not be
throwing the Presidency to the Democrats, they would be choosing an alternative Republican.
One that many of them would prefer.
I don't think Trump & Flynn were fooled into the resignation/departure. I think
they were responding to a real risk.
te> The thing that bothers me is why would well informed (are they really?)
state officials who are supposed to know its own capabilities and those of a enemy-to-be, in this
case Russia, want a conflict which is unwinnable? When one thinks about such option it sounds
really surreal.
I can only think on shortsighted attempt to sell even more useless weapons to allies at a
price and an excuse of a "commitment" to protect them if they increase defence budgets. So it is
simply an extortion racket that EU shouldn't comply with, but instead should work with Russia to
mend its socio-economic relations, as this is the only possible way of changing each other's
minds, thus creating the long term stability on the European and Asian continents.
b. has wisely predicted, but it is not yet mentioning in the detail recent Libyan situation
unfolding as an obvious current policy still is - stirr the trouble wherever you can to keep
Russia busy or involved into it. That is stupid game that yields no result.
The thing that bothers me is why would well informed (are they really?) state officials who
are supposed to know its own capabilities and those of a enemy-to-be, in this case Russia,
want a conflict which is unwinnable? When one thinks about such option it sounds really
surreal.
I can only think on shortsighted attempt to sell even more useless weapons to allies at a
price and an excuse of a "commitment" to protect them if they increase defence budgets. So it
is simply an extortion racket that EU shouldn't comply with, but instead should work with
Russia to mend its socio-economic relations, as this is the only possible way of changing
each other's minds, thus creating the long term stability on the European and Asian
continents.
b. has wisely predicted, but it is not yet mentioning in the detail recent Libyan
situation unfolding as an obvious current policy still is - stirr the trouble wherever you
can to keep Russia busy or involved into it. That is stupid game that yields no result.
te> Isn't it just a bit surreal that the entire Deep State Media (DSM) and
most of the military is seemingly chomping at bit for WW3? Can that be real? And why has this
Oroville Dam collapse of digital ink been spilled over global warming? Too much fluoride in the
D.C. drinking water?
Even the putatively "liberal" documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has branded Donald
Trump a "Russian traitor" and has called for his impeachment for advocating good relations with
Russia! Some of his Tweets:
/~~~~~~~~~~
Um, @realDonaldTrump -- It's now noontime in DC & it appears you are still squatting in our
Oval Office. I gave u til this morning to leave.
- Michael Moore (@MMFlint) February 14, 2017
What part of "vacate you Russian traitor" don't you understand? We can do this the easy way
(you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).
- Michael Moore (@MMFlint) February 14, 2017
Or maybe it's all a giant cover-up, a colossal red herring to put up a smoke-screen between
the the benighted population and the calamitous impending Dollaropocalypse?
Doesn't everybody know that the Columbian Usa empire is on its very last legs, trapped
between a crumbling Europe, survivalist Russia, and gluttonous China which has sucked in most of
its productional systems?
Come about 2017 or 2018, they are desperately going to need on hell of a distracting dog
and pony show and finale rack of fireworks to cover up the approaching ultra-depression
supervolcano.
Isn't it just a bit surreal that the entire Deep State Media (DSM) and most of the
military is seemingly chomping at bit for WW3? Can that be real? And why has this Oroville
Dam collapse of digital ink been spilled over global warming? Too much fluoride in the D.C.
drinking water?
Even the putatively "liberal" documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has branded Donald
Trump a "Russian traitor" and has called for his impeachment for advocating good relations
with Russia! Some of his Tweets:
/~~~~~~~~~~
Um, @realDonaldTrump -- It's now noontime in DC & it appears you are still squatting in
our Oval Office. I gave u til this morning to leave.
- Michael Moore (@MMFlint) February 14, 2017
What part of "vacate you Russian traitor" don't you understand? We can do this the easy
way (you resign), or the hard way (impeachment).
- Michael Moore (@MMFlint) February 14, 2017
Or maybe it's all a giant cover-up, a colossal red herring to put up a smoke-screen
between the the benighted population and the calamitous impending Dollaropocalypse?
Doesn't everybody know that the Columbian Usa empire is on its very last legs, trapped
between a crumbling Europe, survivalist Russia, and gluttonous China which has sucked in most
of its productional systems?
Come about 2017 or 2018, they are desperately going to need on hell of a distracting dog
and pony show and finale rack of fireworks to cover up the approaching ultra-depression
supervolcano.
1. Of course this was before scientists warned that a full-scale nuclear war would mean human
extinction.
2. Would JCS go along with gradualism TODAY if they thought it was "in the right
direction?"
3. Isn't the use of extremists to fight a proxy war a form of gradualism?
1. It was first realized (1955) by the German physicist and Nobel laureate who had earlier
first split the uranium atom, Otto Hahn, that only ten cobalt salted hydrogen bombs would be
enough to extinguish life on earth, under revised calculations following the US Hydrogen bomb
tests of the previous year. This was broadcast on radio throughout Europe in Feb
1955! . It was also the basis of the fictional Doomsday device in Dr. Strangelove or: How I
Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb .
2. JCS would likely only want to deploy boots on the ground for a perceived clean, quick,
limited war with a clearly defined, highly probable, resulting WIN. Something to get the scores
up on the board, Hm, like Grenada redux ? Anything else is bad
(military) politics.
It took almost two decades for the Military to recover from Vietnam, and the current military
has certainly not yet recovered from Vietnam MkII, the combined Iraq & Afghanistan Wars, IMV.
The best & most experienced/capable NCO's and junior officers exited service by choice,
family pressure/responsibilities or literally burnt out through excessive tour rotations ... that
will take another decade or more to recover from ...
3. Proxy wars are fine ... little risk, little downside, from their perspective ... see ~46
years of Cold War and current Cold War 2.0 (Lite).
Given that the strategy is to reign in China (the only way to get jobs back to the
US), the triad of Russia-China-Iran must first be broken. Iran is the current weak link. Break
the links to Iran, buy/intimidate Russia off support for China. This also fits Israeli interest
so will buy Trump time to put out other fires... but Flynn jumped the gun.
Putting Iran on notice without specific reason (it was not a ballistic missile test)
exposed the strategy and gave both Russia and China reason to affirm their relation to Iran
without cost. the deployment of troops to Europe could still be blamed on Obama and confusing
times at the white house... but the Porter incident was deliberate and provocative - again
playing the intimidation card before it would have best effect.
In response Russia openly questions the motives of the new administration states it is
reconsidering if it can negotiate with Trump at all. Two days later Flynn resigns. Do not
confuse the announcement of the incident (14th - a day after Flynn resigns) with the timing of
the event (10th, two days before his resignation).
If there is one thing Trump detests, it is signalling the opposition what your true
position really is. Same holds true with appointments, it is all smoke and mirrors, to confuse
while real deals are cut.
Given that the strategy is to reign in China (the only way to get jobs back to the US),
the triad of Russia-China-Iran must first be broken. Iran is the current weak link. Break the
links to Iran, buy/intimidate Russia off support for China. This also fits Israeli interest
so will buy Trump time to put out other fires... but Flynn jumped the gun.
Putting Iran on notice without specific reason (it was not a ballistic missile test)
exposed the strategy and gave both Russia and China reason to affirm their relation to Iran
without cost. the deployment of troops to Europe could still be blamed on Obama and confusing
times at the white house... but the Porter incident was deliberate and provocative - again
playing the intimidation card before it would have best effect.
In response Russia openly questions the motives of the new administration states it is
reconsidering if it can negotiate with Trump at all. Two days later Flynn resigns. Do not
confuse the announcement of the incident (14th - a day after Flynn resigns) with the timing
of the event (10th, two days before his resignation).
If there is one thing Trump detests, it is signalling the opposition what your true
position really is. Same holds true with appointments, it is all smoke and mirrors, to
confuse while real deals are cut.
te> When has war NOT been in the service of wealth? Is that not what war is
for? To create wealth in two ways: 1. by taking the wealth of others; 2. by creating a means by
which surplus can be destroyed in order to be replaced?
The whole Trump thing is to drain the swamp. The problem is that there is too much wealth
involved in creating more wealth via war to reduce war. As an archetype, consider the F-35? The
perfect war tool ... too expensive, totally unreliable, needing immediate replacement.
So, the deep state wins ... the world loses. Where is Trump in all of this? It doesn't
matter ... and a real bloody revolution won't be enough. I truly can't wait until we provoke the
Russians or the Chinese into starting a war that ends with lots of good old life cleansing
mushrooms!
When has war NOT been in the service of wealth? Is that not what war is for? To create
wealth in two ways: 1. by taking the wealth of others; 2. by creating a means by which
surplus can be destroyed in order to be replaced?
The whole Trump thing is to drain the swamp. The problem is that there is too much wealth
involved in creating more wealth via war to reduce war. As an archetype, consider the F-35?
The perfect war tool ... too expensive, totally unreliable, needing immediate
replacement.
So, the deep state wins ... the world loses. Where is Trump in all of this? It doesn't
matter ... and a real bloody revolution won't be enough. I truly can't wait until we provoke
the Russians or the Chinese into starting a war that ends with lots of good old life
cleansing mushrooms!
te> ...the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the "serious
people" in Washington DC...
yes, indeed. the pickings are slim. culling a more humane alternative from this gaggle
of shit-stained, blood-soaked scumbags seems like an exercise in futility to me. no room for
elfin heroes, no siree bob.
I don't think we're getting out. I think that we must adapt. The human organism is
fairly flexible, and the United States is being transformed into something truly hideous, and
those who wish to continue to live here and function as Americans are going to have to find some
way to adapt. You're going to have to find a way to drink foul water, breathe foul air, eat
semi-poisonous and/or non-foods, and find some way to keep a job so that you can spend money to
experience the thrill of these things (Frank Zappa)
or go east young man! life is but a quest! out there somewhere along the polyester, er, i
mean silk, road fortune awaits.
...the war-on-Russia hawks, that is about everyone of the "serious people" in Washington
DC...
yes, indeed. the pickings are slim. culling a more humane alternative from this gaggle
of shit-stained, blood-soaked scumbags seems like an exercise in futility to me. no room
for elfin heroes, no siree bob.
I don't think we're getting out. I think that we must adapt. The human organism is
fairly flexible, and the United States is being transformed into something truly hideous, and
those who wish to continue to live here and function as Americans are going to have to find
some way to adapt. You're going to have to find a way to drink foul water, breathe foul air,
eat semi-poisonous and/or non-foods, and find some way to keep a job so that you can spend
money to experience the thrill of these things (Frank Zappa)
or go east young man! life is but a quest! out there somewhere along the polyester, er, i
mean silk, road fortune awaits.
te> @Les7, #1 "If there is one thing Trump detests, it is signalling the
opposition what your true position really is."
Any interesting idea, but Trump immediately after Flynn's anti-Iran speach launched his
own anti-Iran tweetstorm. If anything, Flynn's speech might have been given in an effort to
appease the Neocons demanding his head. Keep in mind he must have known he was in trouble before
the rest of us did.
@Les7, #1 "If there is one thing Trump detests, it is signalling the opposition what your
true position really is."
Any interesting idea, but Trump immediately after Flynn's anti-Iran speach launched his
own anti-Iran tweetstorm. If anything, Flynn's speech might have been given in an effort to
appease the Neocons demanding his head. Keep in mind he must have known he was in trouble
before the rest of us did.
te> Sorry, I meant @ #19. Also, Trump was viciously anti-Iran throughout
his whole campaign, so nothing new there. It is doubtful Russia did not long ago see the idea of
splitting them from China and Iran. It was talked about in the blogosphere for months. Russia was
never going to be dumb enough to fall for it, but probably didn't mind letting the US
try. , Feb 22, 2017 9:38:57 AM |
link
Sorry, I meant @ #19. Also, Trump was viciously anti-Iran throughout his whole campaign,
so nothing new there. It is doubtful Russia did not long ago see the idea of splitting them
from China and Iran. It was talked about in the blogosphere for months. Russia was never
going to be dumb enough to fall for it, but probably didn't mind letting the US try.
te> ...
It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of McMaster
into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic development and
have a strategy against it?
Posted by b at 12:19 AM
Yes He does. Bannon doesn't matter. Trump went into this with his eyes wide open. He told
the borg their days are numbered as soon as he was sworn in. He thinks he's smarter than them and
their Neocon spin tanks and I agree with him. At Trump's stage of life he could have opted for
luxurious retirement in splendid isolation, but he's set himself one last challenge - to be the
most famous person in History. He's already halfway there and he hasn't even done anything
startlingly POTUS-ish yet...
...
It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of
McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic
development and have a strategy against it?
Posted by b at 12:19 AM
Yes He does. Bannon doesn't matter. Trump went into this with his eyes wide open. He told
the borg their days are numbered as soon as he was sworn in. He thinks he's smarter than them
and their Neocon spin tanks and I agree with him. At Trump's stage of life he could have
opted for luxurious retirement in splendid isolation, but he's set himself one last challenge
- to be the most famous person in History. He's already halfway there and he hasn't even done
anything startlingly POTUS-ish yet...
They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian hawk:
He is not as "anti-Russian" as it may seem. After all, Flynn himself had very little
"love" for Russia and was merely a situational "ally", who understood, correctly, operational and
strategic limitations of US Armed Forces.
Real situation in the US Armed Forces is not good, to put it mildly. 16 years and no
tangible results, all wars are lost, the force is indeed "stretched thin", which is a euphemism
for being demoralized and ineffective. Moreover, in some crucial aspects of warfare, all those
proverbial "offsets" and alleged technological "superiority" simply do not exist anymore. In
some--the technological lag became insurmountable. So, there is a real problem with military
which, from the US military-strategic point of view, must be addressed.
Considering Trump being hellbent on attaining a full control of US foreign policy and
Trump's personality -- it doesn't really matter what degree of anti-Russianness Trump will get
from his National Security Adviser.
What Trump needs is a competent military man capable to explain to Trump limitations of US
military power in order to adjust his foreign policy. McMaster is a competent man to do so--in
this sense this appointment is a good thing and it really doesn't matter if Tim Cotton or McCain
approve of this appointment, anti-Russian sentiment was inevitable within US military because
comparisons are not only irresistible but highly warranted, especially when they are done not
just over the period of the last 15 or so years, but over last 70-80.
Anti-Russian mantras today are more of a self-psychotherapy nature than of real desire
to fight Russia. Everybody in both militaries understand everything by now, but that is a totally
different story altogether. Once brand new Russian military doctrine was published couple of
years ago--many pieces of puzzle fell into their places.
They replaced him with a militaristic anti-Russian hawk:
He is not as "anti-Russian" as it may seem. After all, Flynn himself had very little
"love" for Russia and was merely a situational "ally", who understood, correctly, operational
and strategic limitations of US Armed Forces.
Real situation in the US Armed Forces is not good, to put it mildly. 16 years and no
tangible results, all wars are lost, the force is indeed "stretched thin", which is a
euphemism for being demoralized and ineffective. Moreover, in some crucial aspects of
warfare, all those proverbial "offsets" and alleged technological "superiority" simply do not
exist anymore. In some--the technological lag became insurmountable. So, there is a real
problem with military which, from the US military-strategic point of view, must be
addressed.
Considering Trump being hellbent on attaining a full control of US foreign policy and
Trump's personality -- it doesn't really matter what degree of anti-Russianness Trump will
get from his National Security Adviser.
What Trump needs is a competent military man capable to explain to Trump limitations of US
military power in order to adjust his foreign policy. McMaster is a competent man to do
so--in this sense this appointment is a good thing and it really doesn't matter if Tim Cotton
or McCain approve of this appointment, anti-Russian sentiment was inevitable within US
military because comparisons are not only irresistible but highly warranted, especially when
they are done not just over the period of the last 15 or so years, but over last 70-80.
Anti-Russian mantras today are more of a self-psychotherapy nature than of real desire
to fight Russia. Everybody in both militaries understand everything by now, but that is a
totally different story altogether. Once brand new Russian military doctrine was published
couple of years ago--many pieces of puzzle fell into their places.
te> Trump was thinking of John Bolton, a neo-con for the job. He obviously
wanted to get one of them in his rank to better fight them. He also wanted to make a conciliatory
gesture to the hardline republicans.
Mc Master is a good compromise. Not a 100% neocon but a pragmatic sympathizer.
Trump will hold on Bannon as much as possible to prevent his vision to be blurred by the
others. The next target of the dems is Bannon... What other bone can Trump give to the dems to
chew on?
Trump was thinking of John Bolton, a neo-con for the job. He obviously wanted to get one
of them in his rank to better fight them. He also wanted to make a conciliatory gesture to
the hardline republicans.
Mc Master is a good compromise. Not a 100% neocon but a pragmatic sympathizer.
Trump will hold on Bannon as much as possible to prevent his vision to be blurred by the
others. The next target of the dems is Bannon... What other bone can Trump give to the dems
to chew on?
The official reason for firing Flynn so early on was allegedly his refusal to disclose all
details to Vice President Pence and others of his pre-inauguration phone call to the Russian
Ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak, in the days before Trump became President.
Far more plausible as reason is the shoot-from-the-hip remarks of Flynn aimed at Iran in
early February. Then Flynn held an unusual press conference in the White House to declare, "As
of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice." His remarks were aimed at Iran's testing
of a ballistic missile and a recent attack on a Saudi naval vessel by Yemeni militants, which
Washington said were backed by Teheran. Sounds tough, or? Real Rambo macho, a la USA again
asserting its power in the region. Grrrrrrrowl!
There were many things wrong with that inane declaration of Flynn. One, it had no
content, much like Obama's August 2012 "red line" statement on chemical weapons in Syria that
almost got the US in a boots-on-the-ground war in Syria and resulted in a disastrous loss of US
credibility in the Middle East. As Kissinger noted, the Obama "red line" disaster, "created the
impression-and the reality-of an American strategic withdrawal from the region."
Moreover, there is no international ban on Iran's testing ballistic missiles. As former
White House Middle East specialist Philip Gordon pointed out, "By issuing a warning so
imprecise - in such a dramatic, public fashion - he has set himself and the United States up
for either an embarrassing retreat or a risky confrontation." Ballistic missile tests are not a
part of the Iran nuclear agreement or any UN Resolution.
As it sunk in within the neophyte Trump Administration what a stupid thing Flynn had
done, even before the Administration even had picked all its ducks– let alone set them
all in a neat row on Iran policy– it became clear Flynn had to fall on his sword. The
Russian Ambassador was useful deflection.
The official reason for firing Flynn so early on was allegedly his refusal to disclose all
details to Vice President Pence and others of his pre-inauguration phone call to the
Russian Ambassador in Washington, Sergey Kislyak, in the days before Trump became
President.
Far more plausible as reason is the shoot-from-the-hip remarks of Flynn aimed at Iran in
early February. Then Flynn held an unusual press conference in the White House to declare,
"As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice." His remarks were aimed at Iran's
testing of a ballistic missile and a recent attack on a Saudi naval vessel by Yemeni
militants, which Washington said were backed by Teheran. Sounds tough, or? Real Rambo
macho, a la USA again asserting its power in the region. Grrrrrrrowl!
There were many things wrong with that inane declaration of Flynn. One, it had no
content, much like Obama's August 2012 "red line" statement on chemical weapons in Syria
that almost got the US in a boots-on-the-ground war in Syria and resulted in a disastrous
loss of US credibility in the Middle East. As Kissinger noted, the Obama "red line"
disaster, "created the impression-and the reality-of an American strategic withdrawal from
the region."
Moreover, there is no international ban on Iran's testing ballistic missiles. As former
White House Middle East specialist Philip Gordon pointed out, "By issuing a warning so
imprecise - in such a dramatic, public fashion - he has set himself and the United States
up for either an embarrassing retreat or a risky confrontation." Ballistic missile tests
are not a part of the Iran nuclear agreement or any UN Resolution.
As it sunk in within the neophyte Trump Administration what a stupid thing Flynn had
done, even before the Administration even had picked all its ducks– let alone set
them all in a neat row on Iran policy– it became clear Flynn had to fall on his
sword. The Russian Ambassador was useful deflection.
Face it, the only ones being 'rolled' here are all the Trump fan-boys on
MoA.
Yep. Notice how all the usual Trump man-god fan-boys are all over this like white on rice,
busy distancing their god from this Neocon blob he just excreted as Trump man-child must be the
first blameless President ever! The buck can never stop with him. It's never his fault. The first
White House press statement on Yemen pretended ZERO civilians were killed in Yemen mission until
the leak indicated many civilians killed, but only the media lies; Trump never lies.
Trump poor thing is faultless; he can't think for himself; can't make decisions on his own
anymore. Tom Cotton pushed McMaster; it's all Cotton's fault.
Oh-oh! Looks like Tom Cotton has been part of the Trump fan club for quite some
time.
But here we are being led to believe Trump is being rolled by Neocons like Tom Cotton. Tom
Cotton is to blame; he's rolling Trump! After all, Trump only put those MIC generals on his team
for show. Those Goldman buddies are not really there to de-regulate and ensure the banking system
works for them. The Zionists on his team agree with Trump; they want a one Jewish state only.
Palestinians can move to Jordan and Egypt.
Our lying eyes must still be deceiving us. Trump is being rolled cause he gets to keep
his billionaire empire, fly back and forth with all the security detail to his estate in Florida
on the taxpayers dime; keep his wife in the penthouse with security detail; have his sons do
business for him all over the world with security detail – all this on the taxpayers dime.
He's not sacrificing a thing for the job and he's so innocent. We must never, never blame
Trump.
Now let's get busy spinning 50 ways McMaster is someone else's fault and every other bad
decision he's made so far was pushed on him by the deep state and billionaires club Trump belongs
to.
On a more realistic note: a showdown looms today at Standing Rock as the Trumpian Army
Corps is set to forcibly remove protesters.:
President Donald Trump last month ordered the Corps to grant pipeline builder Energy
Transfer Partners the easement it needed to complete the project. The Corps complied this month
and dropped plans to conduct an environmental study to identify a new route for the hotly
disputed pipeline.
Face it, the only ones being 'rolled' here are all the Trump fan-boys on MoA.
Yep. Notice how all the usual Trump man-god fan-boys are all over this like white on rice,
busy distancing their god from this Neocon blob he just excreted as Trump man-child must be
the first blameless President ever! The buck can never stop with him. It's never his fault.
The first White House press statement on Yemen pretended ZERO civilians were killed in Yemen
mission until the leak indicated many civilians killed, but only the media lies; Trump never
lies.
Trump poor thing is faultless; he can't think for himself; can't make decisions on his own
anymore. Tom Cotton pushed McMaster; it's all Cotton's fault.
Oh-oh! Looks like Tom Cotton has been part of the Trump fan club for quite some time.
But here we are being led to believe Trump is being rolled by Neocons like Tom Cotton. Tom
Cotton is to blame; he's rolling Trump! After all, Trump only put those MIC generals on his
team for show. Those Goldman buddies are not really there to de-regulate and ensure the
banking system works for them. The Zionists on his team agree with Trump; they want a one
Jewish state only. Palestinians can move to Jordan and Egypt.
Our lying eyes must still be deceiving us. Trump is being rolled cause he gets to keep
his billionaire empire, fly back and forth with all the security detail to his estate in
Florida on the taxpayers dime; keep his wife in the penthouse with security detail; have his
sons do business for him all over the world with security detail – all this on the
taxpayers dime. He's not sacrificing a thing for the job and he's so innocent. We must never,
never blame Trump.
Now let's get busy spinning 50 ways McMaster is someone else's fault and every other bad
decision he's made so far was pushed on him by the deep state and billionaires club Trump
belongs to.
On a more realistic note: a showdown looms today at Standing Rock as the Trumpian Army
Corps is set to forcibly remove protesters.:
President Donald Trump last month ordered the Corps to grant pipeline builder Energy
Transfer Partners the easement it needed to complete the project. The Corps complied this
month and dropped plans to conduct an environmental study to identify a new route for the
hotly disputed pipeline.
te> virgile 42
I saw Bolton on the short list and was glad he wasn't selected. One wishes these failures would
go away.
I am glad that b pointed out that McMaster is a Petraeus protege. It gives us something
to watch out for. Yes he's a student of and regrets the Viet Nam war. But we heard that before
from Powell and Schwarzkopf. And look where they took us and how. (It's like Bernanke the student
of the Great Depression admitting the Fed caused it and that it wouldn't happen
again.)
virgile 42
I saw Bolton on the short list and was glad he wasn't selected. One wishes these failures
would go away.
I am glad that b pointed out that McMaster is a Petraeus protege. It gives us something
to watch out for. Yes he's a student of and regrets the Viet Nam war. But we heard that
before from Powell and Schwarzkopf. And look where they took us and how. (It's like Bernanke
the student of the Great Depression admitting the Fed caused it and that it wouldn't happen
again.)
Flynn was fired for making a policy statement without consulting (coordinating) with his
really really big Boss. In military it is called "going over the head" and there is no higher
head in US than President. It just happened so that it was made on Iran, whom Flynn doesn't
like.
Flynn was fired for making a policy statement without consulting (coordinating) with his
really really big Boss. In military it is called "going over the head" and there is no higher
head in US than President. It just happened so that it was made on Iran, whom Flynn doesn't
like.
Yeah right; because all the tweets Trump made before and after Flynn's statement
threatening Iran were just the musings of a blowhard and not also supporting every word Flynn
spewed. Now you don't want me to list all those tweets on Iran, do you? As a matter of fact, if I
remember correctly, even Trump parroted the threat about putting Iran on notice. Yep.
But there just has to be another reason for firing Flynn instead of the reality: Flynn
misleading Pence on Russia phone calls.
@42 - Here's the doozie of all deluded excuses for Trump.:
Trump was thinking of John Bolton, a neo-con for the job. He obviously wanted to get one of
them in his rank to better fight them. He also wanted to make a conciliatory gesture to the
hardline republicans. Mc Master is a good compromise. Not a 100% neocon but a pragmatic
sympathizer.
Yeah right; because all the tweets Trump made before and after Flynn's statement
threatening Iran were just the musings of a blowhard and not also supporting every word Flynn
spewed. Now you don't want me to list all those tweets on Iran, do you? As a matter of fact,
if I remember correctly, even Trump parroted the threat about putting Iran on notice.
Yep.
But there just has to be another reason for firing Flynn instead of the reality: Flynn
misleading Pence on Russia phone calls.
@42 - Here's the doozie of all deluded excuses for Trump.:
Trump was thinking of John Bolton, a neo-con for the job. He obviously wanted to get one
of them in his rank to better fight them. He also wanted to make a conciliatory gesture
to the hardline republicans. Mc Master is a good compromise. Not a 100% neocon but a
pragmatic sympathizer.
te> Some Internet gossip predicts some dire straits ahead of the US of A:
...Critical to note too about this massive Islamic spy ring, ..., is that in spite of the
FBI's criminal targeting of Imran Awan, Democratic Party US Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz still has him on her payroll, despite his security clearance being revoked-and his
wife, Hina Alvi, likewise, is still being employed by Democrat Party US Congressman Gregory
Meeks.
And despite this massive Islamic spy ring, led by Imran Awan, being paid by the
Democratic Party millions-of-dollars of US taxpayer money over the past decade, while they
infiltrated nearly all of computer systems in the US Congress, ..., new reports are emerging
that they didn't pay their bills, were involved for years in criminal activity, and owed
substantial money to a radical Hezbollah fugitive-and who are now being reported to have
received $100,000 from an unnamed, and unknowable, Iraqi politician while they had
administrator-level access to the US House of Representatives' secret and secure computer
network.
To the main Democratic Party official most responsible for this radical Islamic spy rings
infiltration of the US Congress, this report notes, was the radical leftist US Congresswoman
Debbie Wasserman Schultz-who spread these Islamic spies throughout the US Congress as "shared
employees"-meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split their salaries and used them
as needed for computer services.
With the linkages of this massive radical Islamic spy network spreading to the top of the
Democratic Party leadership, and over two dozen Democrat US Congressman and women, ..., these
Democratic leftists are even now preparing for their mass arrest by FBI agents loyal to
President Trump by showing their power of being able to quickly assemble street mobs-and that
once this should happen, would flood America's cities with millions of radicals proclaiming
President Trump was creating a dictatorship-therefore leading to the collapse of the United
States as civil war would most certainly ensue.
This time, it was Sergey Lavrov who caused a scandal, by calling for a post-Western world
order. We are obliged to admit that NATO has lost its superiority in terms of conventional
warfare – even though it easily maintains first place in terms of nuclear war. We are
obliged to admit that after 15 years of uninterrupted war in the "Greater Middle East", the
mirage of remodelling the region into micro-states, each with less than 10 million inhabitants,
and the fantasy of eradicating secular régimes for the benefit of dictatorships run by the
Muslim Brotherhood, have failed.
Astoundingly, the Europeans persist in pursuing these goals, which have been imposed
on them by Washington, but which the People of the United States and their President Donald
Trump do not want any more. So the Europeans are counting on the deep US state (that is to say
the Raven Rock Mountain Continuity of Government group who organised the attacks of 11
September). Their political leaders continue, as a preventive measure, to denounce Donald
Trump's supposed racism and Islamophobia, the same people who applauded when George W. Bush and
Barack Obama killed more than 3 million people. Their Press continually insults Donald Trump,
whom it presents as capricious and incapable [3].
Horrified by the opinions of Donald Trump, according to whom NATO is "obsolete", they
were reassured by the declarations of his ministers, who in essence, told them the same thing
– NATO no longer needs to exist in its current format - it needs to be transformed into a
defensive alliance, and if you want to be part of it, you will have to dedicate 2% of your
Defence budget.
Obsessed by their imperialist lunacy, the Europeans were terrified by the possible
abandon of their anti-Russian investments in Ukraine and Syria. There too, they were reassured
by declarations which were nonetheless as vague as could be. Trump's ministers repeated that
they would give up no interest vital to the USA in Ukraine, and that they would pursue a
"political solution in Syria". So why did the Europeans understand that the People of the
United States has vital interests on the banks of the Dnipro and that a "political solution in
Syria" means replacing the Republic with the Muslim Brotherhood? Simply because that is what
they were taught by the Obama administration – the administration that was rejected by
the People of the United States.
Of course, everyone can see the struggle between the Trump administration on one side and
the "Continuity of Government" group on the other. The mountains trembled when Donald Trump
excluded the CIA and the Joint Chief of Staff from the National Security Council [4]. Everyone
noticed the way in which the CIA, in response, refused Defence accreditation to six of the
President's advisors, and accused the National Security advisor of being a Russian spy, forcing
him to resign, and how they are still pursuing four other representatives from the Presidential
team. But losing a few battles does not mean losing the war, and it is distressing that the
Europeans – enslaved for so long – do not know this. How can they believe that
Donald Trump was going to sweep away such a powerful "deep state" in just a few days? And how
could they imagine that his first defeats would be enough to make him give up? [5]
Over the last few years, this Security Conference has been a way for Germany to serve as
a link between the United States and their European partners. This year, its only goal was to
force the European leaders to confirm their allegiance to the deep US state, without taking
into account either the will expressed by the US People, or the change in the White
House.
A preparatory document, drawn up by the German organisers of the Conference, was handed
to the participants. The Press was careful not to mention it. It contains an article by Volker
Perthes, author of the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of the Syrian
Arab Republic [6]. This eminent "expert" presents his vision of the "Greater Middle East", or
rather the vision of the US "Continuity of Government" [7].
[Even if we have not managed to remodel it,] this region will not be unaffected by the
wars and the "Arab Spring". [We didn't do all that for nothing].
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran has become a sectarian conflict between
Sunnis and Chiites [which masks our geopolitical ambitions].
While everyone is caught up in this false religious conflict, no-one is paying any
attention to the Palestinian situation [for the greater benefit of the colonial state of
Israël].
While the Europeans are unanimously tired of these bloodbaths taking place far from
their homes, and hope for the long-awaited triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood, no-one in the
Greater Middle East has yet admitted to having been beaten.
During the war in Syria, the alliances have continually been sealed and unsealed at
the regional level, the latest of which was the pact between Russia, Turkey and Iran, which
should not last [luckily] any longer than the others.
Syria and Iraq will not beat terrorism, and will not find peace other than by
inclusive government [that is to say, by accepting to introduce al-Qaëda and Daesh into
their governments].
All of this could only end, for all the populations of the Greater Middle East, by a
major international conference during which the Westerners would determine their future, just
as, at the Congress of Vienna (1814), the Quadruple Alliance decided the fate of the rest of
the world.
Quite clearly, neither faced with the vote of the US People, nor the Resistance of the
Arab Peoples, do the European leaders intend to change – they can only be dismissed by
the European People.
Some Internet gossip predicts some dire straits ahead of the US of A:
...Critical to note too about this massive Islamic spy ring, ..., is that in spite of the
FBI's criminal targeting of Imran Awan, Democratic Party US Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz still has him on her payroll, despite his security clearance being revoked-and his
wife, Hina Alvi, likewise, is still being employed by Democrat Party US Congressman Gregory
Meeks.
And despite this massive Islamic spy ring, led by Imran Awan, being paid by the
Democratic Party millions-of-dollars of US taxpayer money over the past decade, while they
infiltrated nearly all of computer systems in the US Congress, ..., new reports are
emerging that they didn't pay their bills, were involved for years in criminal activity,
and owed substantial money to a radical Hezbollah fugitive-and who are now being reported
to have received $100,000 from an unnamed, and unknowable, Iraqi politician while they had
administrator-level access to the US House of Representatives' secret and secure computer
network.
To the main Democratic Party official most responsible for this radical Islamic spy
rings infiltration of the US Congress, this report notes, was the radical leftist US
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz-who spread these Islamic spies throughout the US
Congress as "shared employees"-meaning they are hired by multiple offices, which split
their salaries and used them as needed for computer services.
With the linkages of this massive radical Islamic spy network spreading to the top of
the Democratic Party leadership, and over two dozen Democrat US Congressman and women, ...,
these Democratic leftists are even now preparing for their mass arrest by FBI agents loyal
to President Trump by showing their power of being able to quickly assemble street mobs-and
that once this should happen, would flood America's cities with millions of radicals
proclaiming President Trump was creating a dictatorship-therefore leading to the collapse
of the United States as civil war would most certainly ensue.
This time, it was Sergey Lavrov who caused a scandal, by calling for a post-Western
world order. We are obliged to admit that NATO has lost its superiority in terms of
conventional warfare – even though it easily maintains first place in terms of
nuclear war. We are obliged to admit that after 15 years of uninterrupted war in the
"Greater Middle East", the mirage of remodelling the region into micro-states, each with
less than 10 million inhabitants, and the fantasy of eradicating secular régimes for
the benefit of dictatorships run by the Muslim Brotherhood, have failed.
Astoundingly, the Europeans persist in pursuing these goals, which have been imposed
on them by Washington, but which the People of the United States and their President Donald
Trump do not want any more. So the Europeans are counting on the deep US state (that is to
say the Raven Rock Mountain Continuity of Government group who organised the attacks of 11
September). Their political leaders continue, as a preventive measure, to denounce Donald
Trump's supposed racism and Islamophobia, the same people who applauded when George W. Bush
and Barack Obama killed more than 3 million people. Their Press continually insults Donald
Trump, whom it presents as capricious and incapable [3].
Horrified by the opinions of Donald Trump, according to whom NATO is "obsolete", they
were reassured by the declarations of his ministers, who in essence, told them the same
thing – NATO no longer needs to exist in its current format - it needs to be
transformed into a defensive alliance, and if you want to be part of it, you will have to
dedicate 2% of your Defence budget.
Obsessed by their imperialist lunacy, the Europeans were terrified by the possible
abandon of their anti-Russian investments in Ukraine and Syria. There too, they were
reassured by declarations which were nonetheless as vague as could be. Trump's ministers
repeated that they would give up no interest vital to the USA in Ukraine, and that they
would pursue a "political solution in Syria". So why did the Europeans understand that the
People of the United States has vital interests on the banks of the Dnipro and that a
"political solution in Syria" means replacing the Republic with the Muslim Brotherhood?
Simply because that is what they were taught by the Obama administration – the
administration that was rejected by the People of the United States.
Of course, everyone can see the struggle between the Trump administration on one side
and the "Continuity of Government" group on the other. The mountains trembled when Donald
Trump excluded the CIA and the Joint Chief of Staff from the National Security Council [4].
Everyone noticed the way in which the CIA, in response, refused Defence accreditation to
six of the President's advisors, and accused the National Security advisor of being a
Russian spy, forcing him to resign, and how they are still pursuing four other
representatives from the Presidential team. But losing a few battles does not mean losing
the war, and it is distressing that the Europeans – enslaved for so long – do
not know this. How can they believe that Donald Trump was going to sweep away such a
powerful "deep state" in just a few days? And how could they imagine that his first defeats
would be enough to make him give up? [5]
Over the last few years, this Security Conference has been a way for Germany to serve as
a link between the United States and their European partners. This year, its only goal was
to force the European leaders to confirm their allegiance to the deep US state, without
taking into account either the will expressed by the US People, or the change in the White
House.
A preparatory document, drawn up by the German organisers of the Conference, was handed
to the participants. The Press was careful not to mention it. It contains an article by
Volker Perthes, author of the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of
the Syrian Arab Republic [6]. This eminent "expert" presents his vision of the "Greater
Middle East", or rather the vision of the US "Continuity of Government" [7].
[Even if we have not managed to remodel it,] this region will not be unaffected by
the wars and the "Arab Spring". [We didn't do all that for nothing].
The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran has become a sectarian conflict between
Sunnis and Chiites [which masks our geopolitical ambitions].
While everyone is caught up in this false religious conflict, no-one is paying any
attention to the Palestinian situation [for the greater benefit of the colonial state of
Israël].
While the Europeans are unanimously tired of these bloodbaths taking place far from
their homes, and hope for the long-awaited triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood, no-one in
the Greater Middle East has yet admitted to having been beaten.
During the war in Syria, the alliances have continually been sealed and unsealed at
the regional level, the latest of which was the pact between Russia, Turkey and Iran,
which should not last [luckily] any longer than the others.
Syria and Iraq will not beat terrorism, and will not find peace other than by
inclusive government [that is to say, by accepting to introduce al-Qaëda and Daesh
into their governments].
All of this could only end, for all the populations of the Greater Middle East, by a
major international conference during which the Westerners would determine their future,
just as, at the Congress of Vienna (1814), the Quadruple Alliance decided the fate of the
rest of the world.
Quite clearly, neither faced with the vote of the US People, nor the Resistance of the
Arab Peoples, do the European leaders intend to change – they can only be dismissed
by the European People.
te> The goal of controlling European gas markets, conduits and pipeline routes
is a position that looks unwavering. Same old, same old and Trump has been maneuvered into it if
he was ever adverse to it anyway. Bannon is a different cat, that's for sure.
The goal of controlling European gas markets, conduits and pipeline routes is a position that
looks unwavering. Same old, same old and Trump has been maneuvered into it if he was ever
adverse to it anyway. Bannon is a different cat, that's for sure.
te> @50 Curtis
'I saw Bolton on the short list and was glad he wasn't selected. One wishes these failures would
go away'
They never go away. The only way to get rid of them is to catch them napping in their
crypts and drive a wooden stake through their hearts. (even that didn't work with Cheney)
from the Guardian:
"Previewing a possible future appointment, Trump also said during Monday's announcement
that his administration will be asking John Bolton, a hardline senior diplomat in the George W
Bush administration,
"to work with us in a somewhat different capacity He had a good number of ideas that I
must tell you, I agree very much with."
@50 Curtis
'I saw Bolton on the short list and was glad he wasn't selected. One wishes these failures
would go away'
They never go away. The only way to get rid of them is to catch them napping in their
crypts and drive a wooden stake through their hearts. (even that didn't work with Cheney)
from the Guardian:
"Previewing a possible future appointment, Trump also said during Monday's announcement
that his administration will be asking John Bolton, a hardline senior diplomat in the
George W Bush administration,
"to work with us in a somewhat different capacity He had a good number of ideas that I
must tell you, I agree very much with."
te> I don't think the neocon/neolib element, frantically as they may clog
comments across the board, are going to win this battle, even if they take Trump down. They are
never going to win over the US public, and what Trump is helping to do by shedding light on the
tactics of his opponents is going to bring change even if he himself can't manage to do it. It is
just a question of time.
Now, instead of having a faker kicking the can down the road, we have somebody in office
attempting to stem the tide of corruption. It may well be that he doesn't succeed. But what he
doesn't succeed in doing, someone else will. Personally, I thank him for trying, and I thank the
posters who tell us positive things about his efforts. I pray for him, and I pray for this
country. The nasties will continue to drag us through the mire like the parasites they are. It's
going to be unpleasant, but they cannot win. They are just going to make it hard on everyone for
some time to come.
I don't think the neocon/neolib element, frantically as they may clog comments across the
board, are going to win this battle, even if they take Trump down. They are never going to
win over the US public, and what Trump is helping to do by shedding light on the tactics of
his opponents is going to bring change even if he himself can't manage to do it. It is just a
question of time.
Now, instead of having a faker kicking the can down the road, we have somebody in
office attempting to stem the tide of corruption. It may well be that he doesn't succeed. But
what he doesn't succeed in doing, someone else will. Personally, I thank him for trying, and
I thank the posters who tell us positive things about his efforts. I pray for him, and I pray
for this country. The nasties will continue to drag us through the mire like the parasites
they are. It's going to be unpleasant, but they cannot win. They are just going to make it
hard on everyone for some time to come.
te> Tactical retreat - and nothing more. There is simply no alternative to
détente with Russia, since otherwise America will become completely isolated. That can't and
won't be allowed to happen.
Trump (or any other President, for that matter) will have to confront all of America's
parasitic "friend and allies" with the devastating trade wars that are surely coming - since
cumulative trade deficits are endangering the country's economic viability - and in that context,
rapprochement with Russia is crucial for the US. It's not an option anymore, but an absolute
necessity. Right now Americans are desperately trying to soften Russians up with the fake
hysteria, but Moscow should just sit tight, and move on a chessboard in silence.
America is boxed in, and the only way out of that box is through détente with Russia.
Everything else leads to the national demise.
Tactical retreat - and nothing more. There is simply no alternative to détente with
Russia, since otherwise America will become completely isolated. That can't and won't be
allowed to happen.
Trump (or any other President, for that matter) will have to confront all of America's
parasitic "friend and allies" with the devastating trade wars that are surely coming - since
cumulative trade deficits are endangering the country's economic viability - and in that
context, rapprochement with Russia is crucial for the US. It's not an option anymore, but an
absolute necessity. Right now Americans are desperately trying to soften Russians up with the
fake hysteria, but Moscow should just sit tight, and move on a chessboard in silence.
America is boxed in, and the only way out of that box is through détente with Russia.
Everything else leads to the national demise.
Some have forgotten (already!) that Obama issued an Executive Order to share NSA
intel. So they are (mistakenly!) attributing Flynn's departure to his overly-aggressive posture
toward Iran.
Some have forgotten (already!) that Obama issued an Executive Order to share NSA
intel. So they are (mistakenly!) attributing Flynn's departure to his overly-aggressive
posture toward Iran.
te> @62 horatio parker... i guess that explains why the whole world is
against your exceptional 'warmongering' nation.. ToivoS , Feb 22, 2017 1:32:26 PM |
link
@62 horatio parker... i guess that explains why the whole world is against your
exceptional 'warmongering' nation..
te> Some of McMaster's more provocative statements seems to be that he
acknowledges that Russia and China are strategic threats to US domination of the world. Duh.
Isn't that totally obvious?
The question is what he will do about that problem? Col Lang at Turcopieler has come out
strongly supporting McMaster as NSC advisor. Lang thinks he is the right person for that job
right now. I have no idea but it may very well be that Flyn's obsession with Iran could have been
very dangerous. Mc Master might just do the right thing in these very dangerous times. We will
just have to wait and see.
Some of McMaster's more provocative statements seems to be that he acknowledges that
Russia and China are strategic threats to US domination of the world. Duh. Isn't that totally
obvious?
The question is what he will do about that problem? Col Lang at Turcopieler has come
out strongly supporting McMaster as NSC advisor. Lang thinks he is the right person for that
job right now. I have no idea but it may very well be that Flyn's obsession with Iran could
have been very dangerous. Mc Master might just do the right thing in these very dangerous
times. We will just have to wait and see.
te> It is like Goodfellas. They may know it's wrong but they all want to do it
to get ahead, maintain their lifestyle, and stay in the club. Who you gonna call? , Feb 22,
2017 1:41:17 PM |
link
It is like Goodfellas. They may know it's wrong but they all want to do it to get ahead,
maintain their lifestyle, and stay in the club. Who you gonna call?
It's essential to look beyond the headlines to get a sense of what's really afoot. From
the onset, as I've stated many times, the Trump Presidency is about deception and about
replacing Obama's failed "Plan A" for global dominion with what we might call Henry Kissinger's
"Plan B."
What did the abrupt firing of Flynn do to possibly aid world peace? Was he not the dear
friend of normalizing relations with Putin's Russia? Was he not the ardent foe of the
war-mongering neo-cons that dominated the foreign policies of George W. Bush and B. Obama? In a
word, No. He wasn't.
The issue is not Flynn as though he single-handedly was about cleaning the filth out of
the Augean Stables of the Washington intelligence community. The issue is the declared priority
foreign policy of the Trump Project.
Since the election campaign, certain themes have been clearly sounded: The nuclear
deal with Iran was "bad" and new hostile sanctions are in order. Relations with Bibi
Netanyahu's right-wing Likud government must again become special Washington priority.
Relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest financier of terrorism, must also be elevated.
What has taken place in the four weeks since the inauguration?
Not a new policy, post-Flynn. What is taking place is a strategic pivot, as planned, to
build a war coalition for US control of the oil and gas of the Middle East. It is not about
"peace" in cooperation with Russia in Syria. Never was.
Notable was that the stupid and imprecise threat from Flynn led both Russia and China to
publicly declare their firm support of Iran, the opposite of what Plan B is supposed to bring.
Three days before Flynn fell on his sword, the Kremlin Presidential spokesman, Dmitry Peskov,
stated, "Russia disagrees with a remark recently made by US President Donald Trump's that
branded Iran as 'the number one terrorist state.' All of you know that Russia enjoys warm
relations with Iran, we do cooperate on a range of issues, and we do appreciate our economic
ties which, we hope, will go further."
It's essential to look beyond the headlines to get a sense of what's really afoot. From
the onset, as I've stated many times, the Trump Presidency is about deception and about
replacing Obama's failed "Plan A" for global dominion with what we might call Henry
Kissinger's "Plan B."
What did the abrupt firing of Flynn do to possibly aid world peace? Was he not the dear
friend of normalizing relations with Putin's Russia? Was he not the ardent foe of the
war-mongering neo-cons that dominated the foreign policies of George W. Bush and B. Obama?
In a word, No. He wasn't.
The issue is not Flynn as though he single-handedly was about cleaning the filth out of
the Augean Stables of the Washington intelligence community. The issue is the declared
priority foreign policy of the Trump Project.
Since the election campaign, certain themes have been clearly sounded: The nuclear
deal with Iran was "bad" and new hostile sanctions are in order. Relations with Bibi
Netanyahu's right-wing Likud government must again become special Washington priority.
Relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest financier of terrorism, must also be
elevated. What has taken place in the four weeks since the inauguration?
Not a new policy, post-Flynn. What is taking place is a strategic pivot, as planned, to
build a war coalition for US control of the oil and gas of the Middle East. It is not about
"peace" in cooperation with Russia in Syria. Never was.
Notable was that the stupid and imprecise threat from Flynn led both Russia and China to
publicly declare their firm support of Iran, the opposite of what Plan B is supposed to
bring. Three days before Flynn fell on his sword, the Kremlin Presidential spokesman,
Dmitry Peskov, stated, "Russia disagrees with a remark recently made by US President Donald
Trump's that branded Iran as 'the number one terrorist state.' All of you know that Russia
enjoys warm relations with Iran, we do cooperate on a range of issues, and we do appreciate
our economic ties which, we hope, will go further."
te> @54 - some of that gossip seems to me to be stretching the facts as are
known a wee bit, such as -
With the linkages of this massive radical Islamic spy network spreading to the top of the
Democratic Party leadership, and over two dozen Democrat US Congressman and women, ..., these
Democratic leftists are even now preparing for their mass arrest by FBI agents loyal to
President Trump by showing their power of being able to quickly assemble street mobs-and that
once this should happen, would flood America's cities with millions of radicals proclaiming
President Trump was creating a dictatorship-therefore leading to the collapse of the United
States as civil war would most certainly ensue.
The word 'massive' is overstated given the facts as we know them - three brothers, two
wives and I think a son who is 22 years old making $160k a year. Six people does not = massive.
Also, no where have I read any hint of arrests of anyone other than the 5/6 mentioned in the
reports I've read. That doesn't mean more arrests may not happen, they surely may, but until such
time the dramatic tone offered by the author is, well, over the top dramatic.
As well, there are a plethora of excuses for these protests with one of the main one's
being to distract, especially Dem/Indy voters from the grotesque loss by their Party leadership
in 2016. Rather than holding these LOSERS accountable for LOSING significant power on the federal
and state level, these LOSER leaders are doing everything they can to create havoc anywhere and
every where BUT where it is most rightly deserved, on themselves and the rotten mess they've made
out of a once healthy, viable Party.
Jimmy Dore did a four-part interview with Thomas Frank who wrote Listen, Liberal, or What
Ever Happened to the Party of the People - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9u2aR19P3g
Well worth one's time if interested to learn how these LOSER Leaders of the Dem Party helped
Trump get elected and it's 'Not What You Think' Part 3 of the interview.
___________
b, here's a crazy thought to consider - who says Pence is telling the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God? Flynn used the word 'scapegoat' for a reason.
Maybe Pence went out there and said what he said and forgot or left out, purposely, or not key
details Flynn did provide. Maybe it was Pence who screwed up. You can't fire a VP.
@54 - some of that gossip seems to me to be stretching the facts as are known a wee bit, such
as -
With the linkages of this massive radical Islamic spy network spreading to the top of the
Democratic Party leadership, and over two dozen Democrat US Congressman and women, ...,
these Democratic leftists are even now preparing for their mass arrest by FBI agents loyal
to President Trump by showing their power of being able to quickly assemble street mobs-and
that once this should happen, would flood America's cities with millions of radicals
proclaiming President Trump was creating a dictatorship-therefore leading to the collapse
of the United States as civil war would most certainly ensue.
The word 'massive' is overstated given the facts as we know them - three brothers, two
wives and I think a son who is 22 years old making $160k a year. Six people does not =
massive. Also, no where have I read any hint of arrests of anyone other than the 5/6
mentioned in the reports I've read. That doesn't mean more arrests may not happen, they
surely may, but until such time the dramatic tone offered by the author is, well, over the
top dramatic.
As well, there are a plethora of excuses for these protests with one of the main one's
being to distract, especially Dem/Indy voters from the grotesque loss by their Party
leadership in 2016. Rather than holding these LOSERS accountable for LOSING significant power
on the federal and state level, these LOSER leaders are doing everything they can to create
havoc anywhere and every where BUT where it is most rightly deserved, on themselves and the
rotten mess they've made out of a once healthy, viable Party.
Jimmy Dore did a four-part interview with Thomas Frank who wrote Listen, Liberal, or What
Ever Happened to the Party of the People - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9u2aR19P3g
Well worth one's time if interested to learn how these LOSER Leaders of the Dem Party helped
Trump get elected and it's 'Not What You Think' Part 3 of the interview.
___________
b, here's a crazy thought to consider - who says Pence is telling the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God? Flynn used the word 'scapegoat' for a
reason. Maybe Pence went out there and said what he said and forgot or left out, purposely,
or not key details Flynn did provide. Maybe it was Pence who screwed up. You can't fire a
VP.
This totalitarian expansion of surveillance powers should scare the hell out of any
thinking, engaged American. One has to ask themselves why aren't these protesters throwing a fit
about this betrayal. Oh, and Trump hasn't rescinded the Order...yet. I guess he likes the
expanded powers. Thank Obama and Team for that!
This totalitarian expansion of surveillance powers should scare the hell out of any
thinking, engaged American. One has to ask themselves why aren't these protesters throwing a
fit about this betrayal. Oh, and Trump hasn't rescinded the Order...yet. I guess he likes the
expanded powers. Thank Obama and Team for that!
It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of
McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same problematic
development and have a strategy against it.
If regular people who aren't POTUS and don't have a team of advisors working for them can
recognize it, I sure hope Trump can. Will he roll over and let the war ghouls have their way? I
hope not, the consequences of a capitulation would be disastrous for the world. So far Trump's
administration is suffering from a glaring lack of leadership and direction. He needs to
seriously up his game.
It seems to me that Trump has been rolled with the attacks on Flynn and the insertion of
McMaster into his inner circle. I wonder if he, and Bannon, recognize the same
problematic development and have a strategy against it.
If regular people who aren't POTUS and don't have a team of advisors working for them can
recognize it, I sure hope Trump can. Will he roll over and let the war ghouls have their way?
I hope not, the consequences of a capitulation would be disastrous for the world. So far
Trump's administration is suffering from a glaring lack of leadership and direction. He needs
to seriously up his game.
te> The emperor has no clothes!...after bullying the rest for the past sixty
years or so the ruling factions in the land of the free and brave cant even tie its shoe laces
and keep falling on its face:-)..dang when was the last time you guys pulled your collective head
out of your collective 'american' ass?..get over it folks USA aint exceptional no more, now go
home and mend your backyards! , Feb 22, 2017 2:53:31 PM |
link
The emperor has no clothes!...after bullying the rest for the past sixty years or so the
ruling factions in the land of the free and brave cant even tie its shoe laces and keep
falling on its face:-)..dang when was the last time you guys pulled your collective head out
of your collective 'american' ass?..get over it folks USA aint exceptional no more, now go
home and mend your backyards!
te> h: " One has to ask themselves why aren't these protesters throwing a
fit about this betrayal ."
Fundamentally because the average person on this planet is effectively mesmerized &
incapable of independent thought. This is not unique to the American Zombie. It is a global
phenomena.
But even the barely educated Coastal American Zombie -- who should not be confused with
the completely uneducated Flyover American Zombies -- know at a subconscious level that their
standard of living comes at the price of trampling of rights, both foreign and
domestic.
It just 'feels' nicer, and more modern and cosmopolitan, to be a Coastal Zombie. Remember
when that hag bleeted about "deplorables"? That was the dumbed down version of Lumpenproletariat
for the barely educated Coastal American Zombies.
So, yes the CAZ turns a blind eye to Obama the war president just as FOAZ ignores the
orange wonders' wall to wall swamp creature administration.
h: " One has to ask themselves why aren't these protesters throwing a fit about this
betrayal ."
Fundamentally because the average person on this planet is effectively mesmerized &
incapable of independent thought. This is not unique to the American Zombie. It is a global
phenomena.
But even the barely educated Coastal American Zombie -- who should not be confused with
the completely uneducated Flyover American Zombies -- know at a subconscious level that their
standard of living comes at the price of trampling of rights, both foreign and
domestic.
It just 'feels' nicer, and more modern and cosmopolitan, to be a Coastal Zombie. Remember
when that hag bleeted about "deplorables"? That was the dumbed down version of
Lumpenproletariat for the barely educated Coastal American Zombies.
So, yes the CAZ turns a blind eye to Obama the war president just as FOAZ ignores the
orange wonders' wall to wall swamp creature administration.
te> lots of conjecture, but nothing substantial to back any of it up.. i feel
like i am reading an alternate version of the nyt or something.. , Feb 22, 2017 3:25:32 PM |
link
lots of conjecture, but nothing substantial to back any of it up.. i feel like i am reading
an alternate version of the nyt or something..
As far as I can tell, the designated successor of Yeltsin has made a secret deal with the
Zionist entity.
Russia has never, ever, not once, been a friend of Iran.
Don't forget, it was Putin that went along with the completely laughable Iranian nuke threat
and force that nation to sign on extended protocols and "joint" (meaning for the benefit of both
foreign devils and turbaned devils) business agreement TO LOOT Iran that flushed Iran's sovereign
rights down the hole.
And Russia didn't step up to help its "ally" Syria until SAA, Hezbollah & Quds force
started turning things around. Then the "heroic" Russians showed up.
And of course, you must have noted that beyond that 1st peace making troika, since then it has
been Russia/Turkey.
The awful thing here though is that there is not a single good guy to root for here on this
planet.
They all stink to hell. Makes you wonder if they are not just different facades of one
singular stinky evil cabal.
As far as I can tell, the designated successor of Yeltsin has made a secret deal with the
Zionist entity.
Russia has never, ever, not once, been a friend of Iran.
Don't forget, it was Putin that went along with the completely laughable Iranian nuke
threat and force that nation to sign on extended protocols and "joint" (meaning for the
benefit of both foreign devils and turbaned devils) business agreement TO LOOT Iran that
flushed Iran's sovereign rights down the hole.
And Russia didn't step up to help its "ally" Syria until SAA, Hezbollah & Quds force
started turning things around. Then the "heroic" Russians showed up.
And of course, you must have noted that beyond that 1st peace making troika, since then it
has been Russia/Turkey.
The awful thing here though is that there is not a single good guy to root for here on
this planet.
They all stink to hell. Makes you wonder if they are not just different facades of one
singular stinky evil cabal.
Things were "turning around" in Syria before Russians showed up? LOL, you must be smoking
some good Shia hashish.
The fact is, General Soleimani pitched his tent at the Red Square and was refusing to leave
unless Moscow agreed to help - because Assad's regime was simply collapsing in an accelerating
fashion.
If not for the Russians, it'd be all over long ago.
You are right, however, that Russia doesn't regard Iran as a friend, since Iran brands
anyone but Shias as "infidels".
Things were "turning around" in Syria before Russians showed up? LOL, you must be smoking
some good Shia hashish.
The fact is, General Soleimani pitched his tent at the Red Square and was refusing to
leave unless Moscow agreed to help - because Assad's regime was simply collapsing in an
accelerating fashion.
If not for the Russians, it'd be all over long ago.
You are right, however, that Russia doesn't regard Iran as a friend, since Iran brands
anyone but Shias as "infidels".
te> Re: Flynn dismissal. Robt David Steele, ex-CIA, says Flynn fired over his
investigation of Pizzagate. RDS's interview's on the Web. I've very ltd time just now. Haven't
watched it. , Feb 22, 2017 4:01:22 PM |
link
Re: Flynn dismissal. Robt David Steele, ex-CIA, says Flynn fired over his investigation of
Pizzagate. RDS's interview's on the Web. I've very ltd time just now. Haven't watched it.
te> @84 Iran brands anyone but Shias as "infidels". Major facepalm.. The only
country (with Syria) who ever tried to support (yes through Hezbollah) the Palestinian cause 99%
of whow are Sunni..
@84 Iran brands anyone but Shias as "infidels". Major facepalm.. The only country (with
Syria) who ever tried to support (yes through Hezbollah) the Palestinian cause 99% of whow
are Sunni..
te> You can't fire a VP, but you can leave him without any power, the way FDR
did to John Nance Garner and then later to Harry Truman, the way JFK did to LBJ. , Feb 22,
2017 4:22:47 PM |
link
You can't fire a VP, but you can leave him without any power, the way FDR did to John Nance
Garner and then later to Harry Truman, the way JFK did to LBJ.
They are just going to make it hard on everyone for some time to come
i don't mean to impinge on your optimism, or to presume what your idea of 'recovery' might
mean, but for some time to come sounds like a bit of a whitewash. the jig is
up , and you'd do well to break this gently to your children. plant the seed.
here in Italy youth unemployment has surpassed 40%. i see distant roiling clouds of
uncertainty and glints of unrequited dreams in my daughters dark eyes.
They are just going to make it hard on everyone for some time to come
i don't mean to impinge on your optimism, or to presume what your idea of 'recovery' might
mean, but for some time to come sounds like a bit of a whitewash. the jig
is up , and you'd do well to break this gently to your children. plant the seed.
here in Italy youth unemployment has surpassed 40%. i see distant roiling clouds of
uncertainty and glints of unrequited dreams in my daughters dark eyes.
te> I want to voice agreement with Hoarsewhisperer @33 and Juliania @61.
Thanks for hanging in with these vastly deteriorated comments. I'm still reading, but not much to
say at present.
I watched the news conference Trump gave on Feb 17. You can find it at whitehouse.gov. I
watched and listened to every word, and I saw nothing but an extremely strong man having fun, as
he said, in bouncing the corrupt presstitutes around, working to play the Fake News meme against
them, taunting and challenging them to ask an intelligent question. He praised those few
journalists who asked about real things. He will change the press corps into true reporters
eventually I think. It will pay their publishers better, as he says.
I hold with my earlier assessment that he's letting people play with their current ideas
and is himself throwing things at the refrigerator to see what sticks. In the end he'll do what
works. It's madness to think anything is set in concrete yet - on the other hand, listen to his
list of accomplishments achieved in his first few weeks, that no one pays attention to. I won't
list them, since he does in his press conference.
Trump in his conference was talking to the people of the country. I have no doubt
they're out there. I'm astonished to see so much formerly alt-news becoming the new public
culture. Russia plays its part in fighting back against fake news, and Trump is a one-man
juggernaut in this regard. I don't know how far he'll go. I don't know if they'll stop him. At a
certain point, the energy required to stop him can only backfire into an explosion of truth and
light that shows up the background subterfuges for what they are, in the clear light of day. And
eventually, the establishment will have to make this same calculation, and every day they leave
him alive is another day they drift further away from influence and it may already be too
late.
I don't see Trump as having been rolled by anyone. I see everyone who tries to roll him
being turned from roller to rollee, and often in public. I think it's a big mistake to
over-analyze personnel and pronouncements at this juncture. What will matter are shovel-ready
projects, economic improvements, and the hands of the doomsday clock turning gradually backwards.
This is all the working people of the world want, in this wicked world of class warfare.
Trump is working, I believe from his own words, for the people and the nation as he in his
patriotism conceives it to be. He will do many lesser things that I don't like, and a few major
things that I may have to get on my knees to give adequate thanks for. And those few things are
the only things that matter.
I want to voice agreement with Hoarsewhisperer @33 and Juliania @61. Thanks for hanging in
with these vastly deteriorated comments. I'm still reading, but not much to say at present.
I watched the news conference Trump gave on Feb 17. You can find it at whitehouse.gov.
I watched and listened to every word, and I saw nothing but an extremely strong man having
fun, as he said, in bouncing the corrupt presstitutes around, working to play the Fake News
meme against them, taunting and challenging them to ask an intelligent question. He praised
those few journalists who asked about real things. He will change the press corps into true
reporters eventually I think. It will pay their publishers better, as he says.
I hold with my earlier assessment that he's letting people play with their current ideas
and is himself throwing things at the refrigerator to see what sticks. In the end he'll do
what works. It's madness to think anything is set in concrete yet - on the other hand, listen
to his list of accomplishments achieved in his first few weeks, that no one pays attention
to. I won't list them, since he does in his press conference.
Trump in his conference was talking to the people of the country. I have no doubt
they're out there. I'm astonished to see so much formerly alt-news becoming the new public
culture. Russia plays its part in fighting back against fake news, and Trump is a one-man
juggernaut in this regard. I don't know how far he'll go. I don't know if they'll stop him.
At a certain point, the energy required to stop him can only backfire into an explosion of
truth and light that shows up the background subterfuges for what they are, in the clear
light of day. And eventually, the establishment will have to make this same calculation, and
every day they leave him alive is another day they drift further away from influence and it
may already be too late.
I don't see Trump as having been rolled by anyone. I see everyone who tries to roll him
being turned from roller to rollee, and often in public. I think it's a big mistake to
over-analyze personnel and pronouncements at this juncture. What will matter are shovel-ready
projects, economic improvements, and the hands of the doomsday clock turning gradually
backwards. This is all the working people of the world want, in this wicked world of class
warfare.
Trump is working, I believe from his own words, for the people and the nation as he in his
patriotism conceives it to be. He will do many lesser things that I don't like, and a few
major things that I may have to get on my knees to give adequate thanks for. And those few
things are the only things that matter.
te> I don't know why anyone's missing Flynn. The guy's as dumb as a post. I
don't know much about NcMaster but I know that Trump picked him, nobody else.
If the CIA and the liberals wanted to load Trump up with hawks they would have
"inserted" Bolton. But nobody gets to insert anybody for that job. No hearings, vetting or fuck
all.
I wouldn't be too sure that Trump's main mission is to make peace with Russia. If it is
then maybe he should tell his crew. He talks lots of shit but diplomatically it's no different
than before. Sorry, I don't buy into it being some part of an incredibly intricate plan. You
can't make honey out of dog shit.
I don't know why anyone's missing Flynn. The guy's as dumb as a post. I don't know much
about NcMaster but I know that Trump picked him, nobody else.
If the CIA and the liberals wanted to load Trump up with hawks they would have
"inserted" Bolton. But nobody gets to insert anybody for that job. No hearings, vetting or
fuck all.
I wouldn't be too sure that Trump's main mission is to make peace with Russia. If it is
then maybe he should tell his crew. He talks lots of shit but diplomatically it's no
different than before. Sorry, I don't buy into it being some part of an incredibly intricate
plan. You can't make honey out of dog shit.
te> Thanks too to Hoarsewhisperer @33 and Juliania @61, and Grieved, as usual.
Comments lately are sounding more and more like those to be found on the Guardian.
Thanks too to Hoarsewhisperer @33 and Juliania @61, and Grieved, as usual. Comments lately
are sounding more and more like those to be found on the Guardian.
Syrian media reported that Israeli aircraft targeted Syrian Army positions, including a
convoy bearing weapons for the Hezbollah terrorist group, early Wednesday morning.
The strike was said to have occurred at approximately 3:30 a.m., in the Qalamoun Mountains,
northeast of Damascus, close to the Lebanese border.
According to Arab media, outposts of the Syrian Army's 3rd Division were targeted in the
strikes.
I got this from Jim Hanke, former US Attache to Israel. Israel has C130 landing strips
along highways south of the Dead Sea. They block traffic, and you can actually see this on Google
Maps, which carries live traffic from Israel. They actually block the roads and bring in
planeloads of jihadists, which is seen on the traffic analysis, which we have samples of
below:
Israel then runs a ratline into Jordan, to the CIA run training camps there and onto the
Saudi payroll .then up into Syria where they get Israeli air support and medical aid as
well.
Syrian media reported that Israeli aircraft targeted Syrian Army positions, including a
convoy bearing weapons for the Hezbollah terrorist group, early Wednesday morning.
The strike was said to have occurred at approximately 3:30 a.m., in the Qalamoun
Mountains, northeast of Damascus, close to the Lebanese border.
According to Arab media, outposts of the Syrian Army's 3rd Division were targeted in the
strikes.
I got this from Jim Hanke, former US Attache to Israel. Israel has C130 landing strips
along highways south of the Dead Sea. They block traffic, and you can actually see this on
Google Maps, which carries live traffic from Israel. They actually block the roads and bring
in planeloads of jihadists, which is seen on the traffic analysis, which we have samples of
below:
Israel then runs a ratline into Jordan, to the CIA run training camps there and onto the
Saudi payroll .then up into Syria where they get Israeli air support and medical aid as
well.
te> Grieved @ 93 and also Hoarsewhisperer, Juliania:
I'm inclined to agree with you three, that Trump represents a way or style of leadership
that confuses hell out of Capitol Hill and the Washington press corps, and which the latter lacks
the language to describe and to communicate to the public at large. Trump has been President for
barely a month but The Powers That (Shouldn't) Be are determined to cut him no slack. Everyone
else is over-reading their own narrative over Trump and over-analysing what Flynn's resignation
means for Trump.
The other thing people have to remember is that the O'Bomber administration deliberately
left unsigned bills or orders for the new administration to deal with once the Democrats realised
that Killary Klinton had lost the election and the Electoral College. A lot of the flack Trump's
government is getting stems from business left behind by Obama, such as the refugee visa ban
targeting seven countries, based on a list of targeted nations in previous legislation approved
by the Obama government.
Grieved @ 93 and also Hoarsewhisperer, Juliania:
I'm inclined to agree with you three, that Trump represents a way or style of
leadership that confuses hell out of Capitol Hill and the Washington press corps, and which
the latter lacks the language to describe and to communicate to the public at large. Trump
has been President for barely a month but The Powers That (Shouldn't) Be are determined to
cut him no slack. Everyone else is over-reading their own narrative over Trump and
over-analysing what Flynn's resignation means for Trump.
The other thing people have to remember is that the O'Bomber administration
deliberately left unsigned bills or orders for the new administration to deal with once the
Democrats realised that Killary Klinton had lost the election and the Electoral College. A
lot of the flack Trump's government is getting stems from business left behind by Obama, such
as the refugee visa ban targeting seven countries, based on a list of targeted nations in
previous legislation approved by the Obama government.
"... Anyone who ever thought that Trump was cleverly playing some hidden grand strategy in either foreign or domestic policy is a chump, no better than those fools who thought for years that Obama was a master of 11th dimensional chess. ..."
It didn't take a great deal of insight or wisdom to view Trump as a con-man from the getgo.
Anyone who ever thought that Trump was cleverly playing some hidden grand strategy in either foreign or domestic policy is
a chump, no better than those fools who thought for years that Obama was a master of 11th dimensional chess.
Trump election program of 2016 explained. Compare with the results
Notable quotes:
"... advocated deporting nearly 11 million undocumented workers ..."
"... called for a border wall to be built between the US and Mexico ..."
"... said he would force Mexico to pay for the wall by threatening to ban Mexicans in the US from sending remittances home ..."
"... Mr Trump has aggressively criticised international trade agreements, particularly Nafta, saying the pacts have harmed the US manufacturing sector and cost millions of US jobs. He has pointed to the country's massive trade deficit with China, saying tariffs are needed to address the imbalance. Most Republicans oppose tariffs, saying they would spark a trade war that would damage the economy. ..."
"... Mr Trump has been a vocal critic of the Iraq War and says the US need not be the world's policeman. While Mr Trump has supported strengthening the military, he says he would do so by extracting concessions from allies. He has repeatedly said the US should rethink its commitments to NATO, saying other member countries do not pay their fair share of the organization's budget. He has also floated an idea that South Korea and Japan could arm themselves with nuclear weapons - eliminating the need for US protection. ..."
"... Efforts to make changes to Social Security and Medicare are deeply unpopular with American voters. Mr Trump has said he would not make cuts or changes to those programmes and instead he would bolster their funding sources by strengthening the US economy and reallocating some foreign aid to the coffers of Social Security and Medicare. ..."
Mr Trump describes himself as a "commonsense conservative" and the fact that his message has earned him millions of Republican
votes suggests a fracture between the grassroots and leadership.
Here are five key issues upon which the billionaire businessman diverges from Republican orthodoxy as represented by leaders like
Mr Ryan and presidents of the past.
Immigration
Mainstream Republicans: Traditionally Republicans have favoured increased immigration in keeping with the party's
close relationship with the business community. Both President Ronald Reagan and President George HW Bush extended amnesty
to millions of undocumented workers while in office. Mainstream Republican figures such as Florida Senator Marco Rubio initially
favoured similar immigration reforms that would have provided a "path to citizenship", but those efforts stopped after meeting
resistance from more conservative members of Congress.
Trump: Views on immigration have shifted rightward across the Republican Party in recent years, but Mr Trump's views
are some of the most extreme in American politics. He has:
advocated deporting nearly 11 million undocumented workers
called for a border wall to be built between the US and Mexico
said he would force Mexico to pay for the wall by threatening to ban Mexicans in the US from sending remittances
home
Most Republicans oppose mass deportations. While they support increased border security, they do not advocate a border wall
paid for by the Mexican government.
International trade
Mainstream Republicans: Republicans have long supported trade agreement such as the North American Free Trade Agreement
(Nafta), which increased trade between Canada, the US and Mexico in the 1990s. Many Republicans in the Congress currently support
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pending trade agreement between the US and many Pacific Rim countries. Supporters of these
agreements say the pacts increase economic growth and enhance American competitiveness in the global market.
Trump:Mr Trump has aggressively criticised international trade agreements, particularly Nafta, saying the pacts
have harmed the US manufacturing sector and cost millions of US jobs. He has pointed to the country's massive trade deficit
with China, saying tariffs are needed to address the imbalance. Most Republicans oppose tariffs, saying they would spark a
trade war that would damage the economy.
Foreign policy
Mainstream Republicans: Republicans have long supported a muscular foreign policy and have not shied away from supporting
the use of military force aboard. While generally opposed to government spending, Republicans make a key exception for defence
spending, allowing the US military to maintain scores of bases overseas and protect the interests of its allies in Europe and
the Pacific.
Trump:Mr Trump has been a vocal critic of the Iraq War and says the US need not be the world's policeman. While
Mr Trump has supported strengthening the military, he says he would do so by extracting concessions from allies. He has repeatedly
said the US should rethink its commitments to NATO, saying other member countries do not pay their fair share of the organization's
budget. He has also floated an idea that South Korea and Japan could arm themselves with nuclear weapons - eliminating the
need for US protection.
Social services
Mainstream Republicans: A key faction of the Republican Party is made of fiscal conservatives who view the federal
deficit as a major long-term problem for the country. After defence spending, two social services programmes that benefit the
elderly - Social Security and Medicare - are the next biggest contributors to the deficit. Social Security provides living
expenses for workers older than 65 and Medicare provides health care benefits to older Americans. Republicans - in particularly
Mr Ryan - have long supported changes to Social Security and Medicare that would turn those programmes over to the private
market. Mr Ryan currently supports turning Medicare into a programme in which the government provides vouchers that would be
used to purchase private insurance.
Trump:Efforts to make changes to Social Security and Medicare are deeply unpopular with American voters. Mr
Trump has said he would not make cuts or changes to those programmes and instead he would bolster their funding sources by
strengthening the US economy and reallocating some foreign aid to the coffers of Social Security and Medicare.
Someone astute once said "history repeats itself--the first as tragedy and then as farce."
Oh, yes, it was Karl Marx in his Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon. Quite relevant to the
subject.
I have followed the beginning of the 2020 presidential campaign undecided whether to cry or
laugh. That is to say, I am undecided whether to view the unfolding season as a tragic or
farcical circumstance.
Of particular agony is the back-and-forth between President Trump and his sycophants on the
one side and the nominal Democratic wunderkind AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for those living
on another planet) on the other. Trumpers label her as a dangerous socialist and vow to defend
America against a resurgence of socialism. AOC returns the volley by declaring that she is,
indeed a socialist, and the socialistic redistribution of billionaire fortune is what's best
for the United States. Mainstream Democrats are terrified that AOC and her Millennial fans will
hijack the 2020 primary campaign and once again allow the Democrats to seize defeat from the
jaws of victory.
Between AOC and The Donald, I doubt that a single page of the writings of Karl Marx, V.I.
Lenin, or Mao Zedong have been read and digested.
There were serious revolutions in the 19th and early 20th century. Marx's writings on class
warfare, the theory of surplus value and related topics were once seriously studied and gave
some foundation to serious revolutionary thinkers. There were ferocious debates, particularly
in Bolshevik Soviet Union post-1917 that led to firing squads and other serious consequences.
Socialism in one country of Stalin versus permanent revolution of Trotsky was a core issue in
shaping world revolution in the 1930s. The Popular Front Against Fascism was Stalin's approach
to align with the United States and others to defeat the Nazis. 20 million Russians and 23
million Chinese died in the fight. 16 million Americans were sent to battle in Europe and the
Pacific during World War II. But the moment the war ended, the new Cold War started. It was a
struggle between Soviet Communism and Western Democracy, led by the United States. It had real
consequences. It led to the rise of what President Eisenhower warned of as the
"military-industrial complex" in his Farewell Address.
Relative to these genuine battles over ideas, I find the current debate worse than farce. If
the best that the two major parties can come up with in the upcoming presidential and
congressional elections is a debate over "socialism for dummies," then the real losers will be
the American people.
I hope this thread sparks some response. I am touching on a big subject in a few words. Is
there a genuine emergence of Millennial Socialism? AOC's self-proclaimed Green New Deal has
nothing to do with FDR's actions in 1933, which were aimed, in part, at preparing the United
States for the next war that was already looming in Europe. Reichstag Fire was February
27,1933.
FDR was inaugurated March 4, 1933--not even a week later. Serious times demand serious ideas
and rich debate. Not kindergarten name calling from the peanut gallery.
It's IMO merely an aspiration document. I totally agree it's unrealistic and potentially
catastrophic if suddenly implemented in the style of, say, one of Mao's 5-year plans. Yet
it's not completely without merit. The world is rapidly industrializing and the population
booming. At some point fossil fuels will become precious. There really are "green jobs", many
in infrastructure and that means some government involvement. Jobs jobs jobs.
We have too large a percentage of our capital just sloshing back and forth on Wall Street
casino tables IMO.
You mean when Senator Malarkey introduced that legislation he did not intend it to become the
law of the land? That says a great deal about the Senator. "aspiration" is just the twist the
Democratic party is using to continue to control the media narrative.
"We have too large a percentage of our capital... on Wall Street..."
How did it become "our capital" and why should the Federal government be telling me what I
can do with my own money?
Because "A hungry mon is an angry mon." The US model is one of government saving capitalism
both from and for the capitalists.
I understand some subscribe to the Ayn Rand notions of laissez faire capitalism, but I
know of no industrialized place on the world where that has worked out well. We went through
a Gilded Age ourselves, the result was not a happy one for most workers so we broke up the
trusts and redistributed the wealth. Worked out pretty well, and it was done by the very
generation being touted as heroes of capitalism now. Ike had a 90% tax rate on individual
incomes above a certain level, and he hardly did that alone. I suspect Ike wanted to make
damn sure the Daddy Warbucks of his previous war did not make him have to route hungry vets
protesting for their pay out of Washington's streets again, but I be guessing.
I hear a lot about "supply side" theories. That implies a false dichotomy, one must be
either a supply sider or something else. I'm a "both sider". Can't have a consumer economy
without consumers and so consumers must have money to spend. Can't have jobs without some
capital. I view assuming that it happens naturally in all cases as blind faith.
If I had to justify this constitutionally, I'd put it under "provide for the general
welfare' and "preserve domestic tranquility'.
The GND as introduced by AOC is indeed an aspirational document. It is a resolution rather
than a bill destined to become law. Compared to some of the GNDs put out by other groups over
the last few years, AOC's resolution is almost moderate. Almost, I still think going to net
zero carbon emissions in 10 years is a tall order.
We are subsidizing a lot of industries at the state and federal level. That in itself
smacks of socialist policies. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries we would
be well on the way to meeting a lot of the GND goals. Even without those subsidies, the auto
industry seems intent on moving to EP fleets at the expense of their fossil fuel fleets. And
coal as a fuel is going the way of the dodo bird.
"... It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians and Democrats posing as Russians. ..."
"... Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand down and close the murder case without further investigation. ..."
"... What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump impeached & removed from the Whitehouse? ..."
"... Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another reason to stop the investigation. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue. ..."
"... We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C. park for transport to Wikileaks. ..."
"... This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press" failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call the tune. ..."
"... Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump. So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020. ..."
"... Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ & FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c ..."
"... Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless, short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. ..."
"... Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is that stupid. ..."
"... Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm ..."
"... It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray! ..."
"... Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war continues. Mission Accomplished. ..."
I could not suffer through reading the whole article. This is mainly because I have
watched the news daily about Mueller's Investigation and I sincerely believe that Mueller is
Champion of the Democrats who are trying to depose President Donald Trump at any cost.
For what Mueller found any decent lawyer with a Degree and a few years of experience could
have found what Mueller found for far far less money. Mueller only found common crimes AND NO
COLLUSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUTIN!
The Mueller Investigation should be given to an honest broker to review, and Mueller
should be paid only what it would cost to produce the commonplace crimes Mueller, The
Democrats, and CNN has tried to convince the people that indeed Trump COLLUDED with RUSSIA.
Mueller is, a BIG NOTHING BURGER and THE DEMOCRATS AND CNN ARE MUELLER'S SINGING CANARYS!
Mueller should be jailed.
Bogdan Miller , March 15, 2019 at 11:04 am
This article explains why the Mueller Report is already highly suspect. For another thing,
we know that since before 2016, Democrats have been studying Russian Internet and hacking
tactics, and posing as Russian Bots/Trolls on Facebook and other media outlets, all in an
effort to harm President Trump.
It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians
and Democrats posing as Russians.
B.J.M. Former Intelligence Analyst and Humint Collector
vinnieoh , March 15, 2019 at 8:17 am
Moving on: the US House yesterday voted UNANIMOUSLY (remember that word, so foreign these
days to US governance?) to "urge" the new AG to release the complete Mueller report.
A
non-binding resolution, but you would think that the Democrats can't see the diesel
locomotive bearing down on their clown car, about to smash it to pieces. The new AG in turn
says he will summarize the report and that is what we will see, not the entire report. And
taxation without representation takes a new twist.
... ... ...
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:38 pm
What else would you expect from two Political Parties who are really branches of the ONE
Party which Represents DEEP STATE".
DWS , March 15, 2019 at 5:58 am
Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the
security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week
as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand
down and close the murder case without further investigation.
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:47 pm
EXACTLY! But, Deep State will not allow that. And, it would ruin the USA' plan to continue
to invade more sovereign countries and steal their resources such as oil and Minerals. The
people of the USA must be Ostriches or are so terrified that they accept anything their
Criminal Governments tell them.
Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost and perhaps the USA voters will ROAST
when the crimes of the USA sink the whole country. It is time for a few Brave Men and Women
to find their backbones and throw out the warmongers and their leading Oligarchs!
KiwiAntz , March 14, 2019 at 6:44 pm
What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of
the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined
Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or
Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American
Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump
impeached & removed from the Whitehouse?
If you can't get him out via a Election, try
& try again, like Maduro in Venezuela, to forcibly remove the targeted person by setting
him up with fake, false accusations & fabricated evidence? How very predictable & how
very American of Mueller & the Democratic Party. Absolute American Corruption, corrupts
absolutely?
Brian Murphy , March 15, 2019 at 10:33 am
Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on
as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another
reason to stop the investigation.
If the investigation wraps up and finds nothing, that means Trump has already completely
sold out. If the investigation continues, it means someone important still thinks Trump retains some
vestige of his balls.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:19 pm
By last June or July the Mueller investigation has resulted in roughly 150 indictments
for perjury/financial crimes, and there was a handful of convictions to date. The report did
not support the Clinton wing's anti-Russian allegations about the 2016 election, and was
largely brushed aside by media. Mueller was then reportedly sent back in to "find something."
presumably to support the anti-Russian claims.
mike k , March 14, 2019 at 12:57 pm
From the beginning of the Russia did it story, right after Trump's electoral victory, it
was apparent that this was a fraud. The democratic party however has locked onto this
preposterous story, and they will go to their graves denying this was a scam to deny their
presidential defeat, and somehow reverse the result of Trump's election. My sincere hope is
that this blatant lie will be an albatross around the party's neck, that will carry them down
into oblivion. They have betrayed those of us who supported them for so many years. They are
in many ways now worse than the republican scum they seek to replace.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:26 pm
Trump is almost certain to be re-elected in 2020, and we'll go through this all over
again.
The very fact that the FBI never had access to the servers and took the word of a private
company that had a history of being anti-Russian is enough to throw the entire ruse out.
LJ , March 14, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Agreed!!!! and don't forget the FBI/Comey gave Hillary and her Campaign a head's up before
they moved to seize the evidence. . So too, Comey said he stopped the Investigation , thereby
rendering judgement of innocence, even though by his own words 'gross negligence' had a
occurred (which is normally considered grounds for prosecution). In doing so he exceeded the
FBI's investigative mandate. He rationalized that decision was appropriate because of the
appearance of impropriety that resulted from Attorney General Lynch having a private meeting
on a plane on a runway with Bill and Hillary . Where was the logic in that. Who called the
meeting? All were Lawyers who had served as President, Senator, Attorney General and knew
that the meeting was absolutely inappropriate. . Comey should be prosecuted if they want to
prosecute anyone else because of this CRAP. PS Trump is an idiot. Uhinfortunately he is just
a symptom of the disease at this point. Look at the cover of Rolling Stone magazine , carry a
barf bag.
Jane Christ , March 14, 2019 at 6:51 pm
Exactly. This throws doubt on the ability of the FBI to work independently. They are
working for those who want to cover -up the Hillary mess . She evidently has sufficient funds
to pay them off. I am disgusted with the level of corruption.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 10:50 am
Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for
Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue.
If there were something hot and lingering and about to emerge, this decision is highly
unlikely, especially with the reasoning she gave at "so as not to divide the American
people." Dividing the people hasn't been of much concern throughout this bogus witch hunt on
Trump, which has added to his incompetence in leavening a growing hysteria and confusion in
this country. If there is something, anything at all, in the Mueller report to support the
collusion theory, Pelosi would I'm sure gleefully trot it out to get a lesser candidate like
Pence as opposition for 2020.
We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded
the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C.
park for transport to Wikileaks.
We must also honor Shawn Lucas assassinated for serving DNC with a litigation notice
exposing the DNC conspiracy against Sanders.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Where has Assange confirmed this? Assange's long-standing position is NOT to reveal his
sources. I believe he has continued to honor this position.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:15 am
It has merely been insinuated by the offering of a reward for info on Seth's murder. In
one breath he says wikileaks will never divulge a source, and in the next he offers a $20k
reward saying that sources take tremendous risk. Doesn't take much of a logical leap to
connect A to B.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Are you aware that Democrats split apart their 0wn voting base in the 1990s, middle class
vs. poor? The Obama years merely confirmed that this split is permanent. This is particularly
relevant for Democrats, as their voting base had long consisted of the poor and middle class,
for the common good. Ignoring this deep split hasn't made it go away.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Even more important is how the Democrats have sold out to an Establishment view favoring
neocon theory, since at least Bill Clinton. Pelosi's recent behavior with Ilhan Omar confirms
this and the split you're talking about. My point is it is distinctly odd that Pelosi is
discouraging impeachment on "dividing the Party" (already divided, of course, as you say),
whereas the Russia-gate fantasy was so hot not that long ago. Again it points to a cynical
opportunism and manipulation of the electorate. Both parties are a sad excuse to represent
ordinary people's interests.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:21 am
She said "dividing the country", not the party. I think she may have concerns over Trump's
heavily armed base. That said, the statement may have been a ruse. There are plenty of
Republicans that would cross the line in favor of impeachment with the right "conclusions" by
Mueller. Pelosi may be setting up for a "bombshell" conclusion by Mueller. One must never
forget that we are watching theater, and that Trump was a "mistake" to be controlled or
eliminated.
Mueller should be ashamed that he has made President Trump his main concern!! If all this
investigation would stop he could save America millions!!! He needs to quit this witch-hunt
and worry about things that really need to be handled!!! If the democrats and Trump haters
would stop pushing senseless lies hopefully this would stop ? It's so disgusting that his
democrat friend was never really investigated ? stop the witch-hunt and move forward!!!!
torture this , March 14, 2019 at 7:29 am
According to this letter, mistakes might have been made on Rachel Maddow's show. I can't
wait to read how she responds. I'd watch her show, myself except that it has the same effect
on me as ipecac.
Zhu , March 14, 2019 at 3:37 am
People will cling to "Putin made Trump President!!!" much as many cling "Obama's a Kenyan
Muslim! Not a real American!!!". Both nut theories are emotionally satisfying, no matter what
the historical facts are. Many Americans just can't admit their mistakes and blaming a
scapegoat is a way out.
O Society , March 14, 2019 at 2:03 am
Thank you VIPS for organizing this legit dissent consisting of experts in the field of
intelligence and computer forensics.
This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press"
failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call
the tune.
It is astounding how little skepticism and scientifically-informed reasoning goes on in
our media. These folks show themselves to be native advertising rather than authentic
journalists at every turn.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm
But it has been Democrats and the media that market to middle class Dems, who persist in
trying to sell the Russian Tale. They excel at ignoring the evidence that utterly contradicts
their claims.
Oh, we're well beyond your "Blame the middle class Dems" stage.
The WINNING!!! team sports bullshit drowns the entire country now the latrine's sprung a
leak. People pretend to live in bubbles made of blue or red quite like the Three Little Pigs,
isn't it? Except instead of a house made of bricks saving the day for the littlepiggies, what
we've got here is a purple puddle of piss.
Everyone's more than glad to project all our problems on "THEM" though, aren't we?
Meanwhile, the White House smells like a urinal not washed since the 1950s and simpletons
still get their rocks off arguing about whether Mickey Mouse can beat up Ronald McDonald.
T'would be comic except what's so tragic is the desperate need Americans have to believe,
oh just believe! in something. Never mind the sound of the jackhammer on your skull dear,
there's an app for that or is it a pill?
I don't know, don't ask me, I'm busy watching TV. Have a cheeto.
Very good analysis clearly stated, especially adding the FAT timestamps to the
transmission speeds.
Minor corrections: "The emails were copied from the network" should be "from the much
faster local network" because this is to Contradict the notion that they were copied over the
internet network, which most readers will equate with "network." Also "reportedin" should be
"reported in."
Michael , March 13, 2019 at 6:25 pm
It is likely that New Knowledge was actually "the Russians", possibly working in concert
with Crowdstrike. Once an intelligence agency gets away with something like pretending to be
Russian hackers and bots, they tend to re-use their model; it is too tempting to discard an
effective model after a one-off accomplishment. New Knowledge was caught interfering/
determining the outcome in the Alabama Senate race on the side of Democrat Doug Jones, and
claimed they were merely trying to mimic Russian methods to see if they worked (they did; not
sure of their punishment?). Occam's razor would suggest that New Knowledge would be competent
to mimic/ pretend to be "Russians" after the fact of wikileaks' publication of emails. New
Knowledge has employees from the NSA and State department sympathetic to/ working with(?)
Hillary, and were the "outside" agency hired to evaluate and report on the "Russian" hacking
of the DNC emails/ servers.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:48 pm
Mueller released report last summer, which resulted in (the last I checked) roughly 150
indictments, a handful of convictions to date, all for perjury/financial (not political)
crimes. This wasn't kept secret. It simply wasn't what Democrats wanted to hear, so although
it was mentioned in some lib media (which overwhelmingly supported neoliberal Hillary
Clinton), it was essentially swept under the carpet.
Billy , March 13, 2019 at 11:11 pm
Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They
all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't
care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump.
So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because
they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020.
Realist , March 14, 2019 at 3:22 am
You betcha. Moreover, who but the Russians do these idiots have left to blame? Everybody
else is now off limits due to political correctness. Sigh Those Catholics, Jews, "ethnics"
and sundry "deviants" used to be such reliable scapegoats, to say nothing of the
"undeveloped" world. As Clapper "authoritatively" says, only this vile lineage still carries
the genes for the most extremes of human perfidy. Squirrels in your attic? It must be the
damned Russkies! The bastards impudently tried to copy our democracy, economic system and
free press and only besmirched those institutions, ruining all of Hillary's glorious plans
for a worldwide benevolent dictatorship. All this might be humorous if it weren't so
funny.
And those Chinese better not get to thinking they are somehow our equals just because all
their trillions invested in U.S. Treasury bonds have paid for all our wars of choice and MIC
boondoggles since before the turn of the century. Unless they start delivering Trump some
"free stuff" the big man is gonna cut off their water. No more affordable manufactured goods
for the American public! So there!
As to the article: impeccable research and analysis by the VIPS crew yet again. They've
proven to me that, to a near certainty, the Easter Bunny is not likely to exist. Mueller
won't read it. Clapper will still prance around a free man, as will Brennan. The Democrats
won't care, that is until November of 2020. And Hillary will continue to skate, unhindered in
larding up the Clinton Foundation to purposes one can only imagine.
Joe Tedesky , March 14, 2019 at 10:02 pm
Realist,
I have posted this article 'the Russia they Lost' before and from time to time but
once again it seems appropriate to add this link to expound upon for what you've been saying.
It's an article written by a Russian who in they're youth growing up in the USSR dreamed of
living the American lifestyle if Russia were to ever ditch communism. But . Starting with
Kosovo this Russian's youthful dream turned nightmarishly ugly and, as time went by with more
and yet even more USA aggression this Russian author loss his admiration and desire for all
things American to be proudly envied. This is a story where USA hard power destroyed any hope
of American soft power for world unity. But hey that unity business was never part of the
plan anyway.
right you are, joe. if america was smart rather than arrogant, it would have cooperated
with china and russia to see the belt and road initiative succeed by perhaps building a
bridge or tunnel from siberia to alaska, and by building its own fleet of icebreakers to open
up its part of the northwest passage. but no, it only wants to sabotage what others propose.
that's not being a leader, it's being a dick.
i'm gonna have to go on the disabled list here until the sudden neurological problem with
my right hand clears up–it's like paralysed. too difficult to do this one-handed using
hunt and peck. at least the problem was not in the old bean, according to the scans. carry
on, sir.
Brian James , March 13, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ &
FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:55 pm
Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless,
short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. Trump and the
Republicans continue to win by default, as Democrats only drive more voters away.
Thank you Ray McGovern and the Other 17 VIPS C0-Signers of your National Security Essay
for Truth. Along with Craig Murray and Seymour Hirsch, former Sam Adams Award winners for
"shining light into dark places", you are national resources for objectivity in critical
survival information matters for our country. It is more than a pity that our mainstream
media are so beholden to their corporate task masters that they cannot depart from the
company line for fear of losing their livelihoods, and in the process we risk losing life on
the planet because of unconstrained nuclear war on the part of the two main adversaries
facing off in an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. Let me speak plainly. THEY SHOULD BE
TALKING TO YOU AND NOT THE VESTED INTERESTS' MOUTHPIECES. Thank you for your continued
leadership!
Roger Ailes founder of FOX news died, "falling down stairs" within a week of FOX news
exposing to the world that the assassinated Seth Rich downloaded the DNC emails.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 6:03 pm
Google the Mueller investigation report from last June or July. When it was released, the
public response was like a deflated balloon. It did not support the "Russian collusion"
allegations -- the only thing Democrats still had left to sell. The report resulted in
roughly 150 indictments for perjury/financial crimes (not political), and a handful of
convictions to date -- none of which had anything to do with the election results.
Hank , March 13, 2019 at 6:19 pm
Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian
meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is
that stupid. They are probably right, but the REAL reason that Hillary lost is because there
ARE enough informed people now in this nation who are quite aware of the Clinton's sordid
history where scandals seem to follow every where they go, but indictments and/or
investigations don't. There IS an internet nowadays with lots of FACTUAL DOCUMENTED
information. That's a lot more than I can say about the mainstream corporate-controlled
media!
I know this won't ever happen, but an HONEST investigation into the Democratic Party and
their actions during the 2016 election would make ANY collusion with ANY nation look like a
mole hill next to a mountain! One of the problems with living in this nation is if you are
truly informed and make an effort 24/7 to be that way by doing your own research, you
more-than-likely can be considered an "island in a sea of ignorance".
We know that the FBI never had access to the servers and a private company was allowed to
handle the evidence. Wasnt it a crime scene? The evidence was tampered with And we will never
know what was on the servers.
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:10 pm
As a complement to this excellent analysis, I would like to make 2 further points:
The Mueller indictment of Russian Intelligence for hacking the DNC and transferring their
booty to Wikileaks is absurd on its face for this reason: Assange announced on June 12th the
impending release of Hillary-related emails. Yet the indictment claims that Guccifer 2.0 did
not succeed in transferring the DNC emails to Wikileaks until the time period of July 14-18th
– after which they were released online on July 22nd. Are we to suppose that Assange, a
publisher of impeccable integrity, publicly announced the publication of emails he had not
yet seen, and which he was obtaining from a source of murky provenance? And are we further to
suppose that Wikileaks could have processed 20K emails and 20K attachments to insure their
genuineness in a period of only several days? As you will recall, Wikileaks subsequently took
a number of weeks to process the Podesta emails they released in October.
And another peculiarity merits attention. Assange did not state on June 12th that he was
releasing DNC emails – and yet Crowdstrike and the Guccifer 2.0 personna evidently knew
that this was in store. A likely resolution of this conundrum is that US intelligence had
been monitoring all communications to Wikileaks, and had informed the DNC that their hacked
emails had been offered to Wikileaks. A further reasonable prospect is that US intelligence
subsequently unmasked the leaker to the DNC; as Assange has strongly hinted, this likely was
Seth Rich. This could explain Rich's subsequent murder, as Rich would have been in a position
to unmask the Guccifer 2.0 hoax and the entire Russian hacking narrative.
Curious that Assange has Not explicitly stated that the leaker was Seth Rich, if it was,
as this would take pressure from himself and incriminate the DNC in the murder of Rich.
Perhaps he doesn't know, and has the honor not to take the opportunity, or perhaps he knows
that it was not Rich.
View the Dutch TV interview with Asssange and there is another interview available on
youtube in which Assange DOES subtly confirmed it was Seth Rich.
Assange posted a $10,000 reward for Seth Rich's murders capture.
Abby , March 13, 2019 at 10:11 pm
Another mistaken issue with the "Russia hacked the DNC computers on Trump's command" is
that he never asked Russia to do that. His words were, "Russia if you 'find' Hillary's
missing emails let us know." He said that after she advised congress that she wouldn't be
turning in all of the emails they asked for because she deleted 30,000 of them and said that
they were personal.
But if Mueller or the FBI wants to look at all of them they can find them at the NYC FBI
office because they are on Weiner's laptop. Why? Because Hillary's aid Huma Abedin, Weiner's
wife sent them to it. Just another security risk that Hillary had because of her private
email server. This is why Comey had to tell congress that more of them had been found 11 days
before the election. If Comey hadn't done that then the FBI would have.
But did Comey or McCabe look at her emails there to see if any of them were classified? No
they did not do that. And today we find out that Lisa Page told congress that it was Obama's
decision not to charge Hillary for being grossly negligent on using her private email server.
This has been known by congress for many months and now we know that the fix was always in
for her to get off.
robert e williamson jr , March 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm
I want to thank you folks at VIPS. Like I have been saying for years now the relationship
between CIA, NSA and DOJ is an incestuous one at best. A perverse corrupted bond to control
the masses. A large group of religious fanatics who want things "ONE WAY". They are the
facilitators for the rogue government known as the "DEEP STATE"!
Just ask billy barr.
More truth is a very good thing. I believe DOJ is supporting the intelligence community
because of blackmail. They can't come clean because they all risk doing lots of time if a new
judicial mechanism replaces them. We are in big trouble here.
Apparently the rule of law is not!
You folks that keep claiming we live in the post truth era! Get off me. Demand the truth
and nothing else. Best be getting ready for the fight of your lives. The truth is you have to
look yourself in the mirror every morning, deny that truth. The claim you are living in the
post truth era is an admission your life is a lie. Now grab a hold of yourself pick a
dogdamned side and stand for something,.
Thank You VIPS!
Joe Tedesky , March 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Hats off to the VIP's who have investigated this Russian hacking that wasn't a hacking for
without them what would we news junkies have otherwise to lift open the hood of Mueller's
never ending Russia-gate investigation. Although the one thing this Russia-gate nonsense has
accomplished is it has destroyed with our freedom of speech when it comes to how we citizens
gather our news. Much like everything else that has been done during these post 9/11 years of
continual wars our civil rights have been marginalized down to zero or, a bit above if that's
even still an argument to be made for the sake of numbers.
Watching the Manafort sentencing is quite interesting for the fact that Manafort didn't
conclude in as much as he played fast and loose with his income. In fact maybe Manafort's
case should have been prosecuted by the State Department or, how about the IRS? Also wouldn't
it be worth investigating other Geopolitical Rain Makers like Manafort for similar crimes of
financial wrongdoing? I mean is it possible Manafort is or was the only one of his type to do
such dishonest things? In any case Manafort wasn't charged with concluding with any Russians
in regard to the 2016 presidential election and, with that we all fall down.
I guess the best thing (not) that came out of this Russia-gate silliness is Rachel
Maddow's tv ratings zoomed upwards. But I hate to tell you that the only ones buying what Ms
Maddow is selling are the died in the wool Hillary supporters along with the chicken-hawks
who rally to the MIC lobby for more war. It's all a game and yet there are many of us who
just don't wish to play it but still we must because no one will listen to the sanity that
gets ignored keep up the good work VIP's some of us are listening.
Andrew Thomas , March 13, 2019 at 12:42 pm
The article did not mention something called to my attention for the first time by one of
the outstanding members of your commentariat just a couple of days ago- that Ambassador
Murray stayed publicly, over two years ago, that he had been given the thumb drive by a
go-between in D.C. and had somehow gotten it to Wikileaks. And, that he has NEVER BEEN
INTERVIEWED by Mueller &Company. I was blown away by this, and found the original
articles just by googling Murray. The excuse given is that Murray "lacks credibility ", or
some such, because of his prior relationship with Assange and/or Wikileaks. This is so
ludicrous I can't even get my head around it. And now, you have given me a new detail-the
meeting with Pompeo, and the complete lack of follow-up thereafter. Here all this time I
thought I was the most cynical SOB who existed, and now I feel as naive as when I was 13 and
believed what Dean Rusk was saying like it was holy writ. I am in your debt.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and
propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized
over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about
them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:18 pm
A small correction: the Daily Mail article regarding Murray claimed that Murray was given
a thumbdrive which he subsequently carried back to Wikileaks. On his blog, Murray
subsequently disputed this part of the story, indicating that, while he had met with a leaker
or confederate of a leaker in Washington DC, the Podesta emails were already in possession of
Wikileaks at the time. Murray refused to clarify the reason for his meeting with this source,
but he is adamant in maintaining that the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked.
And it is indeed ludicrous that Mueller, given the mandate to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking of the DNC and Podesta, has never attempted to question either Assange or
Murray. That in itself is enough for us to conclude that the Mueller investigation is a
complete sham.
Ian Brown , March 13, 2019 at 4:43 pm
It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi
as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray!
LJ , March 13, 2019 at 12:29 pm
A guy comes in with a pedigree like that, """ former FBI head """ to examine and validate
if possible an FBI sting manufactured off a phony FISA indictment based on the Steele Report,
It immediately reminded me of the 9-11 Commission with Thomas Kean, former Board member of
the National Endowment for Democracy, being appointed by GW Bush the Simple to head an
investigation that he had previously said he did not want to authorize( and of course bi
partisan yes man Lee Hamilton as #2, lest we forget) . Really this should be seen as another
low point in our Democracy. Uncle Sam is the Limbo Man, How low can you go?
After Bill and
Hillary and Monica and Paula Jones and Blue Dresses well, Golden Showers in a Moscow luxury
hotel, I guess that make it just salacious enough.
Mueller looks just like what he is. He
has that same phony self important air as Comey . In 2 years this will be forgotten.. I do
not think this hurts Trumps chances at re-election as much as the Democrats are hurting
themselves. This has already gone on way too long.
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians.
Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass
media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump, which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein, Brennan, Podesta and Mueller's crusade on behalf
of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. It will be fascinating to
witness how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent
edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was likely in bed with the Winter Hill Gang.
Jack , March 13, 2019 at 12:21 pm
You have failed. An investigation is just that, a finding of the facts. What would Mueller
have to extricate himself from? If nothing is found, he has still done his job. You are a
divisive idiot.
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to
make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war
continues. Mission Accomplished.
@Jack,
Keep running cover for an out of control prosecutor, who, if he had any integrity, would have
hit the bully pulpit mos ago declaring there's nothing of substance to one of the most
potentially dangerous accusations in world history: the Kremlin hacking the election. Last I
checked it puts two nuclear nation-states on the brink of potential war. And you call me
divisive? Mueller's now a willing accomplice to this entire McCarthyite smear and
disinformation campaign. It's all so pathetic that folks such as yourself try and mislead and
feed half-truths to the people.
Drew, you might enjoy this discussion Robert Scheer has with Stephen Cohen and Katrina
vanden Heuvel.
Realist , March 15, 2019 at 3:38 am
Moreover, as the Saker pointed out in his most recent column in the Unz Review, the entire
Deep State conspiracy, in an ad hoc alliance with the embarrassed and embarrassing Democrats,
have made an absolute sham of due process in their blatant witch hunt to bag the president.
This reached an apex when his personal lawyer, Mr. Cohen, was trotted out before congress to
violate Trump's confidentiality in every mortifying way he could even vaguely reconstruct.
The man was expected to say anything to mitigate the anticipated tortures to come in the
course of this modern day inquisition by our latter day Torquemada. To his credit though,
even with his ass in a sling, he could simply not confabulate the smoking gun evidence for
the alleged Russian collusion that this whole farce was built around.
Mueller stood with Bush as he lied the world into war based on lies and illegally spied on
America and tortured some folks.
George Collins , March 13, 2019 at 2:02 pm
QED: as to the nexus with the Winter Hill gang wasn't there litigation involving the
Boston FBI, condonation of murder by the FBI and damages awarded to or on behalf of convicted
parties that the FBI had reason to know were innocent? The malfeasance reportedly occurred
during Mueller time. Further on the sanctified diligence of Mr. Mueller can be gleaned from
the reports of Coleen Rowley, former FBI attorney stationed in Milwaukee??? when the DC FBI
office was ignoring warnings sent about 9/11. See also Sibel Edmonds who knew to much and was
court order muzzled about FBI mis/malfeasance in the aftermath of 9/11.
I'd say it's game, set, match VIPS and a pox on Clapper and the
complicit intelligence folk complicit in the nuclear loaded Russia-gate fibs.
Kiers , March 13, 2019 at 11:47 am
How can we expect the DNC to "hand it " to Trumpf, when, behind the scenes, THEY ARE ONE
PARTY. They are throwing faux-scary pillow bombs at each other because they are both
complicit in a long chain of corruptions. Business as usual for the "principled" two party
system! Democracy! Through the gauze of corporate media! You must be joking!
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 11:28 am
"We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to
prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly if they become
aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very
different conclusions."
I wish I shared this belief. However, as with Nancy Pelosi's recent statement regarding
pursuing impeachment, I smell a rat. I believe with the help of what the late Robert Parry
called "the Mighty Wurlitzer", Mueller is going to use coerced false testimony and fabricated
forensics to drop a bombshell the size of 911. I think Nancy's statement was just a feint
before throwing the knockout punch.
If reason ruled the day, we should have nothing to worry about. But considering all the
perfidy that the so-called "Intelligence" Agencies and their MSM lackeys get away with daily,
I think we are in for more theater; and I think VIPS will receive a cold shoulder outside of
venues like CN.
I pray to God I'm wrong.
Sam F , March 13, 2019 at 7:32 pm
My extensive experience with DOJ and the federal judiciary establishes that at least 98%
of them are dedicated career liars, engaged in organized crime to serve political gangs, and
make only a fanatical pretense of patriotism or legality. They are loyal to money alone,
deeply cynical and opposed to the US Constitution and laws, with no credibility at all beyond
any real evidence.
Eric32 , March 14, 2019 at 4:24 pm
As near I can see, Federal Govt. careers at the higher levels depend on having dirt on
other players, and helping, not hurting, the money/power schemes of the players above
you.
The Clintons (through their foundation) apparently have a lot of corruption dirt on CIA,
FBI etc. top players, some of whom somehow became multi-millionaires during their civil
service careers.
Trump, who was only running for President as a name brand marketing ploy with little
desire to actually win, apparently came into the Presidency with no dirt arsenal and little
idea of where to go from there.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 11:09 am
I remember reading with dismay how Russians were propagandized by the Soviet Press
Management only to find out later the depth of disbelief within the Russian population
itself. We now know what that feels like. The good part of this disastrous scenario for
America is that for careful readers, disinformation becomes revelatory. For instance, if one
reads an editorial that refers to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or continually refers to
Russian interference in the last Presidential election, then one can immediately dismiss the
article and question the motivation for the presentation. Of course the problem is how to
establish truth in reporting
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 10:41 am
Thank you, VIPs. Hopefully, you don't expect this to make a difference. The US has moved
into a post truth, post reality existence best characterized by Karl Rove's declaration:
"we're an empire now, when we act, we create our own reality." What Mr. Rove in his arrogance
fails to appreciate is that it is his reality but not anyone else's. Thus Pompous can claim
that Guaido is the democratic leader in Venezuela even though he's never been elected .
Thank you. The next time one of my friends or family give me that glazed over stare and
utters anymore of the "but, RUSSIA" nonsense I will refer them directly to this article. Your
collective work and ethical stand on this matter is deeply appreciated by anyone who values
the truth.
Russiagate stands with past government propaganda operations that were simply made up out
of thin air: i.e. Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMD's, Gaddafi's viagra fueled rape camps, Assad
can't sleep at night unless he's gassing his own people, to the latest, "Maduro can't sleep
at night unless he's starving his own people."
The complete and utter amorality of the deep state remains on display for all to see with
"Russiagate," which is as fact-free a propaganda campaign as any of those just mentioned.
Marc , March 13, 2019 at 10:13 am
I am a computer naif, so I am prepared to accept the VIPS analysis about FAT and transfer
rates. However, the presentation here leaves me with several questions. First, do I
understand correctly that the FAT rounding to even numbers is introduced by the thumb drive?
And if so, does the FAT analysis show only that the DNC data passed through a thumb drive?
That is, does the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred to a
thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg, to
give a copy to Wikileaks? Second, although the transatlantic transfer rate is too slow to fit
some time stamps, is it possible that the data were hacked onto a local computer that was
under the control of some faraway agent?
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 11:12 am
Not quite. FAT is the crappy storage system developed by Microsoft (and not used by UNIX).
The metadata associated with any file gets rewritten when it gets moved. If that movement is
to a storage device that uses FAT, the timestamp on the file will end in an even number. If
it were moved to a unix server (and most of the major servers run Unix) it would be in the
UFS (unix file system) and it would be the actual time from the system clock. Every storage
device has a utility that tells it where to write the data and what to write. Since it's
writing to a storage device using FAT, it'll round the numbers. To get to your real question,
yes, you could hack and then transfer the data to a thumb drive but if you did that the dates
wouldn't line up.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 8:05 am
Jeff-
Which dates wouldn't line up? Is there a history of metadata available, or just metadata
for the most recent move?
David G , March 13, 2019 at 12:22 pm
Marc asks: "[D]oes the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred
to a thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg,
to give a copy to Wikileaks?"
I asked that question in comments under a previous CN piece; other people have asked that
question elsewhere.
To my knowledge, it hasn't been addressed directly by the VIPS, and I think they should do
so. (If they already have, someone please enlighten me.)
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:07 pm
I am no computer wiz, but Binney has repeatedly made the point that the NSA scoops up
everything. If there had been a hack, they'd know it, and they wouldn't only have had
"moderate" confidence in the Jan. assessment. I believe that although farfetched, an argument
could be made that a Russian spy got into the DNC, loaded a thumb drive, and gave it to Craig
Murray.
David G , March 13, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Respectfully, that's a separate point, which may or may not raise issues of its own.
But I think the question Marc posed stands.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 7:59 am
Hi David-
I don't see how it's separate. If the NSA scoops up everything, they'd have solid evidence
of the hack, and wouldn't have only had "moderate" confidence, which Bill Binney says is
equivalent to them saying "we don't have squat". They wouldn't even have needed Mueller at
all, except to possibly build a "parallel case" due to classification issues. Also, the FBI
not demanding direct access to the DNC server tells you something is fishy. They could easily
have gotten a warrant to examine the server, but chose not to. They also purposely refuse to
get testimony from Craig Murray and Julian Assange, which rings alarm bells on its own.
As for the technical aspect of Marc's question, I agree that I'd like to see Bill Binney
directly answer it.
Peter
Strzok's big fat FBI lie
about the reason for the set up of the private email server. The FBI knew years before they released
tranches of Hillary's emails starting in Sep. 2016. Tellingly, he volunteered this explanation even though he wasn't asked about WHEN.
Whoops.
Peter Strzok. (Jun. 27, 2018)
. Peter Strzok TRANSCRIPTION of Interview with Peter Strzok released by Rep. Doug Collins (GA 9th),
Committee on the Judiciary, pgs. 312. U.S. House of Representatives.
FACT: The alternative media is better at presenting FACTS than the FBI. Her domain was registered in January 2009.
The 'rank and file' FBI SUCK at their jobs! When ordinary citizens do a better job at finding
facts, then why do we employee these people?
The final Mueller report should be graded "incomplete," says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that
DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
If Mueller gives you his "completed" report anytime soon, it should be graded "incomplete."
Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who
have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We
stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing
story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story,
we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief
that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable
consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of "assessments" but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there
are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly
if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions.
We know only too well -- and did our best to expose -- how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data -- the "trail" that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had
support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom
story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who
worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published
our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media -- an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to
endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes
and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below -- as a kind of aide-memoire -- a discussion of some of the key
factors related to what has become known as "Russia-gate." And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data
associated with WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are "irrefutable and undeniable," a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments,
however, are based on the scientific method -- not "assessments." We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring
that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work -- or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate
will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then
Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "to ensure a full and thorough investigation," when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again,
we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic
National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following
the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light,
rump report misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)." Prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only three of
the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed "high confidence" in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks
story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their "assessment."
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type
caveats included in the assessment itself -- such as:
" When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' they are conveying an analytic assessment
or judgment. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment
is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution."
They noted: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber
operation -- malicious or not -- leaves a trail." [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that "trail" -- and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish
attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical
data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to "sources and methods" is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement -- the more so when an intrusion is termed "an act of war" and
blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony
to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access
to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, "best practices" dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had "access to the actual hardware
that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic
information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. " Sen. Burr followed up: "But no content? Isn't content
an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" Comey: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks
is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
The "private party/high-class entity" to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple
conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired
CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension
between Russia and the U.S. -- it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the
FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by
Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic "trail" to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done
shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens
that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian
Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation
Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive,
before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is
not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times
on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under
the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the
DNC files on WikiLeaks' site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If
those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The
random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by
WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the
World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers
for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the
DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks -- not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so.
We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA's dragnet, collect-it-all approach -- including "cast-iron" coverage of WikiLeaks
-- to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to "assessments") as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before
the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over
the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked
by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving
the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show
the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the
person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from
the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No
less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a "high-class entity."
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative
less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, "The conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to how 'the DNC emails that were leaked' got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet
as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS' two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former
intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded
over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which
are pending publication." On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there
was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement,
claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show
was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a "hack" of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which
released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary
scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS
reported in a wrap-up
Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled "Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence)," forensic examination of the
July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an
external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks
might later publish from the DNC, by "showing" it came from a "Russian hack." WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three
days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents
he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained
in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S.
This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online
Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests
from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey
to a data center in the UK -- was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb
drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information
to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5,
2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing
attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS' July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights
with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo's office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an
hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: "You are here because the President told me that
if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you."
Binney warned Pompeo -- to stares of incredulity -- that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started
to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump's attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA.
Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo -- and still less to the former intelligence
chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National
Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during
the Q&A about Russian "hacking" and NSA, Clapper said:
" Well, I have talked with NSA a lot And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence
was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever." [Emphasis added]
Clapper added: " as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our
country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn't
have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election."
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found
here and a commentary
on Clapper's performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is
here .)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that
Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens.
In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: "James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance.
To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand."
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12,
2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies
himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Press on May 28, 2017 that Russia's history shows that Russians are "typically,
almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
Clapper ought to be asked about the "forensics" he said were "overwhelming about what the Russians had done." And that, too, before
Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals
Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black , Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Girald i, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the
Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson , former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture
of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis , Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael , Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern , former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA
political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce , MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren , US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton , CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe , former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright , retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq
War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers
and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching
a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived
threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of
VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.
Human society is way to complex for alpha males to succeed unconditionally... Quite a different set of traits is often needed.
Notable quotes:
"... Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. ..."
"... Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference. ..."
"... I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea right ..."
"... Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status. ..."
"... "They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." ..."
"... "He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked him." ..."
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of
entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. The rich
shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to
senior party members, senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money at all).
"Go with the winner." That is how it works for the alpha male (a chimp, an ape, or a gorilla) for most followers anyway. Some will challenge. If victorious, followers will line up (more go-with-the-winner). If defeated, an outcast.
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary rival, but in this instance I think the debunking
is merited. It's quite possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession
with rich people didn't cut very deep. Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's
the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the way they think, does not change the fact that, while they
have more money, they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that
an Alpha Chimp has fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's. According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and
Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me. Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasn't about Fitzgerald and wasn't even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more
attacking the "rich have more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea
right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald
thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations
and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are
better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race"
but ultimately became disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing
that wrecked him."
"... Yang promises a universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally." ..."
"... Yang is justifying the need for such a program because of automation . Again, VDARE.com has been exploring how automation may necessitate such a program for many years . Yang also discussed this problem on Tucker Carlson's show , which alone shows he is more open to real discussion than many progressive activists. ..."
"... Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. ..."
"... it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him. ..."
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps college graduates become entrepreneurs.
However, he is now gaining recognition for his signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be funded through a
value added tax , Yang claims that it would
reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes
that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left. Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent
libertarians because it would replace the far more inefficient welfare system.
Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A
guaranteed income for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton
Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley, though
Friedman called it a
"negative income tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013 VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would build a new nationalist majority
and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for
citizens
only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin'sdisingenuous
complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal
basic income while still demanding mass immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with
his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic unemployment," Yang
has directly spoken about the demographic
collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance
abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of white Americans.
...He wants to make
Puerto Rico a state . He
supports a path to citizenship for illegal
aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with
pledges to secure the border
and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a massive bureaucratic system to track
gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with taxpayer
dollars...
... ... ...
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's online supporters are flocking to
Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars. (Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are
"far right" by Main Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and wrist-flapping about
the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism
[are] a threat to the core ideals of what it means to be an American". [
Presidential candidate
Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge, March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is described as racist, and even national
symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest, "America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity.
Increasingly, "America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring tribes that occupy it
except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this process, especially by limiting mass
immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars, for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has
repeatedly endorsed more legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and whine about
unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to the Left, but to the failed Conservative
Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President Trump specifically
pledged to protect
entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure plan. However, once in office, his main legislative
accomplishment is a tax cut any other Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [
Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget cuts all 3, by Tara
Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path to the Republican nomination, now
embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message. Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans
about "free markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire
generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately
trying to tell his followers not to cheer for Tucker Carlson because
Carlson had suggested a nation should be treated like a
family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most fervent online supporters have turned
on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is
beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like those policies are coming anyway.
If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get
something out of this System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers
ability to affect the vote count "has been overstated" [
Rise of the pink hats,
March 12, 2019].
Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard
are giving up on him.
Yang is a businessman who has worked in several fields, but was best known for founding
Venture for America , which helps
college graduates become entrepreneurs. However, he is now gaining recognition for his
signature campaign promise -- $1,000 a month for every American.
ORDER IT NOW
Yang promises a
universal entitlement, not dependent on income, that he calls a "freedom dividend." To be
funded through a value added tax , Yang claims that
it would reduce the strain on "health care, incarceration, homeless services, and the like" and
actually save billions of dollars. Yang also
notes that "current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice
between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally."
As Yang himself notes, this is not a new idea, nor one particularly tied to the Left.
Indeed, it's been proposed by several prominent libertarians because it would replace the far
more inefficient welfare system. Charles Murray called for
this policy in 2016. [ A guaranteed income
for every American, AEI, June 3, 2016]
Milton Friedman suggested a similar policy in a 1968 interview with William F. Buckley,
though Friedman called
it a "negative income
tax."
It's also been proposed by many nationalists, including, well, me. At the January 2013
VDARE.com Webinar, I
called for a "straight-up minimum income for citizens only" among other policies that would
build a new nationalist majority and deconstruct Leftist power. I've
retained that belief ever since and argued for it here for years.
However, I've also made the argument that it only works if it is for citizens only and is combined with a restrictive immigration policy. As I previously
argued in a piece attacking Jacobin's
disingenuous complaints about the "reserve army of the unemployed," you simply can't
support high wages, workers' rights, and a universal basic income while still demanding mass
immigration.
Yang is also directly addressing the crises that the Trump Administration has seemly
forgotten. Unlike Donald Trump himself, with his endless boasting about "low black and Hispanic
unemployment," Yang has directly spoken about
the demographic collapse of white people because of "low birth rates and white men dying from
substance abuse and suicide ."
Significantly, President Trump himself has never once specifically recognized the plight of
white Americans.
Of course, Yang has foolish, even flippant policies on other issues. He wants to make Puerto
Rico a state . He supports a path to citizenship
for illegal aliens, albeit with an 18-year waiting period and combined with pledges
to secure the border and deport illegals who don't enroll in the citizenship program. He
wants to create a
massive bureaucratic system to track gun owners, restrict
gun ownership , and require various "training" programs for licenses. He wants to
subsidize local journalists with
taxpayer dollars, which in practice would mean just paying Leftist activists to dox people in
their communities.
(Though as some have pointed out, with a thousand dollars a month no matter what,
right-wingers wouldn't have to worry as much about being targeted by
journofa ).
Indeed, journalists, hall monitors that they are, have recognized that President Trump's
online supporters are flocking to Yang, bringing him a powerful weapon in the meme wars.
(Sample meme at right.) And because many of these online activists are "far right" by Main
Stream Media standards, or at least Politically Incorrect, there is much hand-waving and
wrist-flapping about the need for Yang to decry "white nationalists." So of course, the
candidate has dutifully done so, claiming "racism and white nationalism [are] a threat to the
core ideals of what it means to be an American". [ Presidential
candidate Andrew Yang has a meme problem, by Russell Brandom, The Verge,
March 9, 2019]
But what does it mean to be an American? As more and more of American history is
described as racist, and even national symbols and the national anthem are targets for protest,
"America" certainly doesn't seem like a real country with a real identity. Increasingly,
"America" resembles a continent-sized shopping mall, with nothing holding together the warring
tribes that occupy it except money.
President Trump, of course, was elected because many people thought he could reverse this
process, especially by limiting mass immigration and taking strong action in the culture wars,
for example by promoting official English. Yet in recent weeks, he has repeatedly endorsed more
legal immigration. Rather than fighting, the president is content to brag about the economy and
whine about unfair press coverage and investigations. He already seems like a lame duck.
The worst part of all of this is that President Trump was elected as a response not just to
the Left, but to the failed Conservative Establishment. During the 2016 campaign, President
Trump specifically pledged
to protect entitlements , decried foreign wars, and argued for a massive infrastructure
plan. However, once in office, his main legislative accomplishment is a tax cut any other
Republican president would have pushed. Similarly, his latest budget contains the kinds of
entitlement cuts that are guaranteed to provoke Democrat attack ads. [ Trump said he wouldn't cut Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare . His 2020 budget
cuts all 3, by Tara Golshan, Vox, March 12, 2019] And the president has
already backed down on withdrawing all troops from Syria, never mind Afghanistan.
Conservatism Inc., having learned nothing from candidate Donald Trump's scorched-earth path
to the Republican nomination, now embraces Trump as a man but ignores his campaign message.
Instead, the conservative movement is still promoting the same tired slogans about "free
markets" even as they have appear to have lost an
entire generation to socialism. The most iconic moment was Charlie Kirk, head of the free
market activist group Turning Point USA, desperately trying to tell his followers not to cheer
for Tucker Carlson because Carlson had suggested a nation should be
treated like a family, not simply a marketplace .
Thus, especially because of his cowardice on immigration, many of President Trump's most
fervent online supporters have turned on him in recent weeks. And the embrace of Yang seems to
come out of a great place of despair, a sense that the country really is beyond saving.
Yang has Leftist policies on many issues, but many disillusioned Trump supporters feel like
those policies are coming anyway. If America is just an economy, and if everyone in the world
is a simply an American-in-waiting, white Americans might as well get something out of this
System before the bones are picked clean.
National Review ' s Theodore Kupfer just claimed the main importance of Yang's
candidacy is that it will prove meme-makers ability to affect the vote count "has been
overstated" [ Rise of the pink
hats, March 12, 2019]. Time will tell, but it is ominous for Trump that many of
the more creative and dedicated people who formed his vanguard are giving up on him.
"... Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president. ..."
"... Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan (!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells. ..."
"... Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars. ..."
"... "Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case? At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run. ..."
"... Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks. ..."
When President Donald Trump announced in December that he wanted an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, there was
more silence and opposition from the Left than approval. The 2016 election's highest-profile progressive, Senator Bernie Sanders,
said virtually nothing at the time. The 2018 midterm election's Left celeb, former congressman Beto O'Rourke, kept mum too. The 2004
liberal hero, Howard Dean, came out against troop withdrawals,
saying they would damage women's rights
in Afghanistan.
The liberal news outlet on which Warren made her statement, MSNBC, which had already been sounding more like Fox News circa 2003,
warned that withdrawal from Syria could hurt national security. The left-leaning news channel has even made common cause with Bill
Kristol and other neoconservatives in its shared opposition to all things Trump.
Maddow herself has not only vocally opposed the president's decision, but has become arguably more popular than ever with liberal
viewers by peddling
wild-eyed anti-Trump conspiracy theories worthy of Alex Jones. Reacting to one of her cockamamie theories, progressive journalist
Glenn Greenwald tweeted , "She is Glenn Beck
standing at the chalkboard. Liberals celebrate her (relatively) high ratings as proof that she's right, but Beck himself proved that
nothing produces higher cable ratings than feeding deranged partisans unhinged conspiracy theories that flatter their beliefs."
The Trump derangement that has so enveloped the Left on everything, including foreign policy, is precisely what makes Democratic
presidential candidate Warren's Syria withdrawal position so noteworthy. One can safely assume that Sanders, O'Rourke, Dean, MSNBC,
Maddow, and many of their fellow progressive travelers' silence on or resistance to troop withdrawal is simply them gauging what
their liberal audiences currently want or will accept.
Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick
to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president.
... ... ...
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with
Senator Rand Paul.
The antiwar movement is not a "liberal" movement. Hundreds of mainly your people addressed the San Francisco board of supervisors
asking them to condemn an Israeli full-fledged attack on Gaza. When they were finished, without objection from one single supervisor,
the issued was tabled and let sink permanently in the Bay, never to be heard of again. Had the situation been reversed and Israel
under attack there most probably would have been a resolution in nanoseconds. Maybe even half the board volunteering to join the
IDF? People believed Trump would act more objectively. That is why he got a lot of peace votes. What AIPAC wants there is a high
probability our liberal politicians will oblige quickly and willingly. Who really represents America remains a mystery?
"That abiding hatred will continue to play an outsized and often illogical role in determining what most Democrats believe about
foreign policy."
True, but the prowar tendency with mainstream liberals ( think Clintonites) is older than that. The antiwar movement among
mainstream liberals died the instant Obama entered the White House. And even before that Clinton and Kerry and others supported
the Iraq War. I think this goes all the way back to Gulf War I, and possibly further. Democrats were still mostly antiwar to some
degree after Vietnam and they also opposed Reagan's proxy wars in Central America and Angola. Some opposed the Gulf War, but it
seemed a big success at the time and so it became centrist and smart to kick the Vietnam War syndrome and be prowar. Bill Clinton
has his little war in Serbia, which was seen as a success and so being prowar became the centrist Dem position. Obama was careful
to say he wasn't antiwar, just against dumb wars. Gore opposed going into Iraq, but on technocratic grounds.
And in popular culture, in the West Wing the liberal fantasy President was bombing an imaginary Mideast terrorist country.
Showed he was a tough guy, but measured, unlike some of the even more warlike fictitious Republicans in that show. I remember
Toby Ziegler, one of the main characters, ranting to his pro diplomacy wife that we needed to go in and civilize those crazy Muslims.
So it isn't just an illogical overreaction to Trump, though that is part of it.
Won't happen. Gabbard is solid and sincere but she's not Hillary so she won't be the candidate. Hillary is the candidate forever.
If Hillary is too drunk to stand up, or too obviously dead, Kamala will serve as Hillary's regent.
The problem isn't THAT Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria. The problem is HOW Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria.
The Left isn't fighting about 'keeping troops indefinitely in Syria' vs pulling troops out of Syria'. Its a fight over 'pulling
troops out in a way that makes it so that we don't have to go back in like Obama and Iraq' vs 'backing the reckless pull out Trump
is going to do'.
For Democrats, everything depends on what the polls say, which issues seem important to get elected. They will say anything,
no matter how irrational & outrageously insane if the polls say Democrat voters like them. If American involvement in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan are less important according to the polls, Democratic 2020 hopefuls will not bother to focus on it.
For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is morally
right, & what is morally evil.
"I am glad Donald Trump is withdrawing troops from Syria. Congress never authorized the intervention."
Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US
military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan
(!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells.
Kasoy: "For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is
morally right, & what is morally evil."
I think that needs the trademark symbol, i.e True Christians™
The Second Coming of Jack Hunter. Given his well-documented views on race, it's no surprise he's all in on Trump. That surely
outweighs Trump's massive spending and corruption that most true libertarians oppose.
Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in
Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars.
Of course, the left would come out against puppies and sunshine if Trump came out for those things.
But if they are smart, they'd recognize that on war, or his lack of interest in starting new wars, even the broken Trump clock
has been right twice a day.
The flip side of this phenomenon is that so many Republican voters supported Trump's withdrawal from Syria. Had it been Obama
withdrawing the troops, I suspect 80-90% of Republicans would have opposed the withdrawal.
This does show that Republicans are listening to Trump more than Lindsey Graham or Marco Rubio on foreign policy. But once
Trump leaves office, I fear the party will swing back towards the neocons.
"Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace
platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case?
At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run.
Dopey Trump campaigned on something different and has now surrounded himself with GOP hawks, probably because he's lazy and
doesn't know any better.
Bernie, much like Ron Paul was, 180 degrees away, is the only one who might do different if he got into office, and the rate
the left is going he may very well be the nominee.
Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't
go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks.
The least bad comment on Democrats is that everyone in DC is a hawk, not just them.
What the Strzok-Page 'insurance policy' text was actually about - The Washington Post
With the release of testimony from those two employees -- attorney Lisa Page and agent Peter
Strzok -- the "insurance policy" argument for the illegitimacy of the Russia investigation
gained new energy. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) tweeted a Fox News story about Page's testimony.
"This deserves more attention!" he wrote . "FBI Mistress, Lisa Page,
confirmed to House Judiciary, there was an anti-Trump Insurance Policy and it's the fake
Russian investigation! She admits there was almost no evidence on collusion, yet they continued
with WITCH HUNT!"
Trump tweeted Paul's message to
his followers, adding, "I agree with Rand Paul. This is a total disgrace and should NEVER
happen to another President!"
The Justice Department and Hillary Clinton's legal team "negotiated" an agreement that blocked the
FBI from accessing emails on Clinton's homebrew server related to the Clinton Foundation,
according to a transcript
of recently released testimony from last summer by former FBI special
agent Peter Strzok.
Under questioning from Judiciary Committee General Counsel Zachary Somers, Strzok
acknowledged that Clinton's private personal email servers contained a mixture of emails related
to the Clinton Foundation, her work as secretary of state and other matters.
"Were you given access to [Clinton Foundation-related] emails as part of the investigation?"
Somers asked
"
We were not. We did not have access
," Strzok responded. "
My
recollection is that the access to those emails were based on consent that was negotiated
between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton
." -
Fox
News
Strzok added that "
a significant filter team
" was employed at the FBI to "work
through the various terms of the various consent agreements."
"According to the attorneys, we lacked probable cause to get a search warrant for those servers
and projected that either it would take a very long time and/or it would be impossible to get to
the point where we could obtain probable cause to get a warrant," said Strzok.
The foundation has long been accused of "pay-to-play" transactions, fueled by a report in the
IBTimes
that the
Clinton-led State Department authorized $151 billion in Pentagon-brokered deals to 16 countries
that donated to the Clinton Foundation - a
145% increase in completed sales to those
nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration.
Adding to speculation of malfeasance is the fact that
donor contributions to the Clinton
Foundation
dried up by approximately 90%
over a three-year period between
2014
and
2017
,
according to financial statements.
What's more, Bill Clinton reportedly received a
$1
million check
from Qatar - one of the countries which gained State Department clearance to buy
US weapons while Clinton was Secretary of State,
even as the department signaled them out
for a range of alleged ills,"
according to
IBTimes.
The Clinton Foundation
confirmed
it accepted
the money.
Then there was the
surely unrelated
$145
million
donated to the Foundation
from parties linked to the
Uranium One deal
prior to its approval through a
rubber-stamp
committee
.
"The committee almost never met, and when it deliberated it was usually at a fairly
low bureaucratic level," Richard Perle said. Perle, who has worked for the Reagan, Clinton and
both Bush administrations added, "
I think it's a bit of a joke.
" –
CBS
Later in his testimony last summer, Strzok said that agents were able to access "the
entire universe" of information on the servers by using search terms to probe their contents -
saying "we had it voluntarily."
"What's bizarre about this, is in any other situation, there's no possible way
they would allow the potential perpetrator to self-select what the FBI gets to see," said former
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz - former chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
until 2017 and current contributor to
Fox News
. "
The FBI should be the one to sort
through those emails -- not the Clinton attorneys.
"
Chaffetz suggested that the goal of the DOJ was to "make sure they hear no evil, see
no evil -- they had no interest in pursuing the truth."
"The Clinton Foundation isn't supposed to be communicating with the State Department
anyway," said Chaffetz. "The foundation -- with her name on it -- is not supposed to be
communicating with the senior officials at the State Department."
Republican-led concerns that the DOJ, under the Obama administration, was too cozy with the
Clinton team during the 2016 presidential campaign have grown louder in recent days. Earlier
this week,
Fox
News exclusively reviewed
an internal chart prepared by federal investigators working on the
so-called "Midyear Exam" probe into Clinton's emails. The chart contained the words "NOTE: DOJ
not willing to charge this" next to a key statute on the mishandling of classified information.
The notation appeared to contradict former FBI Director James Comey's repeated claims that
his team made its decision that Clinton should not face criminal charges independently.
But Strzok, in his closed-door interview, denied that the DOJ exercised undue influence over
the FBI, and insisted that lawyers at the DOJ were involved in an advisory capacity working with
agents. -
Fox
News
Strzok was fired from the FBI after months of intense scrutiny over anti-Trump text messages he
exchanged with his mistress - FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Both Strzok and Page were involved at the
highest levels of both the Clinton email investigation and the counterintelligence investigation on
President Trump and his 2016 campaign.
Investigators Ask Loretta Lynch: Why Didn't DOJ/FBI Give Trump A
Defensive Briefing If They Suspected Members of His Campaign Had
Ties to Russia?
Posted at 7:30 pm on March 14, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
Although the transcripts from former Attorney General Loretta
Lynch's Testimony last year have not been released yet,
investigative reporter Sara Carter obtained a copy and said that
lawmakers had one question on their minds. If the DOJ and the FBI
were so worried that Trump's campaign had been penetrated by
Russians, why didn't anyone give him a defensive briefing which is
customary? Lynch's inability to answer this question spoke
volumes.
Defensive briefings are "often given to presidential
candidates, elected officials and even U.S. businesses that have
either been unwittingly approached by foreign actors attempting to
gain trust and befriend those in position of influence." A senior
former intelligence official told Carter that, "if the FBI or
intelligence agencies suspect foreign adversaries may be trying to
penetrate a presidential campaign, as those FBI and DOJ sources
suggested in testimony to lawmakers, it would then be required to
warn those affected." In 2008, for example, the FBI gave John
McCain a defensive briefing due to their concern over the Russian
connections of a member of his campaign. Why wasn't Trump offered
the same courtesy?
Carter's source added:
It is an essential task of the FBI and the intelligence
community to give a defensive briefing to a presidential candidate
when a foreign adversary is attempting to penetrate or make
contact with someone in the campaign. If the FBI and DOJ were so
concerned about Carter Page and (George) Papadopoulos why didn't
they brief Trump when he became a candidate? The fact that they
didn't is very revealing. If they gave a defensive briefing to the
Clinton campaign then I think we have the answer.
(It is unknown if the Clinton campaign received a briefing.)
Carter said that a comparison of the testimonies of DOJ
official Bruce Ohr, former FBI top lawyer James Baker and Lynch
show that all three spoke of their concern that Russians might be
penetrating Trump's campaign, yet no one offered a defensive
briefing.
In her testimony, Lynch admitted that top officials, including
James Comey, all talked about offering a defensive briefing, but
no one ever followed through.
But, then again, why brief a candidate when you're trying to
frame him instead?
look NOTHING happens in DC if not for political gain, including
actual law enforcement---exhibit A being the email server.
Does
indicting Hillary help Trump independent voters? Not so sure.
Seems like the OJ trial---who DOESN"T think she's guilty and like
AOC, every time she opens her trap, it helps Trump.
Perp walking the traitors (McCabe, Strzok, Page and the rest
the Hilter Youth)--huge benefits IMO. Remember, all the Dems
have steadfastly defended this cabal. Make them defend the
traitors.
This diplomat is a typical neocon (or at least a diplomat with the "US world leadership" delusion ) , and belong to the sad category
of US politicians and foreign service officials who in 1991 decided that the USA can rule the globe. They spend tremendous amount of
money(stolen from US citizens) and thousand of US servicemen lives to prove that. The US now can't give the world what they want as
neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization that the USA pushed in definitely in crisis like Bolshevism was in 80th in the USSR (while
trump is definitely is not Gorbachov, he might be the US Khrushchev). Trump "national neoliberalism" is not a solution, and in this
part I would agree with Burns
Generally the State Department is real nest of neocon vipers and without cleaning it nothing can be done in the US foreign policy.
It would be that same old, same old.
That's why most interview is just and repeating of standard State Department talking points. But the end of interview is somewhat
interesting. Looks like the US have a real risk to step in the same rake again and unleash the war with Iran.
Burns: Oh, no, it's a very real worry, in my view.
I don't know President Trump, but my impression is he's not an interventionist. But because he is a narcissist, you could get
into a crisis situation with Iran, and you end up with what becomes a sort of fast-moving test of manhood. You can end up with collisions
that may be inadvertent at their outset but can escalate quite rapidly. There can be that temptation to just assert a muscular American
response -- which sometimes makes perfect sense, but if it's not carefully harnessed can lead in some dangerous directions. Especially
at a time when we've sowed such unease among our allies. That's when adversaries are most likely to test.
Fallows: One more question about this era in U.S. relations with the world. Trump's essential argument is that everybody
has been screwing us. What's the comparably visceral answer to that?
Burns: The truth is some people have been screwing us. Anybody who got elected in 2016 would have had to work hard to try
to change the terms of engagement with allies like NATO and change the terms of engagement with rivals like China in terms of trade,
and investment practices as well.
But in making that argument that everybody has been screwing us, the current president is just about punching back against people
bilaterally and unilaterally. And not recognizing that what sets us apart from lonelier powers like China and Russia is our alliances,
and our capacity to build coalitions. It's our capacity to adapt the rules of existing institutions and develop rules of the road.
It's understanding that set of strengths.
I think this administration, and this president, have demonstrated almost willful ignorance of that set of strengths for the United
States. Especially at this moment on the international landscape, that matters more than ever.
Were you the one asking in a previous MoA comments forum about the 130-strong Israeli
Defense Forces search-and-rescue team in Brumadinho, in Minas Gerais state in Brazil, and why
it was there? I seem to recall reading elsewhere that this team had not had clearance from
Brazilian authorities (at federal or state level, not sure which) to come into the area to
help search for people lost in the dam explosion.
A road trip along the BR-174 Federal Highway from Brumadinho to Santa Elena de Uairen on
the border with Venezuela takes about 64 hours (just under 3 days). Another 9 hours to Guri
Dam by car, taxi or maybe a hired bus. Bear in mind the Brumadinho dam collapsed in late
January. How much time would be needed then to insert Stuxnet-type malware into the software
that controls Venezuela's power grid?
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual
myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they
may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared
with that of the rich."
John Kenneth Galbraith
The sugar high of the Trump election seems to be wearing a bit thin on Wall Street. I had said at the time that I thought they would
just execute the trading plans they had in place in their supposition that Hillary was going to win. And this is what I think they
did, and have been doing.
And so when the thrill is gone, and dull reality starts sinking in, I suspect we are going to be in for quite a correction.
However, I am tuning out the hysteria from the Wall Street Democrats, especially the pitiful whining emanating from organizations
like MSNBC, CNN, and the NY Times, because they have discredited themselves as reliable, unbiased sources. They really have.
They may just be joining their right-leaning peers in this, but they still do not realize it, and think of themselves as exceptional,
and morally superior. And the same can be said of many pundits, and insiders, and very serious people with important podiums
in the academy and the press.
Hillary was to be their meal ticket. And their anguish at being denied a payday for their faithful service is remarkable.
We are being treated to rumours that Trump is going to appoint this or that despicable person to some key position. I am waiting
for him to show his hand with some actual decisions and appointments.
This is not to say that I am optimistic, not in the least. I am not, and I most certainly did not vote for him (or her for that
matter). But the silliness of the courtiers in the media is just too much, too much whining from those who had their candy of power
and money by association expectations taken away.
I am therefore very interested in seeing who the DNC will choose as chairperson. Liz Warren came out today and endorsed Ellison,
which I believe Bernie Sanders has done as well. He is no insider like Wasserman-Schulz, Brazile, or Dean.
The Democratic party is at a crossroads, in a split between taking policy positions along lines of 'class' or 'identity.'
By class is meant working class of the broader public versus the moneyed interests of financiers and tech monopolists.
Identity implies the working with various minority groups who certainly may deserve redress for real suppression of their
rights and other financial abuses, but in a 'splintering' manner that breaks them down into special interest groups rather than a
broader movement of the disadvantaged.
Why has this been the establishment approach of the heart of the Democratic power circles?
I think the reason for this Democratic strategy has been purely practical. There was no way the Wall Street wing of the Democratic
party could make policy along lines of the middle class and the poor, and keep a straight face, while gorging themselves in a frenzy
of massive soft corruption and enormous donations from the wealthiest few who they were thereby expected to represent and to serve.
And so they lost politically, and badly.
The average American, of whatever identity, finally became sick of them, and rejected the balkanization of their interests into
special identity groups that could be more easily managed and messaged, and controlled.
This was a huge difference that we saw in the Sanders campaign, almost to a fault. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because
it was so unaccustomed, and insufficiently articulated. Sanders had his heart in the right place, perhaps, but he lacked the charisma
and outspokenness of an FDR. Not to mention that his own party powers were dead set against him, because they wanted to keep the
status quo that had rewarded them so well in place.
It is not at all obvious that the Democrats can find themselves again. Perhaps Mr. Trump, while doing some things well, will take
economic policy matters to an excess, and like the Democrats ignore the insecurity and discontent of the working class. And the people
will find a voice, eventually, in either the Democratic party, or something entirely new.
This is not just an American phenomenon. This has happened with Labour and Brexit in the UK, and is happening in the rest of the
developed nations in Europe. One thing that the ruling elite of the West have had in common is a devotion to corporate globalisation
and inequality.
And that system is not going to 'cohere' as economist Robert Johnson had put it so well.
With all this change and volatility and insecurity, it appears that people will be reaching for some sort of safe haven for themselves
and their resources. So far the Dollar index has benefited from this, not because of its virtues, but from the weakness and foundering
of the others.
I am afraid that the confidence in the Dollar as a safe haven is misplaced, especially if things go as I expect that they will
with the US economy under a Trump administration. But that is still largely in his hand,s to be decided and written. We have yet
to see if he has the will and mind to oppose the vested interests of his own party and the corporate, moneyed interests.
That is an enormous, history-making task, requiring an almost historic moral compass. And so I am not optimistic.
In this interview with Colbert, Tulsi Gabbard discussed what should be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century
-- war in Syria and support of jihadists by the USA government
Tulsi demonstrated again "courage under fire". Evidently hostile Colbert is a more dangerous opponent then Megan McCain, even if
he asked basically the same questions. His popularity adds to the weight of the questions. .
Notable quotes:
"... America is not the "policeman of the world". It is the military enforcer of its multinational corporations. ..."
"... Oh my God Colbert. Hack and establishment stooge. Embarrassing line of questioning. ..."
"... They ALL try to pin her on Syria, Assad, how can she be non-interventionist and still support the military, etc etc etc. ..."
"... It's SERIOUSLY as though they're all reading from the same exact script verbatim. Someone could put together a soundbyte of all of the different anchors asking the same questions sycnhronized I bet. ..."
"... @Animus Nocturnus the same recycled questions about meeting Assad she has answered 1000 times before isnt journalism. Journalism is what you need to get NEW information. ..."
"... T his is just one hack beating the war drum. ( dog whistling I believe the new term is) and pushing American exceptionalism ..."
"... Wow.... Colbert is being quite the little imperialist! Thanks for nothing Colbert. ..."
"... Colbert did the Clintons bidding, again ... he tried to ambush Tulsi, but Tulsi was too good, and also right! I'm with Tulsi. I donated, and I want the USA to be involved in the world too, to be a force for good. GO TULSI GABBARD!! ..."
In this rare mainstream interview,
@
TulsiGabbard discussed what should
be one of the biggest scandals of the 21st century (which Colbert has never mentioned on his show):
In its war on Syria, the US armed and trained far-right Salafi-jihadist rebels, empowering al-Qaeda and ISIS
Yea Colbert is
bought and paid for by his NBC/corporate masters, anti-war pro peace is not allowed, we spend $700 billion dollars a year on
the military. They will smear anyone who tries to stop that gravy train and he's one of their puppets that does that
smearing.
8
Actually, that
was a great line of questioning. Instead of the wish-wash "how are you, how are the kids, what did you ate today"
bullshit, he asked real questions and she was able to give real answers. That's what journalism should look like, and
how people running for high government jobs should be interviewed.
Those are jobs that require people who know their
stuff instead of entertainers.
And you will only know about how the people runnig for those jobs will conduct
themselves if they get asked tough questions. And she did a great job answering those questions.
MawcDrums, 6 hours ago (edited)
@Animus Nocturnus
The thing is they "sound like" real questions, BUT, and this is a HUGE but, they
are the EXACT SAME questions she has received from every other mainstream media interview I've seen with her.
They ALL try to pin her on Syria, Assad, how can she be non-interventionist
and still support the military, etc etc etc.
And then some cute jab about Hawaii as if to say "Sorry about that". It's
despicable and it's happening to Bernie and all of the true progressive candidates (AOC as well).
It's SERIOUSLY as though they're all reading from the same exact script
verbatim. Someone could put together a soundbyte of all of the different anchors asking the same questions sycnhronized I bet.
dirtcom7, 4 hours ago
@Animus Nocturnus the same recycled questions about meeting Assad she has
answered 1000 times before isnt journalism. Journalism is what you need to get NEW information. Hence the NEWS.
This is just one hack beating the war drum. ( dog whistling I believe the
new term is) and pushing American exceptionalism
Ron Widelec, 23 hours ago
Wow.... Colbert is being quite the little imperialist! Thanks for nothing
Colbert.
Jesse Prevallet, 1 day ago
Colbert,
if you had any of your 3 kids serving in the military right now, you would not be
such a mouthpiece for the empire. Grow a spine and ask a real question instead of these CIA lapdog questions
Robert S, 23 hours ago
Colbert did the Clintons bidding, again ... he tried to ambush Tulsi, but
Tulsi was too good, and also right! I'm with Tulsi. I donated, and I want the USA to be involved in the world too, to be a force
for good. GO TULSI GABBARD!!
"... If the government can change the designation of Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Administration's designation of Wikileaks) to a 'hostile intelligence service' (Trump Administration's designation), then any entity – online and offline – is in danger of being designated a hostile intelligence agency if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself. ..."
"... This will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the president, intelligence agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat, Republican or Independent – must stand up against it." ..."
"... This is a follow-up to similar statements she's made about WikiLeaks before. During an event in New Hampshire, she said the stolen information that WikiLeaks published had "spurred necessary change." During her Concord meet and greet she said: "Obviously the information that has been put out has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware of and have spurred some necessary change there." ..."
If the government can change the designation of Wikileaks from being a news organization (Obama Administration's designation
of Wikileaks) to a 'hostile intelligence service' (Trump Administration's designation), then any entity – online and offline –
is in danger of being designated a hostile intelligence agency if they carry out investigative reporting that the US government
or a particular administration considers to be hostile to itself.
This will have a chilling effect on investigative reporting of powerful government agencies or officials, including the
president, intelligence agencies, etc. This is a serious breach of our constitutional freedoms and every American – Democrat,
Republican or Independent – must stand up against it."
... ... ...
You can see her Facebook post and the responses below.
... ... ...
This is a follow-up to similar statements she's made about WikiLeaks before. During an event in New Hampshire, she said the
stolen information that WikiLeaks published had "spurred necessary change." During her Concord meet and greet she said: "Obviously
the information that has been put out has exposed a lot of things that have been happening that the American people were not aware
of and have spurred some necessary change there."
Her response was an answer to a question about President Donald Trump's administration seeking to prosecute Julian Assange. Just
this week, Chelsea Manning was jailed for not
answering questions from a grand jury about Assange. She refused to testify before a grand jury investigation regarding WikiLeaks,
AP shared . She said she objected to the secrecy
of the grand jury process and had already shared everything that she knows. Because prosecutors granted her immunity for her testimony,
she said she couldn't invoke the Fifth Amendment to defend her right not to speak.
The emails from the DNC shared by WikiLeaks did indeed ultimately bring about some changes, including lesser power to superdelegates
in 2020. Donna Brazile, former DNC chairwoman, has said that the DNC primary in 2016 was "rigged" against Bernie Sanders. Brazile
herself had even leaked some debate questions to Hillary Clinton before her debate with Sanders. Brazile has said that the DNC worked
closely with Clinton's campaign in 2016 because it needed the money, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz let Clinton's campaign help cover
the DNC's debt in exchange for some level of control,
the Miami Herald reported
. The DNC is supposed to be impartial during Democratic presidential primaries, but Brazile said that was not the case.
... ... ...
In July 2016, Wasserman Schultz stepped down as chair of the DNC after WikiLeaks published DNC emails that showed the organization
strongly favored Clinton over Sanders during the primary. Brazile briefly served as interim chair before Tom Perez took over.
I asked and demanded Debbie Wasserman Schultz's resignation many, many months ago and I state that again. I don't think she
is qualified to be the chair of the DNC. Not only for these awful emails which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people and I don't think her leadership style is doing that."
However, DWS was allowed to resign after the 2016 Convention, which angered some. Meanwhile, Clinton praised DWS and gave her
an honorary position on her campaign.
... ... ...
One of the emails that WikiLeaks leaked showed
a letter from Darnell Strom and Michael Kives to Tulsi Gabbard, saying they were very disappointed that she had resigned from the
DNC to endorse Bernie Sanders. The email read in part: "For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with
very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee
and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton. A woman who has spent
the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women, families, and the underserved. You have called both
myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising
money for your campaign "
She doesn't have a policy ready yet on the issue, and it is an important one she needs to
address better than this. FWIW, she follows Wikileaks on Twitter and she is critical of the
Deep State- which is better than Bernie Sanders. It matters to me and most Americans, I
believe, that she would not pursue Julian Assange. It also matters that she believes in very
strong progressive taxation. Top marginal rate over a million needs to start at 50 percent.
Progressively increase the rate so it becomes impossible to become a billionare. This is
about fairness and making sure that a single person does not have control of that many
resources. I prefer to talk about resource distribution instead of wealth
inequality.
Tulsi is the bravest candidate for standing against war!! This should indeed be our first
consideration. Please donate to her effort, even if it's just $5!! She needs 65,000 donations
from different people in at least 30 states!! Please donate!! Go Tulsi!!!
Donated! - For once let's say 'No Wars', 'Yes to health care', 'Yes we like to spend our
$s here in the U S of A', 'Let's free ourselves from Employer health care bondage!'. Why not
divert billions of dollars that feed wars go to our health care, our schools. And yes to
retrain those people whom current system is forcing to go back into tunnels and dig dirt to
make money. America is great when her people are living great lives! -- Why not make funds
available to retrain these wonderful people in jobs above ground? Do you know the risks to
health working underground? At minimum you must heard of Radon gas in basements, right?
causes cancer. And basements are only a few feet deep!. Come on people do you really want
this work for your children and their children? no you do not. You deserve to have shot at
good life, a healthy shot!
Nikki2 comment on Youtube: "GUYS! Tulsi needs 65,000 individual donations to get into the
debates. Even if she's not your #1 candidate, please donate a small amount so she can bring the
foreign policy/regime change conversation to the debates"
@ChuckOrloski
Chelsea Manning is imprisoned (from the article you cited) "for refusing to testify in front
of a secretive Grand Jury." The regime is after Julian Assange, so they're trying to squeeze
Manning. Not happening!
US military spending is always by far the largest on the planet, several times the amount of
the next highest spending, China. But while other nations like China and Russia are scaling
back their budgets, the Pentagon's budget, as ever, continues to rise.
Trump's proposal would bring the overall defense budget for 2020 to $750 billion. This
includes a $544 billion base-line defense budget, which is not in and of itself a huge
increase. But on top of that
will be a nearly $100 billion in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Fund , and a $9
billion "emergency" funding request meant to make up for the money already taken from the
military to build the border wall.
Using the OCO budget as an avenue for driving military spending up has been a common tactic
in recent decades, though it had fallen out of favor in the past few years. The OCO has been
heavily criticized because its nature makes it effectively a black hole, allowing the Pentagon
to shuffle money around to different projects as it sees fit.
Exploding the OCO, nearly tripling it from the current year's levels, while keeping base
funding roughly in line, seems meant to allow the administration to present themselves as
keeping past commitments, while fueling a precipitous spending increase all the same.
"Three companies have vast power over our economy and our democracy. Facebook, Amazon, and
Google," read the ads which began to run on Friday, According to Politico
. "We all use them. But in their rise to power, they've bulldozed competition, used our private
information for profit, and tilted the playing field in their favor."
As these companies have grown larger and more powerful, they have used their resources and
control over the way we use the Internet to squash small businesses and innovation , and
substitute their own financial interests for the broader interests of the American people. To
restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the
next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it's time to break up our
biggest tech companies. -Elizabeth Warren
Facebook confirmed with Politico that the ads had been taken down and said said the
company is reviewing the matter. "The person said, according to an initial review, that the
removal could be linked to the company's policies about using Facebook's
brand in posts ."
Around a dozen other ads placed by Warren were not affected.
"... I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters – "one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors " ..."
I thought we lived in a corporate state and since the Supreme Court has ruled corporations
have rights – the voting morons already have loyalty to their corporate masters –
"one nation, under God and all of his defense contractors "
Anti-Semitism theater – a carefully staged social movement organized by Government
owned media to divide the peons and make them hate each other. Real hate-group profit lies in
charging for vast quantities of militarism but making just enough to kill women and children
overseas.
Back home the flag waving patriots insist they need a giant military with weapons
for anyone who can pay to protect them and their families. Dual loyalty to the Jewish lobby
and the defense lobby.
They know, however, that they've been conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the
game.
Thank you Mr. Black for the laugh this morning. They know exactly what they have been
doing. Whether it was deregulating so that Hedge funds and vulture capitalism can thrive, or
making sure us peons cannot discharge debts, or making everything about financalization. This
was all done on purpose, without care for "winning the political game". Politics is
economics, and the Wall Street Democrats have been winning.
For sure. I'm quite concerned at the behavior of the DNC leadership and pundits. They are
doubling down on blatant corporatist agendas. They are acting like they have this in the bag
when objective evidence says they do not and are in trouble. Assuming they are out of touch is
naive to me. I would assume the opposite, they know a whole lot more than what they are letting
on.
I think the notion that the DNC and the Democrat's ruling class would rather lose to a
like-minded Republican corporatist than win with someone who stands for genuine progressive
values offering "concrete material benefits." I held my nose and read comments at the kos straw
polls (where Sanders consistently wins by a large margin) and it's clear to me that the
Clintonista's will do everything in their power to derail Bernie.
Keynes' "animal spirits" and the "tragedy of the commons" (Lloyd, 1833 and Hardin, 1968)
both implied that economics was messier than Samuelson and Friedman would have us believe
because there are actual people with different short- and long-term interests.
The behavioral folks (Kahnemann, Tversky, Thaler etc.) have all shown that people are even
messier than we would have thought. So most macro-economic stuff over the past half-century has
been largely BS in justifying trickle-down economics, deregulation etc.
There needs to be some inequality as that provides incentives via capitalism but
unfettered it turns into France 1989 or the Great Depression. It is not coincidence that the
major experiment in this in the late 90s and early 2000s required massive government
intervention to keep the ship from sinking less than a decade after the great unregulated
creative forces were unleashed.
MMT is likely to be similar where productive uses of deficits can be beneficial, but if the
money is wasted on stupid stuff like unnecessary wars, then the loss of credibility means that
the fiat currency won't be quite as fiat anymore. Britain was unbelievably economically
powerfully in the late 1800s but in half a century went to being an economic afterthought
hamstrung by deficits after two major wars and a depression.
So it is good that people like Brad DeLong are coming to understand that the pretty
economic theories have some truths but are utter BS (and dangerous) when extrapolated without
accounting for how people and societies actually behave.
I never understood the incentive to make more money -- that only works if money = true value
and that is the implication of living in a capitalist society (not economy)–everything
then becomes a commodity and alienation results and all the depression, fear, anxiety that I
see around me. Whereas human happiness actually comes from helping others and finding meaning
in life not money or dominating others. That's what social science seems to be telling us.
" He says we are discredited. Our policies have failed. And they've failed because
we've been conned by the Republicans."
That's welcome, but it's still making excuses. Neoliberal policies have failed because
the economics were wrong, not because "we've been conned by the Republicans." Furthermore, this
may be important – if it isn't acknowledged, those policies are quite likely to come
sneaking back, especially if Democrats are more in the ascendant., as they will be, given the
seesaw built into the 2-Party.
Might be right there. Groups like the neocons were originally attached the the left side of
politics but when the winds changed, detached themselves and went over to the Republican right.
The winds are changing again so those who want power may be going over to what is called the
left now to keep their grip on power. But what you say is quite true. It is not really the
policies that failed but the economics themselves that were wrong and which, in an honest
debate, does not make sense either.
"And they've failed because we've been conned by the Republicans.""
Not at all. What about the "free trade" hokum that DeJong and his pal Krugman have been
peddling since forever? History and every empirical test in the modern era shows that it fails
in developing countries and only exacerbates inequality in richer ones.
That's just a failed policy.
I'm still waiting for an apology for all those years that those two insulted anyone who
questioned their dogma as just "too ignorant to understand."
It's intriguing, but two other voices come to mind. One is Never Let a Serious Crisis Go To
Waste by Mirowski and the other is Generation Like by Doug Rushkoff.
Neoliberalism is partially entrepreneurial self-conceptions which took a long time to
promote. Rushkoff's Frontline shows the Youtube culture. There is a girl with a "leaderboard"
on the wall of her suburban room, keeping track of her metrics.
There's a devastating VPRO Backlight film on the same topic. Internet-platform
neoliberalism does not have much to do with the GOP.
It's going to be an odd hybrid at best – you could have deep-red communism but enacted
for and by people whose self-conception is influenced by decades of Becker and Hayek? One place
this question leads is to ask what's the relationship between the set of ideas and material
conditions-centric philosophies? If new policies pass that create a different possibility
materially, will the vise grip of the entrepreneurial self loosen?
Partially yeah, maybe, a Job Guarantee if it passes and actually works, would be an
anti-neoliberal approach to jobs, which might partially loosen the regime of neoliberal advice
for job candidates delivered with a smug attitude that There Is No Alternative. (Described by
Gershon). We take it seriously because of a sense of dread that it might actually be powerful
enough to lock us out if we don't, and an uncertainty of whether it is or not.
There has been deep damage which is now a very broad and resilient base. It is one of the
prongs of why 2008 did not have the kind of discrediting effect that 1929 did. At least that's
what I took away from _Never Let_.
Brad DeLong handing the baton might mean something but it is not going to ameliorate the
sense-of-life that young people get from managing their channels and metrics.
Take the new 1099 platforms as another focal point. Suppose there were political measures
that splice in on the platforms and take the edge off materially, such as underwritten
healthcare not tied to your job. The platforms still use star ratings, make star ratings seem
normal, and continually push a self-conception as a small business. If you have overt DSA plus
covert Becker it is, again, a strange hybrid,
Your comment is very insightful. Neoliberalism embeds its mindset into the very fabric of
our culture and self-concepts. It strangely twists many of our core myths and beliefs.
This is nothing but a Trojan horse to 'co-opt' and 'subvert'. Neoliberals sense a risk to
their neo feudal project and are simply attempting to infiltrate and hollow out any threats
from within.
There are the same folks who have let entire economics departments becomes mouthpieces for
corporate propaganda and worked with thousands of think tanks and international organizations
to mislead, misinform and cause pain to millions of people.
They have seeded decontextualized words like 'wealth creators' and 'job creators' to
create a halo narrative for corporate interests and undermine society, citizenship, the social
good, the environment that make 'wealth creation' even possible. So all those take a backseat
to 'wealth creator' interests. Since you can't create wealth without society this is some
achievement.
Its because of them that we live in a world where the most important economic idea is
protecting people like Kochs business and personal interests and making sure government is not
'impinging on their freedom'. And the corollary a fundamental anti-human narrative where
ordinary people and workers are held in contempt for even expecting living wages and conditions
and their access to basics like education, health care and living conditions is hollowed out
out to promote privatization and become 'entitlements'.
Neoliberalism has left us with a decontextualized highly unstable world that exists in a
collective but is forcefully detached into a context less individual existence. These are not
mistakes of otherwise 'well meaning' individuals, there are the results of hard core ideologues
and high priests of power.
Two thumbs up. This has been an ongoing agenda for decades and it has succeeded in
permeating every aspect of society, which is why the United States is such a vacuous,
superficial place. And it's exporting that superficiality to the rest of the world.
I read Brad DeLong's and Paul Krugman's blogs until their contradictions became too
great. If anything, we need more people seeing the truth. The Global War on Terror is into its
18th year. In October the USA will spend approximately $6 trillion and will have accomplish
nothing except to create blow back. The Middle Class is disappearing. Those who remain in their
homes are head over heels in debt.
The average American household carries $137,063 in debt. The wealthy are getting richer.
The Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates families together have as much wealth as the
lowest half of Americans. Donald Trump's Presidency and Brexit document that neoliberal
politicians have lost contact with reality. They are nightmares that there is no escaping. At
best, perhaps, Roosevelt Progressives will be reborn to resurrect regulated capitalism and debt
forgiveness.
But more likely is a middle-class revolt when Americans no longer can pay for water,
electricity, food, medicine and are jailed for not paying a $1,500 fine for littering the
Beltway.
A civil war inside a nuclear armed nation state is dangerous beyond belief. France is
approaching this.
"... He apparently still sees neoliberalism as way to "control capitalism's worst tendencies," when in fact neoliberalism is capitalism on steroids. In other words, he's completely lost. ..."
"... Black seems to be seeing a change of heart where there is simply a temporary surrender until the coalition of " neoliberal shills" can infiltrate and then overthrow again the "left policies that are bound to lead to destruction". ..."
"... And he seems to be blaming the blue dogs for not drumming into the plebs' heads that the former Presidents' (Clinton/Obama's) policy were great in order that the coalition grew. This was not a mea culpa. It was Delong's realistic strategy outline for neoliberal's continuance. And perhaps, a thinly veiled request for a policy position for himself or his son in any new lefty administration. ..."
"... Wasn't DeLong the economist so threatened to kneecap any academic economist and policy wonk who went against Hillary in the last election? He sounds practically mafiaso in this post . ..."
"... It's hard to take DeLong seriously. Contrary to what he says, the GOP and Dems have worked closely and successfully to implement neo-liberalism in America. ..."
"... My feeling is DeLong and the neo-liberal donor class are already conceding the 2020 election; seeing it as a repeat of the 1984 Mondale debacle. They want the young socialist side of the Democratic Party to take the blame, so in 2024 the donor class can run a candidate pushing new and improved neo-liberalism. Trump seems to be making the same calculation as he moves away from his populist/nationalist policies to become just another in a long line of Koch brother GOP neo-liberal stooges. ..."
"... Brad DeLong is brilliant, yet pushed the magical thinking of neoliberalism for 30 years. Am I missing something here? ..."
"... the university professors, who teach but do not learn. ..."
"... But when it came to Hillary running for President in 2016, DeLong fell in line and endorsed her, despite HRC's bad ("complete flop"?) decisions along the way as Senator and SOS (Honduras, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine, Wall Street Speeches and Clinton Foundation grift). Can DeLong be trusted? ..."
MARC STEINER: So I mean, there's one quote that kind of sums up for me. When he
wrote: "Barack Obama rolls into office with Mitt Romney's healthcare policy, with John McCain's
climate policy, with Bill Clinton's tax policy, and George H.W. Bush's foreign policy. And did
George H.W. Bush, did Mitt Romney, did John McCain say a single good word about anything Barack
Obama ever did over the course of eight solid years? No f'n way he did not," is what he said.
Cleaned it up just a little bit. But that kind of sums up, in many ways, exactly what he was
saying.
BILL BLACK: Brad DeLong is brilliant. And he writes really well. And he has, in a
super short form, captured it exactly. All of Obama's key policies were the product of very
conservative views that are, on many economic fronts, literally to the right of these crazies
that are the Republicans who constitute the House and the Senate. And even when they're not to
the right of the crazies, they're way, way right, and they're inferior. Right? The progressive
policies are fundamentally superior. Market regulation is a terrible failure. It is
criminogenic.
I'll give you one example. He ends by saying wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if we could
use cap and trade to create an incentive for, you know, 20-plus million people to do the right
thing? Because again, the neoliberal view is if they do the right thing they will get a profit.
See? It'll all be wonderful. They'll all do the right thing. Except that it's vastly easier on
something like cap and trade to do the wrong thing. To lie, to commit fraud about whether
you're actually reducing the pollution, and collect the fees. And so he doesn't realize, still,
I think, that we are incentivizing not 20 million people to do the right thing, but literally 2
billion people to do the wrong thing. And you know, often that will be the result, the wrong
thing.
MARC STEINER: So, two final questions here. So in this–what's moving ahead
here. Let me just posit this. So how did Democrats and the left respond to this? We're about to
see an MSNBC clip from the CPAC meeting that took place in D.C. last weekend. And this is
clearly going to be part of their major attack in the coming elections. Think about this vis a
vis the long road. Let's watch this.
TED CRUZ: Look, I think there's a technical description of what's going on, which is
that Democrats have gone bat crap crazy.
MIKE PENCE: That system is socialism.
SEBASTIAN GORKA: That is why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced the Green New
Deal. It's a watermelon. Green on the outside. Deep, deep red communist on the inside. They
want to take your pickup truck. They want to rebuild your home. They want to take away your
hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved.
MARC STEINER: So clearly this is going to be part of this strategy coming forth. I'm
thinking about the long road and how this fits in, because this clearly is going to be the
opposition, what they're going to start doing.
BILL BLACK: So literally, the watermelon guy, Gorka, is literally a Croatian
fascist.
MARC STEINER: No question. No question.
BILL BLACK: I mean the Ustase, the pro-Hitler Croatian fascists. So progressives
should take enormous comfort from Brad DeLong. He is one of the most influential economists. He
wasn't just a theorist. He actually was there designing and implementing these policies at the
most senior levels of the Clinton administration. And he says they are failures. They're
political failures and they're often economic failures. And he says the left is
composed–the progressive wing of the Democratic Party–of among the best people in
the world. Their policies are typically wonderful. Excellent for the world. We need to get
behind them. And the idea that we should continue to listen to the New Democrats, the Wall
Street Democrats, and take guidance from them, is preposterous; that they must exit the stage
and the baton must pass to the progressives to take the leadership role. And that they're doing
an excellent job of that, and should continue and expand that leadership
ok after reading the comments i'm discouraged again. delong isn't a signal of a sea change
of heart among neoliberals. but it's more friction for the neoliberals to cope with, and it
is useful politically. he did admit that the policies he had espoused were wrong, and that
the neoliberal view of the world was inaccurate. this isn't going to be easy for the krugmans
to ignore.
delong personally could be another david brock; time will tell, and how he responds to the
wave of criticism he will face from former colleagues.
DeLong gives a qualified support to MMT, saying that it's not foolproof but better than
the alternatives. As MMT-ers remind us, in political economy the policies are a different
matter.
Reminds me of a bit of physics theories, that an old one is retired when a newer theory
explains reality better. Except the old theorys were designed to conceal, not explain,
reality.
Thanks for this link. It was such a short, clear analysis. In econospeak it was like a
memo to a colleague. So Brad DeLong is on our list of good guys. How nice. The questions I am
left with are about the usefulness of interest rates at all, and I vaguely remember Randy
Wray saying stg. like 'interest rates should be kept very low to insure against inflation'
which makes sense. Interest rates themselves could be pushing bubbles. And then what exactly
are we talking about with the word "inflation"? I like (DeLong's or MMT's?) theory about
inflated assets (govt bonds here) – that prices stay within a balance because there are
fewer greater fools than we imagine. Maybe. But it might be nice to actually come up with a
better remedy if and when the SHTF. A fiscal means of adjusting the balance without harming
ordinary people. (MMT does this best.) The only method I know about is devaluing a currency
and keeping on as is. Nobody loses any value that way because more dollars balance out the
inflated values. But neoliberals are definitely batshit about currency devaluations. As if
money had some intrinsic value. Maybe it's just a trade thing – but if so, you'd think
it could be separated out from the rest of the uses of money. Maybe firewalls. So maybe I'll
read some more Brad. Thanks.
I'm not rejoicing about this, and having read the VOX interview, I don't quite understand
Steiner's and Black's enthusiasm. DeLong doesn't want to pass the baton at all -- he wants to
crapify valid and essential policies: expanded, improved Medicare for All, the Green New
Deal, MMT with a Job Guarantee, and a foreign policy not based on forever-wars. And that's
exactly what the neoliberals intend to do: crapification on a grand scale.
"Market-friendly neoliberals, rather than pushing their own ideology, should work to
improve ideas on the left. This, [DeLong] believes, is the most effective and sustainable
basis for Democratic politics and policy for the foreseeable future."
Hey, DeLong, listen up: expanded, improved Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, a federal
Job Guarantee, and a foreign policy (and defense budget) ending forever-wars are NOT ideas
that need improving. They ARE the improvements. Neoliberalism is dead, and we intend to bury
it.
No. It means argue with them, to the extent that their policies are going to be wrong and
destructive, but also accept that there is no political path to a coalition built from the
Rubin-center out. Instead, we accommodate ourselves to those on our left. To the extent that
they will not respond to our concerns, what they're proposing is a helluva better than the
poke-in-the-eye with a sharp stick. That's either Trumpist proposals or the current
status.
Basically he's saying we don't have the numbers and building a coalition with the right
hasn't worked, so now we should build one with the left. He's not actually saying the
progressive policies are better, just that they have a better chance of getting their agenda
forward with progressives than with conservatives.
The key to all of this from my perspective is they don't have the numbers. The American
empire is in accelerating decline. Every major system is broken and corrupt. Government can't
fix the problems. Populism elected Trump, and now voters will swing the other way looking for
the magic bullet. The corporatists choices are deliberate sabotage of the electoral system,
because good old fashioned corruption will no longer suffice, or capitulate to the left.
DeLong sounds like a trial balloon to me.
Read up on his Wikipedia entry and the following bit grabbed my attention-
"In 1990 and 1991 DeLong and Lawrence Summers co-wrote two theoretical papers that were
to become critical theoretical underpinnings for the financial deregulation put in place when
Summers was Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton."
I would be very wary on any advice that he gives out myself.
He doesn't have to convince me, so it doesn't matter that he won't. But if he can convince
a few shaky Democrats on the less-right side that it's futile to try to reform the Republican
Party from within
Basically he's saying we don't have the numbers and building a coalition with the right
hasn't worked, so now we should build one with the left. He's not actually saying the
progressive policies are better, just that they have a better chance of getting their
agenda forward with progressives than with conservatives.
Exactly. He hasn't changed his neoliberal stripes. He in no way admits, or feels sorry
for, the incredible destruction neoliberal policies have wreaked on the masses here and
abroad. He apparently still sees neoliberalism as way to "control capitalism's worst
tendencies," when in fact neoliberalism is capitalism on steroids. In other words, he's
completely lost.
Although he has a wide audience and any change in his rhetoric can theoretically be
positive, there's no way he should be trusted. His change of opinion is not a substantive
change of heart. It's out of absolute necessity due to the incredible pressure exerted by
the grassroots. That pressure should never cease, or rest on its laurels, because the
Brad DeLong's of the world change their tune.
The thing to rejoice or be sad about is not whether DeLong abandons centrism and becomes a
leftist (or if you believe he has); it's whether the Left has a place at the table, which is
what he is acknowledging.
For years, the Centrists have ignored or hippy-punched the Left while bargaining with the
Right, which has pulled the Centrists ever-further to the right.
When a Centrist like DeLong says they should argue with the Left about lefty policies;
when he says Centrists should pass the baton to the Left, he is acknowledging they have power
now that must be reckoned with.
Acquiring enough power that the Establishment must treat with them should be the goal of
all people on the left. It's far more important than winning any specific election.
(Let's just skip over distinctions between 'left', 'liberal' and 'progressive' in reading
my comment. Those terms are entirely over-loaded and you can tell who I mean)
Forget "left," "right," and "progressive" and look at the actual policies that a group
brings to politics–that's where you will find what is best for the public. Try to list
T's policies and you will see what I mean.
I agree. Black seems to be seeing a change of heart where there is simply a temporary
surrender until the coalition of " neoliberal shills" can infiltrate and then overthrow again
the "left policies that are bound to lead to destruction".
Delong asserts that once these
neoliberal Econ policies work then this great coalition was going to feel less grinchy and
the trickling would indeed then have trickled. He blames the politics not the economics.
And
he seems to be blaming the blue dogs for not drumming into the plebs' heads that the former
Presidents' (Clinton/Obama's) policy were great in order that the coalition grew. This was
not a mea culpa. It was Delong's realistic strategy outline for neoliberal's continuance. And
perhaps, a thinly veiled request for a policy position for himself or his son in any new
lefty administration.
I'm not sure I agree with Prof. Black here either. Wasn't DeLong the economist so threatened to kneecap any academic economist and policy
wonk who went against Hillary in the last election? He sounds practically mafiaso in
this post .
"Mind you: The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash
people to be named later for Guevarista fantasies about what their policies are likely to do.
The day will come when it will be time to gleefully and comprehensively trash people to be
named later for advocating Comintern-scale lying to voters about what our policies are like
to do. And it will be important to do so then–because overpromising leads to bad policy
decisions, and overpromising is bad long-run politics as well."
That doesn't seem like integrity to me. It appears to be more opportunistic. He'll happily
kick you whenever he thinks he can get away with it.
It's hard to take DeLong seriously. Contrary to what he says, the GOP and Dems have worked
closely and successfully to implement neo-liberalism in America. He cites ObamaCare? The GOP
pretended to be against it in order to win support from the less bright side of the political
left bell curve and to wean them away from things like the public option or single-payer. But
the GOP never went past Kabuki theatre to dismantle ObamaCare when they had the power to do
so.
DeLong gives no policy specifics outside of some boring carbon tax stuff. Will he support
protectionism? Single-payer? Nationalisation of Wall Street? Dismantling the US empire? Huge
punitive tax increases on the wealthy? These are all things the Democratic donor class (which
of course has a strong overlap with the GOP donor class) will never accept.
And what about ideas to deal with AI, deindustrialisation, automation, guaranteed income,
etc? And since neo-liberals are 100% committed to mass immigration policies that at the same
time increases total GDP but reduce per capita GDP; how will they react if progressive
finally wake up and realise that taking in millions of low skilled workers in a future where
demand for labour is radically reducing is a total recipe for disaster? Not to mention that
the welfare state they are proposing will be impossible without very strict immigration
policies, not to mention the terrible impact mass immigration has on the climate.
My feeling is DeLong and the neo-liberal donor class are already conceding the 2020
election; seeing it as a repeat of the 1984 Mondale debacle. They want the young socialist
side of the Democratic Party to take the blame, so in 2024 the donor class can run a
candidate pushing new and improved neo-liberalism. Trump seems to be making the same
calculation as he moves away from his populist/nationalist policies to become just another in
a long line of Koch brother GOP neo-liberal stooges.
The problem is that Trump's radical energy and ideas seduced many Americans who are now
disappointed with his decidedly low-energy accomplishments. Basically the only campaign
promises he kept were those he made to the Israel lobby. Now Trump is conceding the high
energy and new idea ground to the Democratic left. He is switching from radical to
establishment. This will open the door to say Bernie Sanders to win in 2020. But you can rest
assured that the most voracious opponents that Bernie will have to get past will be Brad
DeLong and the Democratic donor class when they realise this just might not be 1984 all over
again.
Brad DeLong is brilliant, yet pushed the magical thinking of neoliberalism for 30 years.
Am I missing something here? Is Bill Black patting him on the back because he's brilliant at
sophistry?
Back 15 years or so ago, I read DeLong's blog daily, trying to learn more economics than I
know. I quit because it didn't make any sense. I remember there being these broad principles,
but they had to be applied in a very narrow sense. One I remember vividly was DeLong's
objections to consumer boycotts of foreign goods to end abuse of workers. These boycotts are
counterproductive, he opined, and therefore you are just hurting the people you're trying to
help. You should just shop as normal. So, I presume he regarded it as all right for me to
choose products that are the color I want, the size I want, the whatever I want, except for
the way it's produced I want. He did not like considerations of right and wrong among the
people.
DeLong has always been among the most thoughtful of centrists. He reminds me of people I
know who are instinctively quite left wing but who's instincts are even stronger to stay
within their own particular establishment circle and to side with the winners. Back in the
1990's I knew a few formerly left Labour supporters who became cautious Blairites (or at
least Brownites). Some were opportunists of course, but some put it simply – 'I'm tired
of losing. The reality is that a pure left wing government will not get elected under current
conditions, we've proved this over decades. The only way we can protect the poor and
vulnerable is to make peace with at least some of the capitalists, and remake ourselves as
the party of growth and stability. If we can achieve growth, we can funnel as much as
possible as this to the poor'.
What he seems to be saying is that the left wing analysis (economically and politically)
is at least as intellectually tenable as those in the Centre and right, even if he has his
doubts. He is honest enough to know that the political strategy of making common cause with
'moderate' Republicans hasn't worked and won't work. And he doesn't see 'the Left' as any
worse than so called moderates or centre right (which of course distinguishes him from many
Dems). So he is seeing the way the wind is blowing and is tacking that way. Essentially, he
is recognising that the Overton Window is shifting rapidly to the left, and as a good
centrist, he's following wherever the middle might be.
Whatever you think of his motivations (and from my reading over the years of his writings
I think he has a lot more integrity than most of his colleagues. and is also very smart), the
reality is that a successful left wing movement will need establishment figures like him to
be 'on board'. Of course, they'll do their best to grab the steering wheel – the task
is to keep them on board without allowing them to do that.
The 'first step' is to admit you have a problem, and it's obvious that those of us
who self-identify as progressives, if not socialists, have taken that step, admitting that as
democrats, we have a problem.
The eleven-dimension game that we were sold, and that we so wishfully believed in, turned
out to be a massive delusion, and ultimately an empty promise on the part of the democratic
leadership.
The ' powder ' was kept dry, but ultimately stolen.
We were left defenseless, and became prey, and third-way democrats are the architects of
our collective loss.
I'm taking DeLong at his word.
He may be the exception that proves the rule, and the Clinton wing of the democratic party
may yet wrong-foot us, continue to mis-lead, and capitulate in the face of the enemy, but it
strikes me as totally to be expected that reality should eventually dawn on at least a few of
the folks responsible for the epic failures of democratic leadership.
I'm a big fan of that old saw, 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way' , democrats,
fearful after losing to the likes of Reagan, decided to follow, and now find themselves as
lost as the rest of us.
It doesn't strike me as totally impossible that a few of them might decide to ' get out
of the way ', if only to be able to face themselves in the mirror.
>MARC STEINER: You–do you think that the Wall Street Democrats, folks who are in
the investment world, along with the Chuck Schumers of the world, are going to acquiesce? ..
but are actually going to take seriously what DeLong said? -- -- -
>BILL BLACK: No, but that's because Brad DeLong has vastly more integrity than they do.
They know, however, that they've been conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the
game.
For as long as Black has been around, I would not expect him to argue that "Wall Street
Democrats" have been "conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the game". Democrats such as Schumer, HRC, and Obama are in on the con and are not "absolute
fools". They have the money and power to show that they were not working for chump change.
I agree. I see no evidence that people Wall Street/corporate Democrats have collectively
been "fooled" by Republicans. Take Obamacare for example, Obama mumbled some "facts" about
health-care briefly at the beginning of the process and never mentioned anything like how
much the US spends relative to other OECD countries which, with his bully-pulpit, he could
have done to create a more reasonable system. All he would have to have done is cite
statistics, studies, facts, facts, facts, facts about other health-care systems and the
obvious corruption, inefficiency or our own. He could easily have gotten some equivalent of
the "public option" or a more managed system like in continental Europe had he hammered away
at FACTS.
I don't think Obama ever had any intention of changing health-care from a profit-making
industry to a public utility like what the rest of the world enjoys. I don't think Obama ever
had any intention of being anything but a center-right (not a centrist) POTUS. I don't buy
into this "we were fooled" argument.
Guys like DeLong may have been fooled but I believe,
more likely (and I know the Washington milieu), he pulled the wool rather intensively over
his own eyes as many brilliant people did in the Clinton/Obama administrations because it was
a good career move. I don't, btw, believe this was directly and consciously a deliberate
plan–I believe it was something to do with a profound ignorance on the part of many if
not most Washingtonians (and indeed most intellectuals in the USA) of the role of the
unconscious in the psyche. I've seen it. A big player (a family friend) from the Clinton era
went into Big Pharma thinking he could "do good" and he was sincere about it. But I also knew
he liked money and the lifestyle that it brings–later he said that he was fooled after
six or seven years of lavish salaries.
I noticed that too. Black often strikes me as having a very crude framework that is either
naivete or (more likely imo) bad faith and intentional misleading. It's just too much of a
cartoon to be believed, even if (like me) you're not an insider who personally knows the
players (as Black does DeLong.)
Repubs are "crazies" while Progressives have "wonderful, superior" policies. Ok sure This
is not much more sophisticated thinking than team Red or team Blue that you get from your
Aunt Irene or somebody.
"TIME TO POUND MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL ONCE AGAIN"
" My two cents' worth–and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked
for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994–is that Hillary
Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life.
Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do.
And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the
managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't
smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care
Czar role quickly."
But when it came to Hillary running for President in 2016, DeLong fell in line and
endorsed her, despite HRC's bad ("complete flop"?) decisions along the way as Senator and SOS
(Honduras, Libya, Iraq, Syria and Ukraine, Wall Street Speeches and Clinton Foundation
grift). Can DeLong be trusted?
Can't say whether DeLong can be trusted but I can imagine him remembering Keynes' famous
line about changing his opinion when new information becomes available. That said, I can not
imagine what new information may have come about, aside from Trump's unexpected wrecking of
main stream Republicans, that had him change his mind about HRC. Her truth has been evident
for decades and the more power she amassed over those years only made her truth ever more
execrable.
They know, however, that they've been conned, played, and they're absolute fools in the
game.
Thank you Mr. Black for the laugh this morning. They know exactly what they have been
doing. Whether it was deregulating so that Hedge funds and vulture capitalism can thrive, or
making sure us peons cannot discharge debts, or making everything about financalization. This
was all done on purpose, without care for "winning the political game". Politics is
economics, and the Wall Street Democrats have been winning.
For sure. I'm quite concerned at the behavior of the DNC leadership and pundits. They are
doubling down on blatant corporatist agendas. They are acting like they have this in the bag
when objective evidence says they do not and are in trouble. Assuming they are out of touch
is naive to me. I would assume the opposite, they know a whole lot more than what they are
letting on.
I think the notion that the DNC and the Democrat's ruling class would rather lose to a
like-minded Republican corporatist than win with someone who stands for genuine progressive
values offering "concrete material benefits." I held my nose and read comments at the kos
straw polls (where Sanders consistently wins by a large margin) and it's clear to me that the
Clintonista's will do everything in their power to derail Bernie.
Daily Kos is like a yoga session compared to all of the Obots and Clintonites on Balloon
Juice. One particular article "writer" there by the name of Annie Laurie is a textbook
example of said Clinton die-hards and she whips up all of her cohorts into a rabid,
anti-Sanders frenzy every time she posts.
Despite all of the complaining about Trump, I am sure that these neoliberals and
identitarians would pine for the days of his administration and pal around with ex-president
Trump much like they did with W. Bush. If Saint Harris or Saint Biden lose they will fail to
shield the take-over of the political leadership of the unwashed masses of ignorant peasants
who elected Sanders or Gabbard. Then places like Daily Kos and Balloon Juice will bemoan the
fact that we did not listen to those who know what is best for us lowly knaves.
Though I like Bill Black a lot–seems like a very hip guy and has done marvelous work
for many years. However, my father got his second master's degree in economics around
1961–he did it as a career move. Eventually when I got old enough he told me that the
field was "bullshit" and based on false assumptions about reality, however, the math worked
so everyone believed in the field. Economics, as I looked into it is, indeed, a largely
bullshit discipline that should never have been separated from politics or other fields.
We have a kind of fetishistic attitude towards "the economy" which is religious. "It's the
economy, stupid" is an example of this fetish. I've talked to economists who really believes
that EVERYTHING is a commodity and all motivations, interests, all come down to some kind of
market process. This is utterly false and goes directly against what we've learned about
social science, human motivation including happiness studies.
Economics also ignores history–people are motivated more by myth than by facts on
the ground. This is why neoliberals are so confused when their models don't work. Thomas
Frank described how Kansans favored policies that directly harmed them because of religious
and cultural myths–this is, in fact, true everywhere and always has been. We aren't
machines as economists seem to believe. All economists, particularly those who rely on "math"
to describe our society need to be sent to re-education camps.
Keynes' "animal spirits" and the "tragedy of the commons" (Lloyd, 1833 and Hardin, 1968)
both implied that economics was messier than Samuelson and Friedman would have us believe
because there are actual people with different short- and long-term interests.
The behavioral folks (Kahnemann, Tversky, Thaler etc.) have all shown that people are even
messier than we would have thought. So most macro-economic stuff over the past half-century
has been largely BS in justifying trickle-down economics, deregulation etc.
There needs to be some inequality as that provides incentives via capitalism but
unfettered it turns into France 1989 or the Great Depression. It is not coincidence that the
major experiment in this in the late 90s and early 2000s required massive government
intervention to keep the ship from sinking less than a decade after the great uregulated
creative forces were unleashed.
MMT is likely to be similar where productive uses of deficits can be beneficial, but if
the money is wasted on stupid stuff like unnecessary wars, then the loss of credibility means
that the fiat currency won't be quite as fiat anymore. Britain was unbelievably economically
powerfully in the late 1800s but in half a century went to being an economic afterthought
hamstrung by deficits after two major wars and a depression.
So it is good that people like Brad DeLong are coming to understand that the pretty
economic theories have some truths but are utter BS (and dangerous) when extrapolated without
accounting for how people and societies actually behave.
I never understood the incentive to make more money–that only works if money = true
value and that is the implication of living in a capitalist society (not
economy)–everything then becomes a commodity and alienation results and all the
depression, fear, anxiety that I see around me. Whereas human happiness actually comes from
helping others and finding meaning in life not money or dominating others. That's what social
science seems to be telling us.
I read DeLong's piece in an airport last Tuesday, so I may have missed something (or I may
have read an abridged version). But I think Steiner and Black read a little too much into
it.
I interpreted DeLong's statement essentially as saying now neoliberals will have to make
policy by collaborating with the left rather than the right. And I certainly didn't get the
sense he was looking to the left to lead, but instead how neoliberals could co-opt the left,
or simply be "freeloaders".
So the position is not that neoliberals should abandon their policy beliefs. It's that you
need to reorient your understanding of who your coalition is.
Brad DeLong
Yes, but that's also relevant to policy beliefs, right?
.
.
We need Medicare-for-all, funded by a carbon tax, with a whole bunch of UBI rebates for the
poor and public investment in green technologies.
.
How does Bernie fit in here? Ever?
We already are paying more for the medical care that is being provided than what single
lpayer will cost. I am so tired of the "How are you gonna pay for it" stuff. We already are,
it's just a question of what bucket it comes from.
True, but there still has to be a way of transferring the funds from the "private" bucket
to the "government" bucket. MMT is one way of doing that, but still not acknowledged as a
possibility by the PTB – except for the military, of course.
I'd rather see it taken out of the military, since that would be a good thing in itself,
and the carbon tax (merely one of many measures, of course) rebated and/or used specifically
to remediate climate deterioration. Rebating a carbon tax both protects it politically and
corrects the harm that would otherwise be done to poor people.
Take it out if the property taxes that Muni's have to use to insure all of their
employees.
Take it out of all the money that business pays to health insurance.
Cut the military budget in half and tell a few if the tributaries "You are on your own".
Cut the Navy in half and police only the Pacific.. tell Europe they are on the hook for the
Atlantic and Mediterranean.
Start there and you will get pretty close to $3 Trillion.
Quoting DeLong: " He says we are discredited. Our policies have failed. And they've failed
because we've been conned by the Republicans."
That's welcome, but it's still making excuses. Neoliberal policies have failed because the
economics were wrong, not because "we've been conned by the Republicans." Furthermore, this
may be important – if it isn't acknowledged, those policies are quite likely to come
sneaking back, especially if Democrats are more in the ascendant., as they will be, given the
seesaw built into the 2-Party.
Might be right there. Groups like the neocons were originally attached the the left side
of politics but when the winds changed, detached themselves and went over to the Republican
right. The winds are changing again so those who want power may be going over to what is
called the left now to keep their grip on power. But what you say is quite true. It is not
really the policies that failed but the economics themselves that were wrong and which, in an
honest debate, does not make sense either.
"And they've failed because we've been conned by the Republicans.""
Not at all. What about the "free trade" hokum that Deong and his pal Krugman have been
peddling since forever? History and every empirical test in the modern era shows that it
fails in developing countries and only exacerbates inequality in richer ones.
That's just a failed policy.
I'm still waiting for an apology for all those years that those two insulted anyone who
questioned their dogma as just "too ignorant to understand."
It's intriguing, but two other voices come to mind. One is Never Let a Serious Crisis Go
To Waste by Mirowski and the other is Generation Like by Doug Rushkoff. Neoliberalism is
partially entrepreneurial self-conceptions which took a long time to promote. Rushkoff's
Frontline shows the Youtube culture. There is a girl with a "leaderboard" on the wall of her
suburban room, keeping track of her metrics. There's a devastating VPRO Backlight film on the
same topic. Internet-platform neoliberalism does not have much to do with the GOP. It's going
to be an odd hybrid at best – you could have deep-red communism but enacted for and by
people whose self-conception is influenced by decades of Becker and Hayek? One place this
question leads is to ask what's the relationship between the set of ideas and material
conditions-centric philosophies? If new policies pass that create a different possibility
materially, will the vise grip of the entrepreneurial self loosen? Partially yeah, maybe, a
Job Guarantee if it passes and actually works, would be an anti-neoliberal approach to jobs,
which might partially loosen the regime of neoliberal advice for job candidates delivered
with a smug attitude that There Is No Alternative. (Described by Gershon). We take it
seriously because of a sense of dread that it might actually be powerful enough to lock us
out if we don't, and an uncertainty of whether it is or not.
There has been deep damage which is now a very broad and resilient base. It is one of the
prongs of why 2008 did not have the kind of discrediting effect that 1929 did. At least
that's what I took away from _Never Let_. Brad DeLong handing the baton might mean something
but it is not going to ameliorate the sense-of-life that young people get from managing their
channels and metrics.
Take the new 1099 platforms as another focal point. Suppose there were political measures
that splice in on the platforms and take the edge off materially, such as underwritten
healthcare not tied to your job. The platforms still use star ratings, make star ratings seem
normal, and continually push a self-conception as a small business. If you have overt DSA
plus covert Becker it is, again, a strange hybrid,
Your comment is very insightful. Neoliberalism embeds its mindset into the very fabric of
our culture and self-concepts. It strangely twists many of our core myths and beliefs.
Thanks Jeremy! Glad you saw it as you are one of the Major Mirowski Mentioners on NC and I
have enjoyed your comments. Hope to chat with you some time.
This is nothing but a Trojan horse to 'co-opt' and 'subvert'. Neoliberals sense a risk to
their neo feudal project and are simply attempting to infiltrate and hollow out any threats
from within.
There are the same folks who have let entire economics departments becomes mouthpieces for
corporate propaganda and worked with thousands of think tanks and international organizations
to mislead, misinform and cause pain to millions of people.
The have seeded decontextualized words like 'wealth creators' and 'job creators' to create
a halo narrative for corporate interests and undermine society, citizenship, the social good,
the environment that make 'wealth creation' even possible. So all those take a backseat to
'wealth creator' interests. Since you can't create wealth without society this is some
achievement.
Its because of them that we live in a world where the most important economic idea is
protecting people like Kochs business and personal interests and making sure government is
not 'impinging on their freedom'. And the corollary a fundamental anti-human narrative where
ordinary people and workers are held in contempt for even expecting living wages and
conditions and their access to basics like education, health care and living conditions is
hollowed out out to promote privatization and become 'entitlements'.
Neoliberalism has left us with a decontextualized highly unstable world that exists in a
collective but is forcefully detached into a context less individual existence. These are not
mistakes of otherwise 'well meaning' individuals, there are the results of hard core
ideologues and high priests of power.
Two thumbs up. This has been an ongoing agenda for decades and it has succeeded in
permeating every aspect of society, which is why the United States is such a vacuous,
superficial place. And it's exporting that superficiality to the rest of the world.
I read Brad DeLong's and Paul Krugman's blogs until their contradictions became too great.
If anything, we need more people seeing the truth. The Global War on Terror is into its 18th
year. In October the USA will spend approximately $6 trillion and will have accomplish
nothing except to create blow back. The Middle Class is disappearing. Those who remain in
their homes are head over heels in debt. The average American household carries $137,063 in
debt. The wealthy are getting richer. The Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett and Bill Gates families
together have as much wealth as the lowest half of Americans. Donald Trump's Presidency and
Brexit document that neoliberal politicians have lost contact with reality. They are
nightmares that there is no escaping. At best, perhaps, Roosevelt Progressives will be reborn
to resurrect regulated capitalism and debt forgiveness. But more likely is a middle-class
revolt when Americans no longer can pay for water, electricity, food, medicine and are jailed
for not paying a $1,500 fine for littering the Beltway.
A civil war inside a nuclear armed nation state is dangerous beyond belief. France is
approaching this.
Debt forgiveness is something we don't hear much about, even from the Bernie Sanders left.
Very important policy throughout history, as Michael Hudson has so thoroughly documented.
Gabbard is set to lay out her vision for the country and her 2020 candidacy during a live
presidential town hall starting at 8 p.m. ET. The "Live From SXSW" event Sunday will be
moderated by CNN's Dana Bash and Jake Tapper. The event will air
live on CNN , CNN International and CNN Español channels.
"... The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline. Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection money' will change that trend in any meaningful way. ..."
Trump has driving desire to be seen as the first businessman president.
The appeal of Trump making 'allies pay their fair share' any reality check on how counterproductive the effort is to the
waning US empire
Trump's unique candidacy put him in the White House without any real foreign policy staff who would have long ago gotten
Trump to abandon the silly idea - at least after he was elected.
The multi-polar world is quickly becoming a reality and the US empire is in decline. Doubtful this brouhaha about 'protection
money' will change that trend in any meaningful way.
The only other explanation is this really is 4D chess on Trump's part where he sees these silly shakedown attempts as the most
efficient way of getting the US out of NATO.
"... I'll be honest here and admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple reason. ..."
"... I've come to expect Republicans to be malicious -- there is honesty in their advertisement. However, it's the Democrats who smile like foxes as they pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our backs the minute they get elected. ..."
"Foxes and wolves usually are of the same breed. They belong to the same family -- I think
it's called canine. And the difference is that the wolf when he shows you his teeth, you know
that he's your enemy; and the fox, when he shows you his teeth, he appears to be smiling. But
no matter which of them you go with, you end up in the dog house."
It took a mean mugging by reality -- one that shook me out of cognitive dissonance -- for me
to realize that Democrats are no different than Republicans. They differ in their methods, but
in the end they feast on us regardless of their gang affiliation. Both parties are subsidiaries
of corporations and oligarchs; our entire political system is based on two factions bamboozling their
respective bases while manufacturing dissension on all sides.
... ... ...
Now that I've shed my political blinders, I see how this game is played. I'll be honest here
and admit that Democrats irritate me more than Republicans for this one simple reason.
I've
come to expect Republicans to be malicious -- there is honesty in their advertisement. However,
it's the Democrats who smile like foxes as they pretend to be our allies only to stab us in our
backs the minute they get elected.
They have maintained power for decades by successfully
treading on the pains of marginalized groups as they concurrently enact legislation and
regulations that inflame the very injustices they rail against.
If there is one group that has been leveraged the most by Democrats, it's the descendants of slaves and "black" diaspora
as a whole. For generations, supposed liberals -- who now call themselves progressives -- have
cunningly used the pains of "African-Americans" to further their own agendas. The Democrat's
most loyal voting bloc have time and time again been taken advantage of only to be tossed to
the side as soon as Democrats gain power. They talk a good game and pretend to be for us right
up until election day, soon as the last ballot is counted, they are nowhere to be found.
I want to say this is the Zabinski Point (apparently the lowest dry point in the
geographic US) in the D party's recent history, but I fear it could get lower still.
The actual lowest point in the state might be at the bottom of the artificially created
lake-the Salton Sea, as at the surface it's -236 feet, and the claim is the bottom is 5 feet
higher than Badwater, but who knows.
It was created in 1905, when a diversion of the Colorado River went out of control for 2
years, until they were able to stop the flow.
"Zabriskie Point." A truly apt metaphor for the modern political landscape.
My favourite foreign movie metaphor for the Democrat Party would be Bertolucci's "The
Conformist."
Jimmy Dore show is pretty educational... Why hasn't Schultz been charged for election fraud yet (she rigged the 2016 primary
and then rigged her own race in Florida against Tim Canova.)? Just when you thought crooked Hillary and corrupt Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz were finally silent and out of the picture, they keep coming back again and again and again...like a case of
herpes.
Nothing that Bernie will do can satisfy the Democrats. Said the other day he was
wishy-washy over Venezuela but it was still not enough. Seems that Debbie Wasserman Schultz
has threatened to have him kicked out of the party unless he calls out Madura as a dictator.
Well then, Sanders better be carrying a polished shield at all times never know when
Debbie the medusa will lurch forward throwing that gazy DNC stink-eye in his direction !
On Friday she called for legislation that would designate large technology companies as
"platform utilities," and for the appointment of regulators who'd unwind technology mergers
that undermine competition and harm innovation and small businesses.
"The idea behind this is for the people in this room," for tech entrepreneurs who want to
try out "that new idea," Warren told a packed and enthusiastic crowd. "We want to keep that
marketplace competitive and not let a giant who has an incredible competitive advantage snuff
that out."
Warren said venture capital "in this area" has dropped by about 20 percent because of a
perceived uneven playing field. She didn't provide more detail or say where she obtained her
figures.
Elizabeth Warren's proposal to break up "Big Tech" companies is sure to stoke debate and add to the tension
between the Democratic Party and reliably Democratic Silicon Valley. While breaking up Big Tech isn't likely to
happen anytime soon, one nuance in her proposal is worth thinking about, and that's whether tech companies that
operate large marketplaces should also be able to participate in said marketplaces.
The most obvious impact this would have would be on Amazon. While in the universe of the American retail
industry Amazon's market share remains in the single digits, in e-commerce it's got around
50
percent market share
. When consumers shop on Amazon, they're presented with items sold by Amazon, and also
items that Amazon doesn't own or warehouse but merely hosts the listings. It's also increasingly getting into the
advertising business, so that when you're searching you'll be presented with a list of sponsored products in
addition to whatever results a search may generate.
A third-party seller on Amazon has a difficult relationship with Amazon, which can act both as partner and
competitor. Amazon can use its huge data sets to see how successful third-party sellers and products are, and if
they meet a certain profitability threshold Amazon can decide to compete with that third-party seller directly.
Someone might say, isn't that what grocery stores or Costco do with private label goods or Costco's Kirkland
brand? But the difference is that in physical retail, there are all sorts of stores where a producer can sell
their products -- Walmart, Target, Costco, major grocery chains, and so on. In e-commerce, with half the market
share, Amazon has a dominant position. While in the short run Amazon being able to compete with its third-party
sellers may be good for consumers, who can end up with lower prices, in the long run it may mean fewer producers
even bother to come up with new products, feeling that eventually Amazon will crowd them out of the marketplace.
Would restricting Amazon, which has grown so quickly and is popular with consumers, harm the economy?
Government's antitrust fight with Microsoft a generation ago ended up paying dividends for innovation. In the
2000s a common critique of Microsoft was that it "missed" the internet, and smartphones, and social media, but to
some extent that may have been because the company feared an expansion in emerging technologies would bring back
more scrutiny from the government. As a result, new tech platforms and companies bloomed. The same could happen in
the next decade if Amazon's ambitions were reined in a little.
"Break up Big Tech" is an easy emotional hook, but hopefully Warren's proposal will get all Americans to think
more about the power of tech companies and their platforms, and whether regulatory changes would best serve both
consumers and producers.
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
Readers may enjoy picking through the bafflegab, because I think you could drive a whole
fleet of trucks through the loopholes. Here, for example, is Benjamin
Studebaker's view : "A Second Term for Trump is Better Than Beto."
Nobody, after all, said that success had to be immediate ; perhaps a short term
failure improves the ultimate welfare and prospects for success for the party.
In a way, this McCarthy-ite armraising is a kludge, another symptom of a fraying system:
Exactly as we can no longer, apparently, trust voters to pick a President, and so must give
veto power to the intelligence community, so we can no longer trust primary voters to pick a
candidate, and the "National Chairperson" must step in if they somehow get the wrong answer.
Pesky voters!
Seenator Bernie Sanders came to the defense of Representative Ilhan Omar as the Minnesota
congresswoman faced backlash over remarks that some perceived as anti-Semitic. Sanders said
there was a key difference between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the Israeli
government.
The Vermont senator criticized House Democrats' reaction to Omar after she was heavily
condemned for her tweet that said: "I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support
to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee." Omar was
referring to Israel.
The comment, which has been rebuked
by members of her own party , was seen as exploiting anti-Semitic tropes and attacking U.S.
support of Israel.
In a statement, Sanders, who is a 2020 presidential candidate, said that while
anti-Semitism is a "hateful and dangerous ideology which must be vigorously opposed we must not
equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the right-wing, Netanyahu government in
Israel.
"Rather, we must develop an even-handed Middle East policy which brings Israelis and
Palestinians together for a lasting peace," Sanders said, reported HuffPost. "What I fear is
going on in the House now is an effort to target congresswoman Omar as a way of stifling that
debate. That's wrong."
Sander's statement came after senior Democrats had planned to vote on a resolution
condemning anti-Semitism, which was seen as a direct response to
Omar's comments . The vote was delayed as the House Foreign Affairs Committee rewrites the
resolution to include condemnation of all hate.
Kamala Harris, also a 2020 presidential candidate, also issued a statement defending Omar,
suggesting that the spotlight currently on the congresswoman "may put her at risk.
"We should be having a sound, respectful discussion about policy," Harris said, as reported
by HuffPost. "You can both support Israel and be loyal to our country. I also believe there is
a difference between criticism of policy or political leaders, and anti-Semitism."
Elizabeth Warren, another Democratic presidential candidate, expressed similar views in her statement defending Omar.
"We have a moral duty to combat hateful ideologies in our own country and around the world, and that includes both anti-Semitism
and Islamophobia. In a democracy, we can and should have an open, respectful debate about the Middle East that focuses on
policy," Warren said.
"Branding criticism of Israel as automatically anti-Semitic has a chilling effect on our public discourse and makes it harder to
achieve a peaceful solution between Israelis and Palestinians. Threats of violence-like those made against Omar-are never
acceptable."
Omar, who was forced to apologize for previous remarks in which she suggested that the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) was paying politicians for their support of Israel, has defended her latest remarks.
"Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies
who have spoken out and said the same," she tweeted on March 2.
Just how
weak a president has Donald Trump become? For an illustration, see a terrific Washington
Post article on the
foreign-policy decision-making process since John Bolton became Trump's national security
adviser. Or, rather, the absence of anything resembling a process.
As Heather Hurlburt
pointed out when Bolton took the job, he's ill-suited for it. Bolton is a policy advocate,
not the honest broker that the position calls for. That's a particular problem for Trump.
Because the president is inexperienced in national-security matters, he doesn't know whether
Bolton is speaking for the experts on a policy question or just advocating for his own
preferences. Because Trump knows little about the executive branch, Bolton can use his
bureaucratic skills to advance his own agenda -- including impeding Trump's plan to withdraw
U.S. troops from Syria.
This isn't to say that Bolton's policies are necessarily wrong; that's for others to judge.
But it creates a real problem for the presidency when top advisers are looking out for their
own interests and not the president's.
On this point, Ronald Reagan's administration is instructive. By all accounts, Reagan was
more informed about policy than Trump is. He was also a pragmatic politician, capable of
compromising or even backing down entirely when it was in his interests. Reagan's weakness,
however, was that he could be curiously passive at times, and (like many presidents) too easily
swayed by anecdotes. That meant he needed high-level staffers who could serve as honest
brokers. His first-term chief of staff, James Baker, allowed him to make good decisions.
Baker's replacement, Donald Regan, failed to do so. Partly as a result, Reagan's presidency had
almost completely collapsed by the time Regan was fired amid the Iran-Contra scandal.
"by filling the courts with young conservative judges "
??????
Sir, perhaps you ought to consider changing search engines. When I put the terms
Trump along with filling the courts with young conservative judges into the
search window the very first 'hit' at duckduckgo was this one:
And the very first paragraph at the wretched Neocon York Times link was this:
WASHINGTON -- In the weeks before Donald J. Trump took office, lawyers joining his
administration gathered at a law firm near the Capitol, where Donald F. McGahn II, the
soon-to-be White House counsel, filled a white board with a secret battle plan to fill the
federal appeals courts with young and deeply conservative judges.
As the essay here points out, the Democrats are totally in bed with Trump on most everything
- except of course for the trivia they howl about to divert citizens from noticing them playing
footsie with him under the covers on the important matters.
": The dude goes back in time and nails his own mom. "
That God damned motherfucker eh?
I have never swindled a man.
At most I kept quiet and let him swindle himself.
This does no harm, as a fool cannot be protected from his folly.
If you attempt to do so, you will not only arouse his animosity but also you will be
attempting to deprive him of whatever benefit he is capable of deriving from experience.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig
And while the Dems attack their own, Trump signed an Ex Order setting up a Veterans Suicide
Task Force.
It appears to be a very comprehensive program, and the veterans who also speak in the video are
quite moving.
youtube.com/watch?v=pV9RbR9UIpQ
Since the topic of this thread is a certain unnamed Democratic House Speaker 'horing' for the
apartheid Jewish state, perhaps some more background information about the aforementioned
Speaker is in order.
No, Speaker "Nancy" isn't a bit stupid, but she assumes we are. I think my link
demonstrates the woman is an equal-opportunity 'hore' for anybody who can offer truckloads of
large bills.
I don't agree with you and never have on the Russiagate story. Russia was definitely involved
in the election. That's been proven over and over again, but you're discounting virtually
everything that has now been revealed, so I have to ask: Why? Russia is NOT blameless on this
matter. But you want to constantly seep it under the rug. Why? Obviously, it's not the only
story, nor the only crime committed, plenty to choose from especially when it comes to Trump,
but you seem hell-bent on continuing the false narrative that "there's nothing to it".
Definitely not true.
I said it before on the "Russiagate Is Finished" thread, I'll say it again:
__________________________________________
I hope that Russiagate is indeed "finished", but I think it needs to be draped with
garlic-clove necklaces, shot up with silver bullets, sprinkled with holy water, and a wooden
stake driven through its black heart just to make sure.
I don't dispute the logical argument B. presents, but it may be too dispassionately
rational. I know that the Russiagate proponents and enthralled supporters of the concept are
too invested psychologically in this surrealistic fantasy to let go, even if the official
outcome reluctantly admits that there's no "there" there.
The Democratic Party, one of the major partners mounting the Russophobic psy-op, has
already resolved to turn Democratic committee chairmen loose to dog the Trump administration
with hearings aggressively flogging any and all matters that discredit and undermine Trump--
his business connections, social liaisons, etc.
They may hope to find the Holy Grail: the elusive "bombshell" that "demands" impeachment,
i.e., some crime or illicit conduct so heinous that the public will stand for another
farcical impeachment proceeding. But I reckon that the Dems prefer the "soft" impeachment
of harassing Trump with hostile hearings in hopes of destroying his 2020 electability with
the death of a thousand innuendoes and guilt-by-association.
Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and
TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains
important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate the
Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means.
Put more succinctly, I fear that Russiagate won't be finished until Rachel Maddow says
it's finished. ;)
__________________________________________
But apart from the thrill of saying "I told you so", I agree that the Democrats'
monomaniacal obsession to depose and/or ruin Trump is grotesquely irrational and
reprehensible.
If the Democratic Party berserker windmilling and flailing is a strategy of political
self-castration, I hope it succeeds and accomplishes this result. As monstrous as Trump may be,
be assured that his successor will be all about keeping up appearances and returning to
business as usual.
I fear that the rational politics B. recommends has, like the late Elvis, left the
building.
reply to Yeah, Right 25
And how very right you are. For the very best way and time to reveal them for what they are is
in the bright light of a political campaign when you can count on them to be at their very
worst.
karlof1... starting a new political party sure seems tricky today...
zac - it is whoring, but i got what you were saying!
@19 jen... maybe it's not so odd after all.. i was mentioning the similarities here with
omar and corbyn @2..both are being attacked aggressively over their lack of fealty to israel it
would seem..
Re: "...they can use to continue the fake outrage:"
Basically a strategy to keep Hilary Clinton out of jail. Use of non-government IT servers,
the Wikileaks dump and the death of Seth Rich would have put any normal mortal into the clink
years ago -- or at least through a major criminal investigation. But not the old hag, Hillary
Clinton. She'd take so many down with her that the criminals-in-charge are clearly united in
running the clock down and bombarding the mass media with mass distraction: "Squirrel!" anyone?
There is a word for those beyond the law -- outlaws.
I saw the Australian film "Predestination", based on a Robert Heinlein story "All You
Zombies", a few years ago. In the film, a time-travelling secret agent (Sarah Snook / Ethan
Hawke) is at once his father and mother (he undergoes sexual reassignment as well in the course
of his adventures), kidnapper, recruiter and eventually murderer.
I just want to remind folk that the elite want everyone to spend their energy on identity
politics and never discuss the structural problems that fuel the identity politics.
If the narrative was changed to discuss the components of our social contract instead of
identity politics, the implications of humanizing the financial component would un fund
identity politics and then our species could evolve further.
Evolve or perish is the maximum in evolution. We are coming up to the wall on our species
evolution/devolution.
Its Show Time! We need more spinning plates before the music stops so the elite can hide
their perfidy behind manufactured confusion.
Russian today Yiddish tommorow , Mar 5, 2019 6:21:58 PM |
link
All you need to know if there really is Russian collusion with Trump. That and the fact that
the Russian army and the Israeli army - they speak exactly the same language (50% of Israel
military speaks fluent Russian)
So now on to the quote from the leading "Russian" outlet of the internet:
American Civil War 2: US media will have only itself to blame if all hell breaks loose
The predominantly left-leaning US media has just entered its third consecutive year of
open warfare against Donald Trump. This non-stop assault risks aggravating political passions
to the point where 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' snowballs into something completely beyond
our ability to control. Like full-blown Civil War.
Deep deep (state) down there, has to be some kind of secret alliance, else does not make
sense....
If anyone from the Democratic Party should apologise, it should be Hillary Clinton. She sent
the party off on a two year wild goose chase to prove collusion between Trump and Putin. Now
that that excuse is falling apart, she has had to find another lame excuse to blame her failure
to beat Trump on, otherwise Democrats might come to the view that she was nothing more than a
crap candidate who ran a crap campaign with crap policies. The latest target after Russiagate
is
voter suppression :
Greg Palast, a journalist who covered the disputed Georgia gubernatorial election last year,
and has argued that extensive vote suppression robbed Democratic nominee Stacey Abrams of a
victory in that race, was also dismayed by Clinton's comments. His response, however, was
more far-reaching
"Before the 2016 election, I stated that the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and the
near-paralysis of the Obama administration enforcing what was left of it, would cost Hillary
Clinton Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina and other states. It did," Palast told
Salon.
"I am sick to my stomach hearing Clinton, three years later, take on the issue she was
afraid to touch during the campaign: the racial bending of the vote. I'd like to hear her
specifically come out against the racist interstate cross-check system created by Kris Kobach
[the Trump adviser and former Kansas secretary of state], which alone cost her the election.
This racist purge system was endorsed by Obama's so-called bipartisan commission. Shame on
Clinton."
Although she has claimed in the last few days that she has no intention of running
in 2020, I just don't believe the lying piece of shit.
AOC is fake implies that the others are not fake or not quite as fake? Given that these
"representative" politicians all dance for money, how are they not all fake? Sure, AOC is fake,
but so are the others, all of whom are working for oligarchs or corporations whose priorities
are different but just as damaging, such as those who's dance is the regulation of medical
services and drugs. Until the evidence stops rolling in, I will continue to believe that Ilhan
Omar, AOC, Polosi, and all the others are fake and by just stepping into the ring have declared
that they are willing to live a life of extreme duplicity, having already sold their voters
down the river.
The Democratic Party is more concerned with defeating the far left of its own party than in
defeating Trump.
They don't focus on what Trump's doing now because they support what he's doing for their
corporate war party backers.
They would be over the moon in Alabama if Trump were to declare himself a Democrat tomorrow.
They would finally have a candidate that could win.
it is clear her comments and position have struck a raw nerve in the usa... i think someone
has made a big mistake trying to aggressively shut her down.. they might want to reconsider how
they are going to contain her...
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the US is the new Soviet Union (heck, the US more
like the Soviet Union than the Soviet Union ever was!), watching the US political elites like
Clinton, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, McConnell and the late and unlamented John McCain, all I
can think of is the Soviet leaders in the 1970s & 80s who were all in their late 70s and
were completely out of touch with reality on the ground yet deathly afraid of letting younger
people take leadership positions to implement reforms, (Gorbachev was once described as
"Criminally Youthful" by a member of the Central Committee).
Of course Gorbachev turned out to be a disaster, maybe the US political elite has made the
same decision, the system will never survive the reforms needed to help the people, so wage war
on the reformers and enjoy the power while they can, for after them, the deluge!
Karl Marx did say that "Après moi, le déluge! is the watchword of every
capitalist and of every capitalist nation.
Not so puzzling if you buy into the "Fake Wrestling" theory. Since Bill Clinton each party gets
8 years on the throne then hands off to the other party. Dems just playing their part as they
did in the 2016 election. Both parties controlled by the corporate and cognitive elites
pursuing their globalist agenda thats occasionally masked by nationalism to appease the herd.
China has multiple parties within the CCP. The CCP is the visible face of authority. In the
West the CCP equivalent is hidden, preferring to allow each party in turn to accept the blame
for executing their agenda. Every 8 years the herd votes for Hope and Change or the lesser evil
and watches in amazement as nothing changes and lesser evil becomes more, only to try again in
the next cycle. Kind of like Groundhog Day.
When half the population has an IQ under 100, its easy for those with IQ's 4-6 SD above
average to manipulate the herd given the tools they have today. People can be made to believe
anything and much of what people believe is not true.
Brexit, for some at least, encapsulates the perils and pitfalls of this style of democracy.
In June 2016, the people of the UK voted to leave the European Union and, for now at least,
the UK will leave the EU by March 29 this year, with or without a plan in place. The
irrational jump into the unknown and the chaos that followed has created a troubling
situation for the country, as well as other parts of the world, raising serious questions
about the effectiveness and legitimacy of UK-style democracy .
Clearly, Western-style democracy is not "the end of history," as some have
predicted and hoped for. This is not to say that the Western system is a failure or that
China's system is superior to Western-style democracy, but it is fair to say that China's own
system is a good fit for the country and it achieves the best results for the Chinese
people.
In China's socialist democracy , there is a strong and stable political force that
represents the interests of the great majority of the Chinese people. The Chinese government
takes a people-centered approach to politics and good governance ensures that results can be
delivered. It should be no wonder, then, that the Western model is barreling toward a cliff,
while China is making great progress in various aspects, including the nation's ambitious
plan to eradicate poverty by 2020. In a world of turmoil, there is reason for China and the
Chinese people to be confident in its path.
Note how concrete, materialist is the way the Chinese see the world (even though this op-ed
is also written with Curtis Stone, a non-Chinese). They clearly differentiate Western
democracy, Chinese socialist democracy and "UK-style democracy". Just in one small text, we can
observe three different definitions of "democracy". There is no definitive model of
"democracy".
Smith documents the lobby's awesome resistance to public accountability for its actions
before Congress and the Justice Department. That fascinating history is the terrain of this
book. Referencing over 1,000 previously classified documents released under a Freedom of
Information Act filing, Smith follows Isaiah L. Kenen's path from registered foreign agent
for the Israeli government to founder of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee or
AIPAC. Smith unearths a formerly secret non-prosecution agreement, the "subvention caveat"
reached between the Israel lobby and the US Department of Justice. The agreement reveals a
great deal about the latitude of the lobby's operations and the US government's institutional
aversion to challenging it. America's Defense Line may forever change the debate about US
Middle East policy formulation.
Ilhan Omar's 5th district is largely populated by Somalian refugees--Minnesota has largest
population of Somalis in U.S. I believe--American blacks, and urban progressive whites with
lower income. From this three thoughts follow.
I don't think she is going anywhere. I don't think she can be cowed by AIPAC. I therefore
think that she is eventually going to be very much in danger of suffering an "accident"--fatal
or otherwise--that will affect her capacity to serve in Congress. I don't see the
Mossad-connected U.S. Israeli lobby simply consigning themselves to taking her punches. She
draws too much attention to them. And once they realize that their public relations attacks are
merely strengthening her argument, they will likely resort to other measures.
A sure fire way to prove you won an argument is when the other person fails to address the
argument you raised because they can't explain it so they resort to personal attack as you just
did.
When will direct presidential elections be introduced in the USA? Or do the American
authorities believe that democracy in the country is still not sufficiently advanced, because
its citizens are still not politically mature enough? For whom the US authorities keep their
citizens?
When will direct presidential elections be introduced in the USA?
Hopefully that won't happen until the nation adopts foolproof registration and voting
techniques. By "registration" I mean proof of US citizenship and possessing what other
requirements adopted by the nation. Personally, I think there ought to be a minimum age, for
example. Don't know how it would work, but I also think that voters possessing the mental age
of a 4-year-old shouldn't be voting either. I don't believe people ought to be allowed to vote
twice or two hundred times, so as citizens show up at the polls they'd pose for a photograph of
their faces and finger whorls. (post-election it wouldn't take a supercomputer long to compare
those pictures to demonstrate how many times you or I voted in that election.) After this
formality, the voter would proceed to a table where {she}'d pick up a paper ballot and a #2
pencil. In the privacy of a lighted booth with an opaque roof, {he}'d use the pencil to mark
his choices. Finally {she}'d fold the ballot and take it to the huge plexiglass box and drop it
into a slot on the top of the box.
The ballots would be counted by a small group made up of all the parties on the ballot.
Everything would be watched by multiple and independent camera systems. Upon getting an
acceptable count, the ballots would be locked away for a while - just in case they're needed
again.
Direct voting in 2016 would have made Hillary president. I wouldn't have liked that any more
than I would have if George "codpiece commander" Bush had won in 2000, but I'd have ground my
teeth and done my teeth-gnashing in private.
With the touch-screen devices almost universal now, the usual winner will be the party who
can hire the best hackers. In the special case of Hillary, the massive vote fraud in California
would have 'elected' her all by itself.
In the 2000 election the party with the largest number of dishonest and partisan hacks on
the Supreme Court took the White House. I still haven't gotten over that one.
As Trump and his allies gang up against what they call a Venezuelan dictatorship, here are
the numbers showing that Venezuelan president Maduro has been elected with a higher
competitive vote and a greater proportion of all possible votes than any of those trying to
oust him.
When Trump's tax returns come out (I am sure that they will some day) and we find the extent to
which he is beholden to Russian financial and political interests, his political influence will
be greatly diminished.
Nothing, zero, nada was found to support the conspiracy theory. The Trump campaign did not
collude with Russia. A few flunkies were indicted for unrelated tax issues and for lying to
the investigators about some minor details. But nothing at all supports the dramatic claims
of collusion made since the beginning of the affair.
...
In a just world the people who for more then two years hyped the conspiracy theory and caused
so much damage would be pushed out of their public positions. Unfortunately that is not going
to happen. They will jump onto the next conspiracy train and continue from there.
It seems that this was too much to expect from those who believed in Russiagate. These
people are unable to think up a new conspiracy theory by themselves. Instead they
go for a fishing expedition to find something that they can use to continue the fake
outrage:
The House Judiciary Committee sent more than 80 letters demanding all communications from a
host of controversies surrounding Trump, as the panel probes whether the president and his
administration have engaged in obstruction of justice, corruption and abuse of power.
But rather than a targeted approach, Monday's request was broad , reaching current and
former campaign staffers, top Trump Organization officials, even documents and communications
of the National Rifle Association and the British consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The
inquiry touched on a wide array of matters, from the president's business dealings with
Russia to the firing of former FBI director James B. Comey to hush payments made to women.
Many of those issues are already being examined by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and
federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York -- not to mention other committees
in the House.
...
For months, House Democrats said they would look to Mueller's findings to determine whether
to proceed with impeachment hearings. But Nadler's request demonstrates that Democrats are
preparing to probe well beyond Russia's interference in the election.
The Democrats try to find something that will put Trump into a bad light. I am sure that
there are many shady deals Trump made during his life. But there are many worse things that he
is doing right now right under the eyes of Congress.
Instead of focusing on what Trump currently does with deregulating whatever he can, by
filling the courts with young conservative judges and by his mismanaging of foreign policy, the
Democrats will draw the public attention towards issues in the past that have no relevance for
what happens to their electorate right now and in the future.
It is a strategy of political self-castration . Instead of promoting policy issues
that can attract voters, the Democrats draw attention to their anti-Trump campaign. That scheme
was already tried, tested and failed in 2016. The chance is high that it will also fail in
2020. Trump might well get reelected despite all the dirt the Democrats will uncover during
such sham investigations.
The unwillingness of the Democrats to have real political discussion is also visible in
their attempt to subdue the new young House members who have come up with real new proposals
and ideas. The use of the Zionist lobby AIPAC and false claims of 'anti-semitism' against them
is especially
outrageous :
When Representative Ilhan Omar landed a coveted seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
Stephen Fiske began working the phones to Capitol Hill.
Alarmed by messaging that he saw as anti-Semitic and by Ms. Omar's support for the
boycott-Israel movement, Mr. Fiske, a longtime activist with the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, began texting and calling his friends in Congress to complain. He is
hoping Aipac activists will punish Ms. Omar, a freshman Democrat from Minnesota, with a
primary challenge in 2020.
On Wednesday, House Democratic leaders will mete out one form of punishment : Spurred by
outrage over Ms. Omar's latest comments suggesting that pro-Israel activists "push for
allegiance to a foreign country," they will put a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on the
House floor.
'Anti-semitism', in the false sense of AIPAC and the Democratic leadership bound to it, is
anything that is not 100% in support of the racist state of Israel and the Zionism
ideology.
The resolution is aimed at House member Ilhan Omar who suggested that such automatic dual
loyalty is a problem. It also proves that she is right:
Ilhan Omar @IlhanMN - 20:01 utc - 3 Mar 2019
I am told everyday that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be
problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself
to attacks.
Ilhan Omar will not be the only one to be targeted like that. The Lobby is aiming at
two more :
In Florida, Mr. Fiske said it was time for "pro-Jewish voices to speak up" about Ms. Omar and
two other Democratic freshmen who have been critical of Israel: Representatives Rashida Tlaib
of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
And he offered a prediction: "They are three people who, in my opinion, will not be around
in several years."
The leadership of the Democrats is not defending the three freshmen who proved that they can
attract and motivate young voters. It is actively helping the Lobby to oust them. The new
policies the newcomers stand for will likewise be discarded.
The Democrats seem to believe that their potential voters have nowhere else to go. That
believe is wrong. Elections in the dual party system are won by turnout. If the Democrats don't
prove that they have the right policies and attractive politicians, their potential voters will
simply stay home. Nearly half of them already do that.
Throwing the kitchen sink at Trump, after Russiagate disastrously failed, might help CNN's
quotes. But it is not a substitute for well motivated policy fights. Killing off the next
generation of attractive politicians for a few more Benjamins will drive away the young voters
attracted by their views.
Together these steps suggest that the Democrats have no real strategy and will to win. They
will help Trump to win a second term.
thanks b.. i agree that the democrats know how to shoot themselves in the foot on a regular
basis.
so the witch hunt continues and now it can be anything, as opposed to russian collusion..
i am sure they will find some dirt on trump.. one doesn't have far to dig.. however, the
democrat party has a lot of dirt to account for as well, and your article highlights it..
while i am not convinced of how all this is going to pan out with trump, the democrats
sure seem to be helping his 2020 here..
as for israel - i think things are looking shaky for israel at this point.. the fact they
have to bring so much heat to bare on Ilhan Omar and jeremy corbyn says as much... hallelujah
that this is being discussed and kudos to this strong women..
Both parties, all parties, are morally bankrupt and represent no one but other countries and
corporate lobbyists. No one buys our shite products anymore so all we have to export is war.
The boat's going down and no one any where cares. Our brightest minds are busy with their
Apple vibrators in their faces and everyone else's. Trump? Imagine life under the crime queen
Hillary, the one anointed and expiated of her crimes. For Europeans it shouldn't be too hard
to see how naive the US is. Politically and religiously you have a couple of choices of the
exact same thing. In other countries there are socialists, communists, what have you-ists.
There is only socialism for the rich here. Life is sacred until birth, where they are either
worked to death or sent out as cannon fodder for continued military adventurism. The
political lies are so transparent one must wonder, if not know, if they expect anyone to
believe them.
But when do Democrats congratulate Trump? When he avoids peace, as in the recent summit with
Kim where Bolton took over and added new, unreasonable demands during a time that should have
focused on "like for like" easy first steps to ensure mutual trust.
The two-party system is nothing more than kabuki theater functioning as the first stage of a
divide and conquer form of totalitarian rule, so expecting the Democratic party to strive
toward materially different political outcomes than their ostensible political opposition is
nothing more than wishful thinking.
The ruling class wants Trump because he's a moronic bull in a china shop who agitates half
the country while the other half thinks he's draining the swamp, just like Obama before him
was treated like the messiah by half the country while the half who love Trump thought he was
a secret Muslim Kenyan. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Get the Zionists out of power - take their stuff and kick them out of the country - and
MAYBE we can start fixing the problems. Maybe.
The Republicans and other conservatives have faked outrage over emails/Benghazi/Clinton Ca$h,
all of which were also non-stories insinuating treason. They threw mud, it gets thrown back.
Trying to pretend the Democrats are uniquely evil for doing this is hypocritical Trumpery.
The real problem for the Democrats is, criticizing Trump from the right that way, is just
pitiful me-tooism. It doesn't really sell to the masses, who are always left when they
actually get into substantive policies. And it's manifestly stupid to the conservative elites
who are into Trump trashing government as usual.
The USA has entered a gerontocracy stage, a stage were the older generation doesn't trust
the new generation to take the reins of whole thing, and push back.
After the Cold War was over, the USA tried to renew its leadership by quickly discarding
George H. W. Bush in order to put the much younger Bill Clinton. He was just 47 years old in
1993, the first year of his first term.
Bill Clinton was, by all standards of the time, a success. But now we know he got lucky:
he governed through the "End of History Era", a short interregnum where the USA rule with
absolute power over the world. Thanks to the complete capitulation of the post-Soviet States,
he managed to bomb Yugoslavia, exploit the ex-Iron Curtain States and sack Russia. The spoils
were so big he managed to achieve the miracle of lefting the USA with a trade surplus in 2000
(his last year as POTUS) -- no other President would even come close to this after him.
After Clinton, the tendency of renewal continued, with the election of George H. W. Bush's
son, Goerge W. Bush. The same age as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush revealed to be the last
"End of History" POTUS. From 2000 to 2003, he governed over the whole world with absolute
power, although cracks on the system were already showing (with Putin's election and China's
entrance in the WTO in 2001). The invasion of Iraq (2003) marked the apex of American power,
and it proved to be the beginning of the end of the "End of History" era. What was supposed
to be Gulf War part 2 revealed to be a swamp, which, together with the invasion of
Afghanistan, drained trillions from the American coffers.
Then came the 2008 crisis, and, with it, any hope Pax Americana could make a come
back.
Barack Obama was also 47 years old in 2009, when he took office, and he was the last
attempt of renovation of the American elite. With his juvenile slogans, he was a complete
failure: he bailed out the banks, sold a half-baked healthcare as the real thing and
continued with the American presence in the ME (this time, with private contractors).
With America's continued decline after 2008 and the rise of China and Russia, the old
Boomers feared the world order they worked so hard to build was threatened. Donald Trump
competed against Hillary Clinton in the geriatric bowl (2016). All the main contenders for
2020 are also baby boomers. The old is (living)dead, but the new refuses to be born.
https://org.salsalabs.com/o/641/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1391904
Call House Speaker Pelosi now at 202-225-0100 and press "1" to leave her a message saying
that Democratic leadership should pass a resolution that condemns antisemitism, Islamophobia,
anti-Black racism, xenophobia, and bigotry of ALL kinds. From the US to Palestine, we call
for no supremacy -- no exceptions.
b - Your last sentence says it all. The Democrats (corporate wing) always talk about
"fighting" for something, but rarely, if ever, talk about actually achieving anything that
would give the vast working class any kind of concrete material benefits. They have turned
their backs on the folks who were their foundational support for at least 40 years
(1932-1972). Along with the self-destructive behavior detailed above, the emphasis on
appealing to "white, moderate, suburban, Republican women" will doom them to being the
minority party for decades.
The only hope for the Democrat(ic) Party is if the progressive wing is able to take over
the party and redirect its efforts to regaining its original base in the working class,
through on-the-ground organizing with a serious progressive agenda that will provide concrete
material benefits for these people. Medicare-for-All, a minimum wage that can support a
family (at least $15), free college, and the Green New Deal would be good places to
start.
Very good and thank you
While I like the call for a new party I suggest it is more impractical than taking over
the existing D party in most/all of the states and nationally....a daunting task but quite
possible.
It is going to be interesting to see how much narrative control can be gotten away with by
the elite and their empire media construct of 3 global "news" outlets that was reported in a
comment above/somewhere.
I have guessed that is what happens for some time now. These outlets are in the business
of making money and their product has been found for free from these three Global
Outlets.
I see on CNN Ktel type adds which don't pay very much to advertise. Dr Ho and chair lift
stuff.
They may even get some form of payment from some government agencies.
They justify this I suppose by being in the entertainment business disguised as News.
IIRC, the government changed the balanced news laws several years back to just
entertainment.
You hit the nail on the head, Jen. The "Third Way" or "DLC" (short for Democratic Leadership
Council) Democrats and the New Labour party in the UK are both representative of the
Neoliberal takeover of what should have been the people's party in both those respective
governments. Now, instead of having representation for Labor we get corporate sell-outs who
pledge their fealty to the Zionists who've taken over. It's a shame, really.
Right now the title should "Can Trump happen again?" ;-)
But this is from 2016 and Professor Stiglitz missed the foreign policy and neoliberal globalization aspects of "Hillary vs
Trump" battle. A vote for Hillary was a vote for continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
It is unclear where is political force that can reverse neoliberal deregulation and neoliberal tax cuts. for example full set of
taxes on all kind of income might help (so that dividends owners should pay Social security tax too) but currently is politically unfeasible,
as control of Washington is in the hands of financial oligarchy which will not relinquish its power without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
"... The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking crisis). ..."
"... Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue to erode. ..."
"... the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping (or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power. ..."
"... we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. ..."
"... The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all. ..."
"... From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was the most tariff protected nation on earth. ..."
"... How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming US presidents. ..."
"... Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy. The rules need to be rewritten. ..."
"... The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed miserably ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For starters, many Americans are
economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42
years ago, and it is increasingly difficult for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where they were 60 years ago. So
it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong
both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased
nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing partly to massive
tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization
– have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion:
America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would have faced deindustrialization
even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners; it was because the US trade
agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts
to ensure that Americans made worse off by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing
assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called
into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich
bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans
who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government.
But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely, another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he
promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time
they were tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises, would make all Americans
poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address critical global problems like the Islamic State, global
terrorism, and climate change. Using money that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between
the US and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that
have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring
inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which
rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality,
but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens
benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump
phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
markets aurelius OCT 15, 2016
I've yet to see such a succinct or well-presented analysis on the rise of Trump and the far-left and -right in Europe. Thank
you.
Where I disagree with Prof. Stiglitz, however, is in the second point of his conclusion; to wit, "... we need to rewrite the
rules of the economy once again, this time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore
this lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a few similar political developments
in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined,
and economies weakened." A political solution is impossible at this point in the USA since the legislative and executive branches
of the have been completely captured by cartels, just as Hayek warned back in the '40s.
It took centuries of war -- civil and foreign -- to evolve the English common law and representative government from which
America derived is greatest strengths. Included in that are the quaint cultural memes of civility and "fair play," which permeated
all levels of society, not just sports; these norms were violated at great personal expense, in that it was difficult to gain
the trust of one's fellow citizens if one violated them. However, it is not an immutable fact of nature such a system will persist
throughout history. Truth be told, it is an outlier in the history of the world. Typically, and to this day outside the Anglosphere,
most societies are spoils systems, in which the strong impose their will on the weak, and take the larger share of everything
their societies produce. Some operate artfully (e.g., Mediterranean Europe), while others are just ham-handed (e.g., Russia, the
Middle East). The ordering described by Hobbes more appropriately captures the state of affairs to a greater or lesser degree
in these states.
It took a revolution, a civil war, and a century-long struggle post-civil war to evolve the US society to its modern, yet-to-be-fully-formed
state. The interests that have secured control of the US government -- again, the legislative and executive at the federal
and state levels, in particular -- will not easily or readily let go of the power they have amassed, vis-à-vis their control over
the writing and execution of laws and regulations lesser mortals must live under but from which the elites are exempt (cf, banking
crisis).
Either we find a TR and FDR -- and the modern-day equivalent of their allies in Congress -- or our society will continue
to erode. Either we fade into history as much of Europe did during the Dark Ages or we have another revolution.
While that's going on, the balance of global power likely will continue to shift to the more pragmatic and less constrained
Hobbesian forms of societal organization -- most likely some variant of strongman rule, with China at the vanguard, if Xi Jinping
(or a competitor) is able to successfully consolidate power.
Daniel Esmond OCT 15, 2016
I agree with nearly everything in Prof Stiglitz' analysis. However, I would like some details about the new 'rules of the economy'.
There is a realisation in many circles that something has to change and the solutions advanced by the new populists are unworkable.
But we still lack the details and a roadmap towards a new economy. While analysis like this one about how we got here
are useful and enlightening, we need (desperately!) to move on and do something. I really would like to see a follow up of this
article with Prof Stigliz outlining his plans for a new economic order.
James Murphy OCT 15, 2016
"But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription. The US economy as a whole has done well for the last
six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold. But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top.."
The vehicle for shifting the fruits of that growth has more to do with our free trade agreements than tax cuts. Corporations
were just as greedy before we had free trade agreements but tariffs prevented the enrichment free trade opens up. That GDP increase
would have happened without free trade as workers enjoyed higher wages. Which makes Trump correct after all.
We are a trade deficient nation. As such the only way we lose a trade war is not to fight one. Aside from the short transition
harm the American people would be better off with tariff protection as they were in the past.
From shortly after the end of the War of 1812 until the Kennedy Round of tariff reductions in 1967 the United States was
the most tariff protected nation on earth. During that time absolutely none of the bad things you postulate actually happened.
Free trade is an Ivory Tower theory that has never worked in the real world experience of the United States. We have more free
trade today than we have ever had. Where are the blessings of those free trade deals? We abandoned free trade in 1967 and the
real wages of blue collar workers peaked 5 years later never to come back.
Simon Barnard OCT 14, 2016
Rules of the economy do need to be rewritten and also do the rules of economic measurement.
Growth of GDP is not a valid measurement of whether or not an economy is healthy (or indeed growing). Should vast inequalities
be created, that in turn cause social unrest, that in turn lead to a disintegration of society, this society may find it necessary
to build a lot of prisons. The capital expenditure on these prisons will contribute to the GDP. Is it really healthier? Is this
what is happening in the US? - it could be going that way.
So is it any wonder that people are looking for an alternative to the status quo, of which Hilary Clinton is certainly part
of? NO.
Is Trump an alternative? DEFINITELY NO.
As Joseph Stiglitz put very well, he would make things still worse.
So I feel sorry for the USA having such a poor choice and I hope that soon we can change from the neo-liberal hegemony and
develop a new one that will allow a progressive new choice to make itself available.
Vicky Lavendel OCT 14, 2016
The true questions is: How is it possible that two powerful families (Bush and Clinton) are nearly have a monopoly on becoming
US presidents. And furthermore all presidential candidates who want to have a chance must be ultra rich (like Trump) or must
have very wealthy donors (like Obama). Is this still a democracy or already an oligarchy? That Stieglitz doesnt ask this question
might be a hint that he is part of this wealthy establishment as well.
Yoshimichi Moriyama OCT 14, 2016
The word liberalization is so dazzling that we are captured and made by it to be unable to see the reality; we are often duped
by it. When we hear or see the word, we need to be very careful of what the speaker or writer actually means by it. Corporate
and financial interests have made an extensive use of it to camouflage and promote their selfishness.
Just twenty five years ago Mr. Robert McNamara came to Matsue, a Japanese city near where I live, to attend a US-Japanese
conference. I was appalled to hear, as he said and I was in the audience, that the income of the American middle-class had not
risen at all for the past twenty or so years. His words were less an explanation of what had been going on in the American economy
and more a warning of what was going to happen in the Japanese economy.
The rules need to be rewritten.
M M OCT 14, 2016
The Americans shall be voting Trump for the same reasons they voted Bush Jr. The democratic [neoliberal] establishment failed
miserably. They had eight years to put things right and what did they do, not only maintaining the status quo which made
inequality worse but created mayhem everywhere and the Clintons were part of it throughout the Obama tenure. So Mr. "Yes We Can"
not only managed to increase inequality, re-introduce slavery (albeit in many new forms), help spread terrorism all over the place
and this to state just a few examples.
Bernie wouldn't attack Hillary on character issues. He pulled many punches - like not
rebutting Hillary's claim to have "never changed her vote for money" with the well-known
example of when she did so (for the credit card industry: she changed her vote on the
bankruptcy bill). And he continued to support Hillary after Hillary brought Debra
Wasserman-Shultz into her campaign - a clear slap in the face to Bernie and Bernie's
supporters.
And why did Bernie refuse to release tax returns before 2015? The only tax returns he
released were for 2015. When reporters asked him to release earlier tax returns (because
his 2015 tax returns were delayed), Bernie said that his returns were "boring" - but he
wouldn't release them.
Bernie is close with the leaders of the Democratic Party. Obama campaigned for him.
Hillary is "a friend of 25 years". Chuck Schumer refused to provide Democratic Party
funding for any Democrat that ran against Bernie.
You want government to be accountable? A good start would be to start holding
politicians accountable. And recognizing that the fundamental problem is the duopoly.
IMO the similarities in politics among the "Western democracies" is important to note. One
example is the fakeness of Obama, Macron, and Trudeau.
The difficulties faced by US and UK progressives are likely to not be an accident. We now
know via the Integrity Initiative hack that a British operative (likely to be MI-6) was
working in the Sanders campaign.
@Jen A third-party doesn't help if it can be compromised too. We need a new kind of
politics.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves
for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next
Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the same again. The whole world is watching
the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy') is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis! " things will
never be the same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington.."
It looks and sounds like dementia – as if a sick person behaving inappropriately, showing unprovoked aggression (like some
Alzheimer patients), using silly or senseless phrasing, and having the unreasonable demands and uncontrolled fits of rage like
a spoiled child. The marasmic McCain, marasmic Pelosi, and hysterical Max Boot, the openly lying Clapper and the hate-filled profiteer
Brennan.
As I have written here and elsewhere, President Swamp Drainer needs to get control of the DoJ. He got rid of Comey, which was
good, but got Rosenstein and Mueller in response. Meanwhile Jeff Sessions is twiddling his thumbs re the Russia witch hunt. Perhaps
his recusal was appropriate, but he's not doing anything whatsoever regarding Swamp Draining. So it feels like he's a disingenuous
old guard GOPer, who wants to obstruct any real progress, while dragging his feet with do-nothingness obscured behind a facade
of law enforcement community boosterism. By this tactic the GOP attempts to stall until 2020, when it can then point at Trump's
failures (failures they have enabled by their stalling, wink wink) and then campaign to take "their" party back. In short, Sessions
may just be an anti-Trump "mole" planted in the single most important position with regard to swamp draining, in order to ***prevent***
any swamp draining.
Let me be clear: in the last 24 years the DC political class has gone almost entirely criminal, with the last 13 years dedicated
to serial war crimes. In this sort of situation the DoJ, AG, and FBI head, becomes corrupted, and turns away from the rule of
law to become a shield for the DC criminal despotism.
So watch closely what happens next. Just today rumors have come out -- though I've been speaking of this for several weeks
now -- that there is talk in the White House about ***recess appointments*** . We have reached the crucial moment, and I for one
am surprised that, as important as this is, it has not been prominent in public discussion until now. The "August" was scheduled
to begin at the end of business tomorrow, July 28th. Because of the health care business, McConnell has postponed it for two weeks,
so let's call it for close of business Friday, August 11th. That's fifteen days from now.
When Congress goes home fifteen days from now, this country and the world may very well change forever. Go to Wikipedia and
look up "recess appointment". Here's what you will find:
" a recess appointment is an appointment by the President of a federal official while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session .
If Trump is the fighter I think he is, then this is what he has been waiting for, ever so patiently these last six months.
Notice that the Congress cannot countermand recess appointments. Recess appointments end by expiration, and then only at the end
of the following Congressional session. Other than impeachment, Congress cannot stop Trump from doing this .
So Trump dumps Sessions, purges the anti-Trump prosecutors from previous administrations, and appoints a new FBI head and dozens
of fire-breathing swamp-draining prosecutors who immediately start doling out orange jumpsuits. He could -- not saying that he
would execute this "nuclear option" -- but he could lock up virtually the entire Congress on war crimes charges; Neocons for conspiracy
to commit war crimes; Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and Bybee to the Hague for torture; Hillary and Obama for Libya.
Control of the DoJ is the key.
The next two weeks will show whether Trump is the real deal, or just another schlub.
In a recent issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD,
Matt Labash highlighted
the sad story of Trump University, one of the Donald's biggest failures. Here's an excerpt:
But most egregious was Trump University, a purported real estate school that attracted the attention of New York's attorney general,
who brought a $40 million suit on behalf of 5,000 people. The New York Times described Trump U as "a bait-and-switch scheme,"
with students lured "by free sessions, then offered packages ranging from $10,000 to $35,000 for sham courses that were supposed
to teach them how to become successful real estate investors." Though Trump himself was largely absentee, one advertisement featured
him proclaiming, "Just copy exactly what I've done and get rich." While some students were hoping to glean wisdom directly from
the success oracle, there was no such luck. At one seminar, attendees were told they'd get to have their picture taken with Trump.
Instead, they ended up getting snapped with his cardboard cutout. What must have been a crushing disappointment to aspiring real
estate barons is a boon to Republican-primary metaphor hunters.
Read the whole article
here , which documents
Trump at his Trumpiest, from his penchant for cheating at golf to his sensitivity to being called a "short-fingered vulgarian."
Michael Warrenis a senior writer at The
Weekly Standard.
Now they do not even pretend that Justice exists in the USA: only kangaroo courts
Why they are sill waving a dead chicken ? Because they are crooks and can't prosecute Trump for his real misdeeds. Or investigate
influence of MI6 and Israeli lobby on the USA elections. Crooks. all of them.
Notable quotes:
"... This is not a standard beltway tit for tat investigation. Even before Trump took office, the tools of government were used against him. What is more interesting is that the inquisitors have unchecked authority. There is no limit imposed on the inquisitors either in scope or frankly legality. ..."
"... The Republican Party has consistently undermined him. It is the American electorate that will not turn on him. Do you blame them!.? They are slowly realizing that a war has been waging against them. Their way of life, the American way of life, is being dismantled. Years and years of compromise and lofty adherence to reasonable principles by the American electorate have done not a damn thing to abate the onslaught against them. ..."
"... Your timing as well as details are off. Iran-Contra was in the 80s. Laundering money from arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras in violation of the Boland amendement is far different than the Affaire de coeur Russia, which is now turning into an investigation of every financial deal Trump ever did. ..."
"... "The tradition" is using investigative powers to politicaly attack ones opponents when you are in power. ..."
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who would eventually lead any impeachment proceedings, on Sunday
signaled a significant escalation into congressional inquiries into the President.
The New York Democrat plans on Monday to request documents from 60 people and entities close to Trump, including from the Department
of Justice, the White House and the Trump Organization. The document trawl will be used "to present the case to the American people
about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power, " Nadler said on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday.
Nadler stuck to the House Democratic position that impeachment "is a long way down the road," apparently in order to avoid
Republican arguments that the decision has already been made to try to oust Trump. The document requests are not taking place
under the auspices of an official impeachment investigation."
Nadler could not be more clear. He and the other kangaroos in the Democrat herd (flock?) will search through every aspect of Trump's
life for the purpose of finding something that will cause a revulsion against Trump among the American people. If they can find that,
their allies among the press and TeeVee agitprop apparatchiks will make judgments evident as to whether or not a bill of impeachment
would result in a conviction in the senate. This method is reminiscent of the attempt to impeach President Andrew Johnson. Remember
him? The Radical Republicans hated this Southern War Democrat simply because he was Southern without regard for his well demonstrated
hatred for the planter class in the greater South as opposed to his east Tennessee anti-slavery home. So, pilgrims, American tradition
is to be reversed. The Democrats will seek for confirmation bias of Trump's "crimes" because of their "progressive" hatred of his
perhaps cynical leadership of a popular revolution against them and the idiot college kids. pl
IMO, Trump could blow the kangaroos off the range by declassifying it all and allowing the American people to see the details
of the attempted coup. And the collusion among the kangaroos. But he chooses to not do that. Very puzzling.
Clearly it can't be because of Mueller and the potential charge of obstruction of justice, as the kangaroos are running hard
towards getting him and his family in any case. So what's behind his strategy of just tweeting witch hunt, which he's been doing
for 2 years, and not doing what could blow this all up which is his prerogative as POTUS?
This is the politics necessary to continue to govern a largely unified country as if it were deeply divided:
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The minorities that both of our parties represent have had their way for forty years, the majority is fed up by not being represented
and increasingly absurd distractions are required to maintain this status quo.
This has been standard beltway politics since at least the Iran-Contra and Whitewater investigations. It hit hot and heavy once
the Republicans regained control of the Congress in 2014 and hit Obama/Clinton with the Benghazi hearings. I think the political
purpose behind all these investigations, including the current crop of investigations into Trump can best be summed up in this
quote concerning the Benghazi hearings. "In September 2015, Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy famously said Clinton's
"numbers are dropping" because "we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee." I doubt Nadler will ever pursue
an impeachment. His goal is to tear at Trump until the 2020 elections. Anyways, I can't think of anything Trump could have done
or will do that would persuade the Republican party to turn on him. Nothing. You're right. Whoever wins that election will be
subject to the same scrutiny.
This is not a standard beltway tit for tat investigation. Even before Trump took office, the tools of government were used
against him. What is more interesting is that the inquisitors have unchecked authority. There is no limit imposed on the inquisitors
either in scope or frankly legality.
The Republican Party has consistently undermined him. It is the American electorate that will not turn on him. Do you blame
them!.? They are slowly realizing that a war has been waging against them. Their way of life, the American way of life, is being
dismantled. Years and years of compromise and lofty adherence to reasonable principles by the American electorate have done not
a damn thing to abate the onslaught against them.
2020 elections will be won by a Democrat. Trump won by razor thin margins, and those margins will be erased as a malignant
crop of woke young voters will come of age. Frankly I am curious if his health can hold up for another campaign.
Your timing as well as details are off. Iran-Contra was in the 80s. Laundering money from arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras
in violation of the Boland amendement is far different than the Affaire de coeur Russia, which is now turning into an investigation
of every financial deal Trump ever did.
The Republicans didn't control the House until the mid-90s and lost it in 2007. The invasion and occupation of Iraq played
a big part in losing the House then.
The Congressional investigation of Iran-Contra was also referred to as a witch hunt by Republicans. So that usage of the term
was around since the 80s. Reagan's Tower Commission was a different animal altogether. We'll probably never see something as introspective
as that again.
I mentioned both Iran-Contra and Whitewater to point out the longstanding tradition of politically tinged Congressional investigations.
The Whitewater Congressional investigations went into overdrive up after the Republicans won the House in 1994. The Republican
controlled both the House and Senate in 2014. That's when the Benghazi hearings really ramped up. The ramp up of Congressional
investigations with the Democratic winning of the House last year is just following in that tradition.
Selling weapons to Iran was a crime. "The tradition" is using investigative powers to politicaly attack ones opponents when
you are in power. Kind of like using the executive branch of government to hinder opponents activities, such as preventing
IRS non-profit status, or spying on them like the NSA has been doing. All done by the Obama administration. Then there is the
conduct of the FBI. I haven't seen Trump do any of those things with executive branch powers.
TTG hit the nail on the head. Since Clinton and Whitewater, investigations have been the method to hit back at the Presidency
you don't support. The only thing I would add is the Iran-Contra investigation was much more relevant than Whitewater, the Clinton's
Christmas card list, or Benghazi; officials were actually convicted from the Iran-Contra investigation. The sad fact is that some
investigations that are BS successfully work to rile up the investigator's supporters, example Benghazi. I would only add that
Trump's past history provides a lot of fuel for the investigatory fire.
"A pension is not a 'gratuity.' A pension is wages you could have taken in cash, but
prudently and conservatively set aside for your old age. It's your money. If your
employer, for every pay period, does not set aside and designate it to go into a
pension plan, your employer is stealing from you. The way to get this is to require pay
stubs to itemize the amount of money that has been contributed to your pension plan."
David Cay Johnston
"Capitalism is at risk of failing today not because we are running out of innovations,
or because markets are failing to inspire private actions, but because we've lost sight
of the operational failings of unfettered gluttony. We are neglecting a torrent of
market failures in infrastructure, finance, and the environment. We are turning our
backs on a grotesque worsening of income inequality and willfully continuing to slash
social benefits. We are destroying the Earth as if we are indeed the last generation."
Jeffrey Sachs
"We are coming apart as a society, and inequality is right at the core of that. When
the 90 percent are getting worse off and they're trying to figure out what happened,
they're not people like me who get to spend four or five hours a day studying these
things and then writing about them -- they're people who have to make a living and get
through life. And they're going to be swayed by demagogues and filled with fear about
the other, rather than bringing us together.
President Theodore Roosevelt said we shall all rise together or we shall all fall
together, and we need to have an appreciation of that.
I think it would be easy for someone to arrive in the near future and really create
forces that would lead to trouble in this country. And you see people who, they're not
the leaders to pull it off, but we have suggestions that the president should be
killed, that he's not an American, that Texas can secede, that states can ignore
federal law, and these are things that don't lack for antecedents in America history
but they're clearly on the rise.
In addition to that, we have this large, very well-funded news organization that is
premised on misconstruing facts and telling lies, Faux News that is creating, in a
large segment of the population -- somewhere around one-fifth and one-fourth of it --
belief in all sorts of things that are detrimental to our well-being.
So, no, I don't see this happening tomorrow, but I have said for many years that if we
don't get a handle on this then one of these days our descendants are going to sit down
in high-school history class and open a textbook that begins with the words:
The
United States of America was
and then it will dissect how our experiment in
self-governance came apart."
Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) is expected to introduce a new tax bill today. The senator
says his bill would tax the sale of stocks, bonds and derivatives at a 0.1 rate. It would apply
to any transaction in the United States. The senator says his proposal would clamp down on
speculation and some high frequency trading that artificially creates more market
volatility.
First of all, what is called "School of management" typically is a voodoo cult that should
have nothing to do with university education ;-)
"He [Bush] signaled the shift [in strategy] in a speech here [in Pittsburgh] last week
when he charged that Reagan had made 'a list of phony promises' on defense, energy and
economic policy. And he labeled Reagan's tax cut proposal 'voodoo economic policy' and
'economic madness.'"
It's not the temporary ban on immigration that upsets people so much as singling out
people from specific countries, whether Obama's Republican Congress in did it or Trump did
it.
The ban should be on all religious extremists including apartheid Zionists and Christian
extremists. Religious extremists from all of the major religions have committed heinous
atrocities.
...And the Demo establishment lines up to attack Drumpf's ban; hoping to get some easy
votes for corporatist neo-con hypocrites?
...The main purpose of all the noise against president Trump is to weaken him and
then force him to take the positions the deep state wants him to take. Among the many
problems he has he is only an apprentice.
(Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Wednesday called for a
"21st century" version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that required the separation of
commercial and investment banking, a change the Republican Party also supported in its 2016
policy platform .
Trump gave no details about his banking plan other than to say he would prioritize "helping
African American businesses get the credit they need."
Democrat Hillary Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, signed legislation in
1999 that repealed Glass-Steagall.
U.S. banking law was comprehensively revised by the Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act in 2010 as a response to the financial crisis of 2008.
"... As Sen. Elizabeth Warren has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy." You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites. ..."
"... Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare and getting out of wars. ..."
Not surprised at all. The election is over, the voters are now moot. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren
has famously said with respect to cabinet and other political appointments, "Personnel Is Policy."
You can see the outline of the Trump administration's real policies being shaped before our eyes
via his proposed cabinet appointees, covered by Politico and other sites.
Also no mention of NAFTA or renegotiating trade deals in the new transition agenda. Instead
there's just a bunch of vague Chamber of Commercesque language about making America attractive
to investors. I think our hopes for a disruptive Trump presidency are quickly being dashed.
Sanders, Warren and others should hold Trump's feet to the fire on the truly populist things
he said and offer to work with him on that stuff. Like preserving Social Security and Medicare
and getting out of wars.
As to the last point, appointing Bolton or Corker Secretary of State would be a clear indication
he was just talking. A clear violation of campaign promises that would make Obama look like a
choirboy. Trump may be W on steroids.
I can't imagine how he's neglected to update his transition plan regarding nafta. After all,
he's already been president-elect for, what, 36 hours now? And he only talked about it umpteen
times during the campaign. I'm sure he'll renege.
Hell, it took Clinton 8 hours to give her concession speech.
On the bright side, he managed to kill TPP just by getting elected. Was that quick enough for
you?
This just in .Saint Obama is no longer infallible among Dems. Winds of change are blowing. Six months ago, you couldn't get
away with saying this kind of thing.
"The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Obama will receive the sum - equal to his annual pay as president - for a speech
at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's healthcare conference, though there has been no public announcement yet."
=======================================
Sheer coincidence that what Obama campaigned on and what Obama governed on appear to be influenced by rich people. Physics prevents
single payer health care .dark energy, dark matter, dark, dark, money ..
Until a strong majority of dems are ready to say what is patently obvious to anyone even mildly willing to acknowledge reality,
i.e., that policy is decided not by a majority of voters, but by a majority of dollars, than there is simply no hope for reform.
... just as the day was ending, news broke that Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), an early Trump backer,
was indicted for misusing campaign funds for personal expenses big and small, including dental bills and a trip to Italy.
And this sort of behavior isn't even what Warren is targeting.
Warren's bill takes on what is usually termed the legalized corruption, the dirty dealings of Washington. Among other things,
the legislation would:
Increase salaries for congressional staffers, so they will be less tempted to "audition" for lobbying jobs while working for government.
Ban the "revolving door" for elected officials expand how lobbying is defined to include anyone who is paid to lobby the federal
government as well as halt permitting any American to take money from "foreign governments foreign individuals and foreign companies"
for lobbying purposes.
Prohibit elected officials from holding investments in individual stocks require that presidential candidates
make their tax returns public
The goal? To make government once again responsive to voters, not the corporations and the wealthy donors responsible for the
vast majority of the $3.37 billion spent lobbying Washington in
2017. That money buys results, but only for the people paying the bills. As Warren said:
Corruption has seeped into the fabric of our government, tilting thousands of decisions away from the public good and toward
the desires of those at the top. And, over time, bit by bit, like a cancer eating away at our democracy, corruption has eroded
Americans' faith in our government.
This is not hyperbole. A 2014
academic study found the U.S. government policy almost always reflected the desires of the donor class over the will of the majority
of voters, while a 2016 report by the progressive think tank
Demos determined
political donors have distinctly different views from most Americans on issues ranging from financial regulation to abortion rights.
A tax reform package that showers benefits on corporations and the wealthiest among us? Consider it done. But a crackdown on drug
pricing, buttressing of Social Security without cutting benefits, expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, or progress combating global
warming, all of which majorities say they want? Not so fast.
Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) said on June 5 that she will introduce "sweeping anti-corruption legislation to clean up corporate money sloshing
around Washington." (Georgetown Law)
It's not just what laws get passed, but who is held accountable under those laws. No one in a high position went to jail for the
financial crisis. Foreclosure fraud on the part of the banks was punished with a slap on the wrist – if that. All too many corporations
treat their customers with complete impunity, as scandals ranging from the
Equifax hack to
Wells Fargo's many misdeeds demonstrate. It feels as if there is no one minding the store -- if you are rich and connected enough,
that is.
This behavior leaves us enraged, feeling like outsiders peering in on our own elected government. A Gallup poll found 3 out of
4 voters surveyed described corruption as "
widespread throughout the government " -- in 2010. There's a reason Trump's claim he would "drain the swamp" resonated. No one,
after all, thought Trump was clean. His stated argument was, in fact, the opposite. He claimed his success a businessman navigating
the corrupt U.S. system gave him just the right set of insight and tools to clean up Washington.
We all know now that was just another audacious Trump con. The tax reform package almost certainly benefited his own bottom line,
though we don't know that for sure since he has not released his taxes.
Andrew Wheeler , the acting head
of the Environmental Protection Agency, is a former lobbyist for the coal industry.
Alex Azar , the secretary of Health and Human Services, is a former top executive of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. At the Education
Department, the revolving door is alive and well, with
former George W. Bush administration officials who went on to work at for-profit institutions of higher education
returning to government
service to advise Betsy De Vos who is -- surprise! -- cutting the sector multiple breaks.
And all this, under our current laws, is allowed.
To be clear, this is not a matter of Republicans Good, Democrats Bad. As Warren put it on Tuesday, "This problem is far bigger
than Trump." An Obama-era attempt to slow the revolving door
was riddled with loopholes
that allowed the appointment of Wall Street insiders to too many regulatory posts. Subsequently, more than a few Obama appointees
have gone on to work for big business as lobbyists.
Corruption, legal or illegal, rots the system from the inside out. In an environment where it seems anything goes, it's not hard
to think that, well, anything goes -- like Cohen and Manafort, who almost certainly would have gotten away with their behavior if
not for the Mueller investigation, and Hunter, who ignored multiple warnings from his campaign treasurer and instead continued to
do such things as pass off the purchase of a pair of shorts as sporting equipment intended for use by "wounded warriors."
There is, of course, no way Warren's bill would clean up this entire festering mess. But healthy democracies need government officials
-- elected and unelected -- to behave both ethically and honestly. Warren is putting our governing and business classes on notice.
Simply saying the law is on your side isn't good enough. The voters won't stand for that.
On Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren
addressed the National Press Club , outlining with great specificity a host of proposals on
issues including eliminating financial conflicts, close the revolving door between business and
government and, perhaps most notably, reforming
corporate structures .
Warren gave a blistering attack on corporate power run amok, giving example after example,
like Congressman Billy Tauzin doing the pharmaceutical lobby's bidding by preventing a bill for
expanded Medicare coverage from allowing the program to negotiate lower drug prices. Noted
Warren: "In December of 2003, the very same month the bill was signed into law, PhRMA -- the
drug companies' biggest lobbying group -- dangled the possibility that Billy could be their
next CEO.
"In February of 2004, Congressman Tauzin announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. Ten
months later, he became CEO of PhRMA -- at an annual salary of $2 million. Big Pharma certainly
knows how to say 'thank you for your service.'"
But I found that Warren's tenacity when ripping things like corporate lobbyists'
"pre-bribes" suddenly evaporated when dealing with issues like the enormous military budget and
Israeli assaults on Palestinian children.
... ... ...
Said Warren of her own financial reform proposals: "Inside Washington, some of these
proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends. Outside Washington, I expect
that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they're not already the
law.
Why doesn't the same principle apply to funding perpetual wars and massive human rights
abuses against children?
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact .org.
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini
August 22, 2018,
10:46 am OpenSecrets shows that Senator Warren has received funds from the pro-Israel
PAC Joint Action Committee for Political Affairs for the 2018 election cycle. Among the
largest funders of this PAC are billionaire venture capitalist J.B. Pritzker and his wife. At
the start of Israel's 2014 massacre in Gaza, the PAC issued a statement in support of Israel.
August 22, 2018,
12:36 pm No surprise there, ckg. I cannot think of anyone in Congress nor in the US cabinet
that is not 99-100% in Israel supporters' pockets. Nor can I think of anyone that is
diplomatically focused. Nor can I think of anyone that is seriously objecting to the slaughter
in Yemen, the ongoing attempt to topple Assad, and the endless war in Afghanistan, etc.
Then there's this: the US and too many others pay/subsidize Israel for the privilege of
dictating foreign policy and for their own selfish, ridiculous claims of being 'surrounded by
enemies'. A nuclear- armed state (though never inspected nor properly declared) keeps this
trope/cliché alive???
How many billions should Americans and others pay to Israel for nothing in return?
August 23, 2018, 7:10 am
Standing up to the Israel lobby now is suicidal. Nobody will risk a career to support a
dissident until the dam breaks as it always does.
Power doesn't work linearly. It goes in cycles. Zionism is tied up with money which is a
function of the economic system. Warren is playing a long game. She knows the people at the Fed
are clueless. She knows there is going to be an awful crash. She knows there will be a new
economic system based on the people rather than the elites..
"... By Joshua Weitz, a research associate at the Academic-Industry Research Network and an incoming graduate student in the PhD program in political science at Brown University ..."
By Joshua Weitz, a research associate at the Academic-Industry Research Network and an incoming
graduate student in the PhD program in political science at Brown University
Since leaving office President Obama has drawn widespread criticism for accepting a
$400,000 speaking fee from the Wall Street investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald, including from
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Only a few months out of office, the move has been
viewed as emblematic of the cozy relationship between the financial sector and political elites.
But as the President's critics have voiced outrage over the decision many have been reluctant
to criticize the record-setting
$65 million book deal that Barack and Michelle Obama landed jointly this February with Penguin
Random House (PRH). Writing in the Washington Post, for example,
Ruth Marcus argues that while the Wall Street speech "feels like unfortunate icing on an already
distasteful cake," the book deal is little more than the outcome of market forces fueled by consumer
demand: "If the market bears $60 million to hear from the Obamas, great."
Obama centrists don't have to worry just about Sanders' popularity. Elizabeth Warren, who is increasingly appearing as a plausible
presidential candidate for 2020, has also risen as an economic populist critic of the former president.
She has been perfectly willing to challenge Obama by name, saying he was wrong to claim at a commencement address at Rutgers last
year that "the system isn't as rigged as you think." "No, President Obama, the system is as rigged as we think," she writes in her
new book This Fight Is Our Fight. "In fact, it's worse than most Americans realize." She even went so far as to say she was "troubled"
by Obama's willingness to take his six-figure speaking fee from Wall Street. There is indeed a fight brewing, but it's not Obama
v. Trump, but Obama v. Warren-Sanders.
And this is where the real difficulty lies for the Democrats. The trouble with the popular and eminently reasonable Sanders-Warren
platform-reasonable for all those, Obama and Clinton included, who express dismay over our country's rampaging levels of Gilded Age-style
inequality-is that it alienates the donor class that butters the DNC's bread. With Clinton's downfall, and with the popularity of
economic populism rising in left circles, Obama has to step in and reassert his more centrist brand of Democratic politics. And what
better way to do so than by conspicuously cashing a check from those who would fund said politics?
Oh please, stop quoting Andy Slavitt, the United Healthcare Ingenix algo man. That guy is
the biggest crook that made his money early on with RX discounts with his company that he and
Senator Warren's daughter, Amelia sold to United Healthcare.
He's out there trying to do his own reputation restore routine. Go back to 2009 and read
about the short paying of MDs by Ingenix, which is now Optum Insights, he was the CEO and
remember it was just around 3 years ago or so he sat there quarterly with United CEO Hemsley
at those quarterly meetings.
Look him up, wants 40k to speak and he puts the perception out there he does this for
free, not so.
I think you're missing the context. Lambert is quoting him by way of showing that the
sleazy establishment types are just fine with him. Thanks for the extra background on that
particular swamp-dweller, though.
Alex Azar is a Dartmouth grad (Gov't & Economics '88) just like Jeff Immelt (Applied
Math & Economics '78). So much damage to society from such a small department!
Since 2014, Ross has been the vice-chairman of the board of Bank of Cyprus PCL, the
largest bank in Cyprus.
He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment
Fund. Later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ross served as the Mayor's
privatization advisor.
I have been meaning to write something on faux Libertarians of the corporatist ilk for a
while. However, since I
switched to forecasting mode instead of advocacy , I have tried to leave the political
element out of my posts as much as possible. I'll leave the politics to those who enjoy it; I
don't. But, I think this is an important topic so I am going to give it a go here.
If you do a search
for the word 'liberty' on the Internet, invariably you find the Wikipedia entry for that word.
I think the definition used there is a good one. Here's what Wikipedia says about Liberty :
Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the
condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal
responsibility and free will. The conception of liberty is influenced by ideals concerning
the social contract as well as arguments that are concerned with the state of nature.
Individualist and classical liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the
individual from outside compulsion or coercion and this is defined as negative liberty.
What you will notice is there is nothing in this definition regarding corporations. It is
all about individual liberty and the freedoms of individuals . Individuals are born with
innate, natural and inalienable rights to liberty that are
self-evident. This philosophical view of humankind gained currency during the enlightenment and
is now universally accepted. It also underpins the very concept of democracy and is the origin
of the founding of the United States of America.
For example, the U.S. Declaration of Independence begins [highlighting added]:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them withpowers of the earth, the separate and equal
sta
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness . -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.
As always, I have to note that the writer of the Declaration was a slaveholder in a country
in which government killed the indigenous population. So, there is certainly a gap between the
high-mindedness of this wonderful document and actual events on the ground. Don't let that
detract from the aspirational quality of the words.This is exactly what individual liberty is
all about.
On the other hand, a corporation is a societal construct codified
into legal existence to further the mutual interests of individuals. A corporation is "an
artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law,"
according to
Chief Justice Marshall in the Dartmouth College Case of 1819. Trustees of Dartmouth College v.
Woodward , won by Daniel Webster when
the state of New Hampshire attempted to turn the college into The University of New Hampshire,
was an early American test of eminent domain-type property seizure.
A corporation has no inalienable or natural rights. Nevertheless, it is the fact that
corporations represent a group of individuals that allows the 'corporatist' to claim that these
fictional legal entities should enjoy the same natural and legal liberties and rights with
which individuals are born.
Let me be bold here: The 'Corporatist' is a kleptocrat masquerading as a believer in
liberty. He uses terminology based in liberty to construct an ideology solely as a means of
furthering the gains of a specific strata of society allied with the corporatist and at
the expense of other strata, by coercion if necessary .
Remember my post on
kleptocracy from 2008? If not, here are the four methods Jared Diamond says ruling elites
use to maintain power:
Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.
Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular
ways.
Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing
violence. This is potentially a big and underappreciated advantage of centralized societies
over noncentralized ones.
The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or
religion justifying kleptocracy.
I broadened the argument on this in my year in review in 2009. Please read
The year in review at Credit Writedowns – Kleptocracy to get a fuller perspective.
Here's the statement from that post I want to concentrate on:
The last (and perhaps most important) issue [of the four ways elites maintain power], in
my view, has to do with the unabiding faith in free markets that many now have. It is with
religious zeal that these so-called Libertarians defend the primacy of markets over all else
when in reality common sense would tell you that those with the greatest influence and money
will always be at an advantage without some check on that influence and power.
This is the corporatism, the faux Libertarianism, to which I refer. The logic goes like
this:
Individuals have inalienable rights to freedom. This is a fundamental right that all
individuals have and efforts by government to undermine these rights must be resisted at all
costs.
Corporations are groups of individuals which have banded together for mutual benefit. In
so doing, they can express their individual natural rights more effectively than they could
as individuals.
As such, corporations must retain the same rights as individuals legally in order to
allow those individuals the corporation represents to express there natural rights.
Therefore, the same resistance to denying the rights of individuals must also be transferred
to the corporations which represent them .
This logic will take you much further in furthering the aims of corporations, the point
being that corporations, businesses, should enjoy the same rights that individuals have.
That is not to say that businesses should not have rights. They should; and we should grant
them as much liberty as is reasonable and warranted. But let's be clear, corporations are not
individuals; they are collections of individuals. Often, individuals hide behind this
collective using the corporate veil to shield themselves from sanction for behaviour that
abuses individual liberties. In a very real sense, the rights and liberties of businesses and
individuals often come into conflict. A real libertarian would always favour the individual in
that conflict . A corporatist would favour the corporation. That's the difference.
Let me give you an example. Say I was walking down the street in Louisville, Kentucky and
saw a cute little shop that sold Kettle Korn. For those of you who don't know kettle korn, it
is salted and sweetened popcorn that was brought to the U.S. by German immigrant farmers in
Pennsylvania, Maryland and into the Midwest over two hundred years ago. In Germany, popcorn is
sweet not salty like it is in the U.S. So, I see this store and I am thinking, "They have
Kettle Korn in Kentucky? Wow, who knew. I love this stuff. Let me go get some." Here's the
problem: the owner of the store has a business policy that no black people are allowed inside.
Mind you, this isn't a government policy because government discrimination based on race or
ethnicity is illegal in the United States. But, this business owner doesn't want Blacks in his
store. So when I enter, he tells me to leave because I am violating his store's liberty to
choose its own policies.
I would say the individual liberty trumps the business liberty in this case, especially
since the owner is violating his own government's business policy as well as societal norms. A
corporatist would say that the business owner wins since it is his business. Again, that's the
difference.
There are lots of other examples of corporatism at work in the U.S. legal system regarding
property rights in particular. My November 2009 post "
New York to use eminent domain to build a basketball stadium " showed the New York State
Court of Appeals ruling that the Atlantic Yards basketball project can go
forward as planned, dislocating the residents in the Brooklyn, NY area where the stadium is to
be built. The decision means that government can evict you from your own home, seize your
property, and give you what it believes is a fair price without your consent to build a
sports arena,
ostensibly for the public good but certainly for state and private profit.
This and other cases like it are occurring because of the decision in Kelo v. City of New
London, Conn . If a state or local government deems a private project – funded by
private monies and profiting private enterprises – to be in the public interest, it can
seize your property to allow this project to occur. In the New London case, residents were
evicted to make way for a luxury hotel and up-scale condos, from which private developers would
profit handsomely. Kelo was an outrageous example of cronyism completely at odds with
the ethos of the Dartmouth College Case of 1819. Because of Kelo , government can now
abuse its power to enrich specific private interests. That's corporatism at work.
Corporatism has nothing to do with liberty. It is all about power and coercion. It's about
favouring the big guy over the little guy, the more well-connected over the less
well-connected, the insider over the outsider. And in society that means favouring large,
incumbent businesses over smaller businesses, new entrants or individuals. How does
deregulation and free market ideology fit into this ?
"Obviously, if some always have more power and wealth than others, there is never a
situation in which the economic playing field is level. Moreover, it is axiomatic that those
with the means and access will always have greater influence over government than those
without. So, in a very real sense, the socioeconomic elite of any advanced, stratified society
will always have disproportionate control of the economic and political system.
"Now, I happen to be a Libertarian-minded individual, so I have nothing against the free
markets or the concept of limited government and deregulation. Freer markets and more limited
government are my preferred ideal. However, I am a realist. I understand that markets are never
truly free and
government fulfils a necessary function .
"So, when you hear someone talking about getting government out of the way and allowing the
free markets to work, you should be thinking about the influence and control this would
naturally engender.
"Think crony capitalism
"In fact, I would argue that the deregulation and free market capitalism that these
individuals refer to is really crony capitalism in disguise. I will explain.
"When I think of deregulation, I think of two related but distinct concepts. The one is the
actual de-regulation, which is the permission of economic actors to compete in markets
previously unavailable to them by order of legislation or de facto government intervention and
coercion. The other is regulatory oversight, which is the maintenance of specific rules of
engagement under threat of penalty on economic actors by government. De-regulation and
regulatory oversight are related concepts but they are not the same."
Is America ready for a real antiwar candidate? Clearly the political establishment and the
media aren't. Criticism of presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard and anyone else who questions
foreign policy orthodoxies is swift and unrelenting. Fighting for peace has never been so
difficult.
CrossTalking with Daniel Faraci, Thomas Palley, and Philip Giraldi.
#RT (Russia
Today) is a global #news network broadcasting from
Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube
views benchmark.
I have met a surprising number of Republicans and Libertarians who support Tulsi, many of
them former Trump supporters. Bernie had a meeting with her in Vermont before she announced
that she is running. Many think that they plan to join forces at some point. They would be a
formidable team for the neoliberal neocons to beat.
its worse than stifling free speech. These neocons are criminals. Anyone who is always for
invading other countries to take control of resources & killing millions of people along
the way should be considered war criminals & enemies of the USA. They should be locked
up. Including the media fanboys.
The Democratic party is trying to keep Tulsi from the debates , they want her to have 60
something thousand individual donations to her campaign, it's the only way for her to
participate. They want her out of the way ...donate a dollar everyone...let's see her at the
debates. She is the only one that can take Trump on.
If just ONE MSM outlet held a show with such open,honest,invigorating discussion as
CROSSTALK allowing real analyst to present facts and reality into the discussion it would be
a totally different world this morning. Instead I need to go to Internet,go outside my own
countries news sources,even watch other countries governments relations on shadow banned or
plain censored sources. To find the facts,the truth in America today is to risk your own
freedom,Physically,Spiritually,or just plain Sanity. 1933 has collided with 1984 to bring us
2019.
No the sheep citizens of US are not ready for anti war establishment because the dual
nationals in congress won't let that happen who works for Israel not their own country.
People like Ron Paul are never elected in US who wants to work to fix the problems in his own
country and US citizens. They need war criminals and zionist puppets to promote the new
liberal world order and globalist agenda. Even now the Trump is not ending the wars. He is
just shifting the illegal wars from middle east to latin america which will also be a
disaster. This will create more chaos, economic and migrant crisis. US needs anti war leaders
or else one day world will be pushed to nuclear ww3 because of these parasites.
Peter your indignation over Tulsa's treatment is just a wonderful thing to see. She has
been treated horribly so far and I don't think it's ever going to stop. Although as far as I
stand right now she is who I will vote for. I just wish Bernie and Tulsi would run on a
ticket together and run on the Green Party. 47% of America voted for Independents last
elections. Bernie could win as an independent.
Thank you for this conversation. I never wanted to hug old white men so much. Ideas that
should be bought up and discussed and never are since everyone is in such a cult of
personality around that guy. These men should be regulars on your show since this was
riveting conversation. Spot On.
Well, what sort of "patsy" do you think the powers that be will use when they go to
assassinate Tulsi? That's my only question at this point. I assume they'll find some modern
version of Sirhan-Sirhan; that is, they'll find some foreign goofball who actually has a mild
political grudge against the candidate, have their Mossad agents to work him up with drugs
and hypnosis, drive him to wherever the candidate is visiting nearby, have an actual assassin
(paid-off security guard) shoot the candidate for real as soon as their drugged-up patsy
starts firing his gun. Only later do we learn the candidate was killed with 9 bullets while
the patsy's gun only held 8 rounds. In fact, I'll make a prediction of the sort of patsy
they'll use: It will be a Venezuelan emigre who dislikes Maduro's socialism and who believes
Tulsi wants to socialize all of America. However, he won't be able to recall where he was the
12 hours before the shooting. That, and one of the recently-hired armed security guards at
the building where she was speaking decides to quit his job and move to some farm in Peru or
Chile right after the assassination. And the mainstream media will give it only one headline
in their newspapers. After that, they'll go back to headlining sports events and whatever
alleged "hate crime" is in vogue this week.
Say what its is: the deepest cause of our political and societal problems is the MSM power
of international Zionism in America and Europe. To break this power at the current rate with
social media, will at least take another generation's time. But probably long before this
time the social media will be blocked for Zionism criticism by a new inquisition. Which we
are already seeing in progress. So what is left for us to shake off the Zionist yoke? Not
Trump!
Megan McCaine have the nerve to claim she supports the military yet here she is attacking
an actual military servicewomen who've lost her brothers and sisters in arms in Iraq for lies
such as WMD and fake Al Qaeda connection. The establishment media should and chickenhawks
should be called out for this treasonous labeling of Tulsi Gabbard.
Gabbard/Sanders or Sanders/Gabbard ~ I am INDEPENDENT and ready to move on for 2020. Trump
has NOT drained the swamp......EX: Reappoint COMEY = No..........But thanks Pres. Trump for
NOT giving us HRC! Dean K.
President Trump just a Robot in the White House and His Foreign Policies decided by Pro
Israel and Anti Russia WAR CRIMINALS,who are a Bullish,Lying and pro War.
Why isn't crosstalk talkin about AIPEC influence on Congress because the neocons And AIPEC
are basically controlling Congress and are the people responsible behind all the Middle East
War chicanery and Benjamin Netanyahu's influence on Congress is obscene and they actually are
passing laws now that if you speak up against AIPEC in anyway whatsoever you are immediately
smeared and called an anti-semite and your words are considered a hate speech crime... as in
the recent case of congresswoman Ilhan Omar... WTF is going on here??!!
Tulsi is on the same page as Bernie, if she aligns with Bernie and they are on the ticket
for the Dem's - they will win the election - zionists hate them both for the same reason they
are against war machine and want to look after the American homeland and people. Notice how
they are the only two in the US that want to pressure dotard through congress to not be able
to pull out of INF and rejoin the Iran deal. They are for peace .. something Americans want
and zionists don't
As a registered independent and former Trump supporter, she has my vote. I don't agree
with 80% of her platform but I do trust her to do her best to end the US perpetual war state.
However, if she should happen to do the obligatory trip to the wailing wall and pledge
allegiance to Israel, she will lose my support immediately. We'll know she's full of sh*t
when she bows to AIPAC.
MSM either makes ridiculous smears on tulsi or/and what's happening the most at the moment
is to COMPLETELY IGNORE her and act like doesnt exist, even when talking about all candidates
they will conveniently never mention her and pass though her name quickly sometimes even say
her name in a like quieter tone then change the subject, so frustrating! While shoving basic
bitches pro establishment pro war morons like Kamal Harris down our throats, no thank you. I
really hope ALL people see though this at very least most. And people still supporting trump
even after he turned on alot lf his main promises and pretending to be "anti interventionist"
while being compete opposite and wanting to invade any country he can see to benefit from,
how can they still Support him and not even call out his hypocrisy and lies. Hes just another
neocon warmonger.
Tulsi is amazing; she is the only dem I would vote for, all the rest are phonies or
brainwashed. Bernie is especially disappointing in his gullible acceptance of the fake Russia
collusion narrative, his voting for every war except the Iraq war, and his do nothing/say
nothing about election fraud. Tulsi is the real deal; in my opinion she is the only dem who
could beat Trump at this point. All the rest of the dems are scary and crazy, including
Bernie.
Peter, there should be more presentations and conversations about Tulsi on Cross talk and
the Duran as she, in my opinion, is the only person who will bring honesty and integrity to
US politics and restore America as a truly democratic country and restore the bad image that
the rest of the world has of the US apart from the current western alliance. I have listened
to her talks in New Hampshire and Iowa and can see her popularity increasing by the day. The
rest of the Democrats are part of the neocon group that supports war along with the
Republicans. When Trump was running in 2016 I thought it was a breath of fresh air compared
to Clinton. He has reneged on most things he promised to his base and has increased foreign
intervention. The world as a whole is looking for and needs peace.
Tulsi will not become the Democratic nominee, to low name recognition and not enough cash.
Donate to her, 1 USD is enough, she needs 65.000 individual donations to get on the televised
debates. She will drive other candidates to take a stance on US military interventions, a
good cause in itself. I would like to see, in the end, Bernie as POTUS, Warren in Treasury
and Tulsi as Sec State OR VP but think Sec State is better.
I love this show and amazing intelligent knowledgeable people as your guests. Excellent.
Please Keep going because you have 99% of humanity with you. The victory is certain and it
takes a bit more time to overcome evil that has built foundations for centuries but not
winning. You are the real champions not Old books or statues, and future generations will
play your each videos again and again and they will analyse it over and over again. What you
say and what you do is part of renaissance and foundation of future of the world. It is
important to say and do right things and be proud that you are making important history for
humanity. You will not have only statues or quotes also will have real videos to play it and
listen and see it. Children in schools, students at colleges and universities and
intellectuals politicians all will listen to your important brave opinions and views in this
curtail time of human history. I hope you realise the importance of this time and your moral
stands
Tulsi is going directly for the jugular of the ultimate origin of all this mess, she is
aiming at the core problem that generates, or makes worse, any other problem in our society,
ranging since: Climate Change on the top at planet level, down to bullying in schools at
street level. Not to mention, of course, that War Business means "Killing Humans by the
Thousands Business".
Tulsi Gabbard would do a better job than Bernie, who supports Government Intervention in
Venezuela and didn't expose the corruption of the DNC when he should have.
The only corporate US news reporter that doesn't try to "gotcha" Gabbard & smear her
is Tucker Carlson who gives her a chance to express her anti foreign intervention
message
So, Lindsey Graham, both Bushes, John McCain, and virtually all the other Republicans are
peaceniks and it's all the Democrats' fault? As to the baby boomers...I am a baby boomer and
have opposed US warmongering ever since Vietnam....ever heard of Jesse Ventura, or horrors!
Jill Stein? Partly, after they came home from Woodstock, it was back to business as usual.
Certainly a component of that is there. Many boomers sold out after the Civil Rights and anti
war movements. So, so far in this discussion, I am not hearing anything about what's left of
the real Left, such as Chris Hedges on RT, or Ventura and many other voices like Michael
Parenti, whom the Establishment either bought off or banished. Dennis Kucinich being a good
example. And let's not even talk about the Greens, who have always been anti war. Their
candidate--a female baby boomer was shackled so she couldn't be in the presidential debates!
And then accused by the Democrats of being a Russian bot.
Neo-Cons are Zionist partisans and former "Troksyists"(as Chris Hitchens would say), AIPAC
is the only foriegn lobby not registered under FARA....this network has infiltrated this
country on every government and social level since even before they accomplished a state,
Mossad is tied hip to hip with our intelligence agencies and have and continue to steal
secrets and material of all kinds.....btw the last president and attorney general to demand
inspections of Dimona, supported Palestinian right of return and gave the Zionist lobby 72
hours to register under FARA were Jack and Bobby Kennedy, read Michael Collins Piper's Final
Judgment if you wan't more about that but we should all know who the real problem is and that
problem comes out of Tel Aviv.....
Do not base your opinion of what the people want by looking at the 2018 mid term
elections. Between the astronomical amount of voter fraud and the sabotaging by Paul Ryan
(because he is one of those neocons or some would call RHINO"s) because Paul Ryan hates
Trump! 2020 will be a huge disappointment if you do. For starters there were about 40 seats
that dems ran completely unopposed!
Tulsi Gabbard does NOT align with Bernie Sanders at all. Sanders is PRO war. Do your
homework, jog your memory. As VP she wouild have zip power over foreign affairs or u.s. war
involvement. She is however, aligned with Rand Paul, if anyone. Sanders' association with
socialist DOMESTIC change has nothing to do with his unspoken position on imperialistic
occupation and regime change.
Its so comical to hear news hosts on all the mainstream media outlets criticizing Tulsi
for going to Syria yet none of them ever discuss Chelsea Manning let alone show the video of
the US Hellicopter gunning down 12 people and the American soldiers laughing after it.
Manning was imprisoned and tortured for her act of journalism. The networks still do not dare
show that video let alone discuss it.
Its so comical to hear news hosts on all the mainstream media outlets criticizing Tulsi
for going to Syria yet none of them ever discuss Chelsea Manning let alone show the video of
the US Hellicopter gunning down 12 people and the American soldiers laughing after it.
Manning was imprisoned and tortured for her act of journalism. The networks still do not dare
show that video let alone discuss it.
She will make an excellent VP. or Secretary of State if not the President ! I am tired of
being taken to war by people who haven't served . (Not even as Boy Scout) !!!
I wish Tulsi well..best candidate since Ron Paul. Unfortunately the stupidity of the
American public never ceases to amaze. Just YouTube a few of Mark Dice interviews when he
asks just the basic of questions...the responses are a scary but albeit reflection of why
America is doomed
"legacy media" !! a great phrase. Oh, I see. I thought legacy media was a reference to
sources like CNN and MSNBC. But it refers more to magazines and other publications (old
media).
The current and past agendas of the neocons can be easily identified as failures from the
viewpoint of making things better for humanity. But this is not their measure. The failure
you are seeing is actually success for them. Their interest is in war and destruction. See
how this cancer is spreading through their thought patterns. The total dismantling of their
military complex is the only way to bring this cancer to heel. This must happen from
within.
The curtains are being raised showing neo cons and neo libs on same team exposing war
mongers in media as well Tulsi Gabbard for president feel the aloha
Tulsi's voting record shows she will feed the DOD machine regardless of pork. She voted
yea on HR 695, HR 3364, HR 1301, etc., all for a DOD that is yet to be held accountable for
lost $ trillions.
She raise important question about Trump university
Notable quotes:
"... That was brutally enlightening. I mean, I heard from the news that she didn't have a clue about education, but I didn't know it was this bad. America's education system desperately needs to be improved, but I don't see that coming with her... ..."
"... Senator Warren's zeal and interrogation skills are both admirable. ..."
I am an Australian observer, What I see of Elizabeth Warren, she should be the next
American President, 1, she has a brain, 2, she has dignity, 3, she knows what she is dong,
(she has a clue, unlike the current one ) no one scares this woman.
Betsy deVos got raked over the coals by both Franken and Warren... deVos isn't qualified
to be a teacher's aid for a kindergarten class much less run the D. of Ed. scary!
We need more Elizabeth Warrens in America. And we need new rules in our governance. Can
you imagine if this was a real life corporate board interview. Would DeVos be hired by that
board? Be honest....... DeVos was beyond stupid here.
That was brutally enlightening. I mean, I heard from the news that she didn't have a clue
about education, but I didn't know it was this bad. America's education system desperately
needs to be improved, but I don't see that coming with her...
I am not a fan either way of DeVos, but this was nothing but a platform for Warren to fast
talk over her, and a way to slam Trump, call him a crook and fraud, and be condescending
non-stop.
Elizabeth Warren has some good ideas at times, but this was bullying and
showboating on her part and she wasted her time lecturing instead of really giving her a real
opportunity to answer a few strong questions to see where she stood on certain topics. Pity.
Has Warren been held accountable for the billions of waste and fraud committed by the
congress in the past 8 years on failed policies, laws, etc.
And by the way, how many people
in Washington, D C have had experience running a Trillion dollar bank? What a rather dumb
question since the answer is NOBODY.
"Destroys?" She basically ask her a bunch of questions she already knew the answer to just
to point out she hasn't taken out a student loan or has experience overseeing a trillion
dollar program. Then Liz proceeds to derive her own answer prior to Besty answering herself.
A cop may not have saved someones life before so by that logic the cop is not qualified to
save lives? Sure, she may not have experience with student loans but that doesn't mean she
doesn't understand compound interest, inflation and economics. Maybe these hearings would be
a better use of tax payer's money if they weren't merely a forum to broadcast the fact that
you don't like someone's political affiliations.
So having focused on being a community organizer is fine for running for president, but
somehow NOT for running a federal agency under a president? Meanwhile, when it comes to
following the spirit of regulations as opposed to regulations themselves, which (if any) were
NOT violated when a certain senator used to be a professor at Harvard and proclaimed that she
was of American Indian heritage, while such a classification "coincidentally" benefited
whomever claimed it?
Having said that, Senator Warren's zeal and interrogation skills are
both admirable. So is the way in which Betsy Devos diplomatically handles such an onslaught
of pointed questions that some say are agenda-driven.
This is democracy at work and it's
refreshing to see. Thanks Youtube and all who helped bring this about.
Senator Warren. You are a US Senator. What is your plan for insuring the United States
won't run up 10's of trillions of debt which will bankrupt our country? Senator Warren, have
you ever balanced a budget? Do you know what a balanced budget is? Senator Warren, what is
your plan for protecting US citizens from criminal illegal aliens? Do you know, Senator
Warren, we already have laws in place to protect US citizens from criminal illegal aliens?
They're called immigration laws.
Tim Sloan has all the characteristics of a crook. He is remorseless, misleading, lacks
responsibility, tries to cause confusion of the facts, and a manipulator. This guy was the
CFO and claims he was removed from the scams. Yeah right!
I know Tim Sloan did not do a good job and Senator Warren grilled him to the point where I
feel bad for him. She is so good at finding out the truth and cornering the guilty like a
rat.
I don't know all the ins-and-outs of Tim Sloan, probably some fair criticism, but he
doesn't strike me as a crook. For Pocahontas to say he should be "fired", the same charge
could be made at Pocahontas - that she should resign (fire herself from the Senate); the scam
of her claiming Native American heritage to further her career was TOTALLY bogus.
If she would shut up about being an Indian and attacking Trump and focus on attacking the
banks she would win I'm a Trump supporter and I would vote for her. She is great on the
fed
Trump is a dangerous and in his own way very capability media person, a propagandist who is
capable fully exploit this story. She really needs to call Trump Pinocchio to neutralize this
line of attack
Notable quotes:
"... She has too much excess baggage to run for president. She reminds me a little bit of Hillary mixed with Trump. She used to or still supports Susie Orman, the self proclaimed financial wizard. Orman is a lier and has cheated many people and has made a lot of money off people who fell for her get rich sceems. Orman is a lot like Trump. I don't mind having a woman president but just not this ine! ..."
"... Donald and Fred Trump both claimed that their family is from Switzerland when they are are actually 2nd and 3rd generation German immigrants and still have a whole town of living relatives in Germany. I'm sure we need to demand Donald Trump take a DNA test and also exhume and test Fred Trump's remains . I mean since these matters are clearly so important to everyone. Come on let's dig up the president's dead father to solve a petty political dispute! ..."
"... CNN literally can't do an interview without being obsessed with race. ..."
"... She mentions her native ancestry. It's a point of pride to her, she has no shame of it. Trumps bullying her lead her to get the DNA test. It made her look foolish, like she would do anything to shut the bully up. Whatever her action they have a reaction of insulting her. Because they are racist. ..."
"... OMG, What controversy with Warren?? No one outside of DC cares about the ancestry.. Trump is literally a Mob Boss... ..."
Most White ppl in the U.S. think they are Cherokee, even though they aren't. In fact, I
know White conservatives who claim Cherokee. Sure she went a step too far 30-40yrs ago, but
at least she actually cares about Natives. Conservatives, on the other hand, claim to be
Native Americans, support DAPL, could care less about them and mock Natives any chance they
get
--Principal Chief Richard Sneed "It's media fodder. It's sensationalism. That's what it
is,. All it takes is for one person to say they're offended, and then everybody does a dog
pile. But to me, it's 'Wait a second. Let's get to some of the facts here.' Sen. Warren has
always been a friend to tribes. And we need all the allies we can get."
I see the hate on the comments...it looks like the KKK types are here donning their MAGA
hats. Are they tight? Lowering your, already low, IQs further? Yeah
The whole DNA thing is such a silly, irrelevant distraction. It's so utterly unimportant.
But we're now going to find that those sideshows become the focus of the race rather than any
real discussion on policy. I'm becoming more and more convinced that people are increasingly
too stupid or simply lazy and cynical to bother thinking about things that actually
matter.
Why? The poor learned the loopholes just like the rich. That's why she checked the
native American box. And the hypocrisy of "President" Trump's past brought out from the time
he stated he was running, this women was right next to Hillary knocking him down.
I don't buy the soft casual talk about not going to the past. She messes with the wrong
man and then her skeletons came our of the closet. She deserved it
Nothing we First Nations people despise more than a white person so ashamed of themselves
try and pretend they are one of us . We have more respect for white people who are strong and
proud of their own people . She is not only very weak , she is a traitor to her people . We
do not respect people ashamed of themselves .
I also hope all you upright citizens are out there demanding a boycott of Chuck Norris.
I'm sure you're outraged by Walker Texas Ranger, correct? You know that tv show where one of
the whitest guys in America claimed both in the show and outside of the show for marketing
purposes that he is native American. I assume you all want Chuck Norris to take a DNA test
and prove it right? Guys? Right?
They should simply agree on what is the proper genetic mix that is acceptable
ideologically to determine which genetic mix is less or not acceptable so that the proper
mistreatment of the lesser sort can be determined and enforced by popular consensus. This
seems almost to be having the force and effect of law socially and politically. This is
becoming a strange mix of nostalgic notions of virtue while at the same time embracing the
basic premise of Nuremburg.
She has too much excess baggage to run for president. She reminds me a little bit of
Hillary mixed with Trump. She used to or still supports Susie Orman, the self proclaimed
financial wizard. Orman is a lier and has cheated many people and has made a lot of money off
people who fell for her get rich sceems. Orman is a lot like Trump. I don't mind having a
woman president but just not this ine!
Donald and Fred Trump both claimed that their family is from Switzerland when they are are
actually 2nd and 3rd generation German immigrants and still have a whole town of living
relatives in Germany. I'm sure we need to demand Donald Trump take a DNA test and also exhume
and test Fred Trump's remains . I mean since these matters are clearly so important to
everyone. Come on let's dig up the president's dead father to solve a petty political
dispute!
CNN literally can't do an interview without being obsessed with race. Warren would
probably had a chance if they gave her a support like they do Harris. ...now here comes the
twist I actually do not support her or anyone on the left but she didn't even get a solid
chance she might as well drop out now and endorse someone.
She mentions her native ancestry. It's a point of pride to her, she has no shame of it.
Trumps bullying her lead her to get the DNA test. It made her look foolish, like she would do
anything to shut the bully up. Whatever her action they have a reaction of insulting her.
Because they are racist.
It's so annoying how anytime a decent person fucks up nowadays they're forced to spend
like an entire year apologizing, and that's only if they don't automatically lose their
entire career right after said fuck up. She admits she shouldn't have done it, great, now
lets get back to policy.
I just don't understand how some people can't accept her apology for the Native American
fiasco, yet they give trump all the slack in the world. This is a man who bragged about
grabbing women by the pussy..... The double standard is just ridiculous.
Taxation itself does not solve the problem. You also need to cut MIC. Only in this case
orginary americans will benefit. Andf that Mmieans that Eligeth Warren will face tremendous
slander campaign neocons.
If Elizabeth Warren is nominated for president, and I hope she will be, I believe we will
see the most virulent, vile and vituperative campaign imaginable against her by the right,
the wealthy and the corporate interests. It will be a battle for the soul of this country.
But if anyone can make the case to the middle class for real economic and tax reform in the
face of the attacks that such a plan will face, Elizabeth Warren is the person to do it. She
has a first class intellect, she has remarkable communication skills and, as she says, this
is her life. She's not running in order to "be" president, she's running to enact policies
that have the potential of turning the tide in this country in favor of the people and away
from the plutocrats. And in this, she will face real opposition from many within her own
party. It's going to be an interesting two years.
Paul, it would be great if you could compare the revenue effects of this Warren proposal
with the actual tax policies that were in effect during the Eisenhower administration. It
seems that the progressive taxation rates of that era, topping out at about 90% marginal
rates, should and could be the "gold standard" for comparison with current plans.
The neolib/libertarian campaign, stretching back to those years and even earlier, has been
wildly successful in brainwashing Americans with regard to both public finance and the link
with tax structures. And the removal of controls on money in politics has us in a truly toxic
environment that in my view has already tipped us into an oligo-klepto-plutocracy. The
ravaging of all three branches of government has reached critical mass, and we're teetering
on the brink in a way that may not be reversible.
Any candidate who is promising health care for all and a substantial response to climate
change and crumbling infrastructure, has to be talking taxation of the wealthy either by
income tax or wealth tax or both. Otherwise, they are just blowing smoke. Elizabeth has that
combination in her platform.
It is a tragic commentary on the American political system that FDR felt he had to make a
compromise with the Devil in order to gain the passage of progressive legislation.
The situation continues today with the institutions of the electoral college and
especially the US Senate, where the population of several small easily manipulated states can
hold equal power to representatives of states with many times more people. In our times the
circumstances often result in gridlock when the Senators from progressive states refuse to
compromise with these who represent minority viewpoints.
Warren Buffett and other billionaires who are socially committed should endorse Senator
Warren's proposal and her candidacy. Let Trump call her names; she knows what she's doing and
is truly on our side.
The national debt as a % of GDP was higher after WWII than it is now. Then we had three
decades of prosperity along with a steady decline in the debt. How? High marginal tax rates.
Since Reagan's election the debt has steadily increased, so that now it's almost as high as
it was in 1945. We solved this problem before, we can solve it again. Warren and AOC are
right on.
There is a very simple logic to focus on; The corruption of Republicans from campaign
donations to legislation as directed by wealthy's lobbyists enriching their wealthy
benefactors, to gross wealth inequality as a result, is overwhelming justification to get
that wealth back to the nation through progressive taxation. Tax the wealthy before they
export America's wealth. It isn't trickling down as much as trickling Up and Out of the
country.
The idea that a couple of extra percentage points of taxes on fifty million dollars could
be considered to be outrageous shows how radical the right-wing has become in this
country.
Someone who has that much income- I was going to say "earned", but it's the lower-class
working people who earn it for them- would not even miss that money. And how much money can
you actually spend in a way that makes you happy, or happier, anyway?
In real life, Obama already increased taxes for the extreme rich, and Hillary's campaign
agenda included additional tax increases. So this is merely a logical continuation of what
Democrats have always stood for.
I've noticed two things that have happened in my lifetime. Many Billionaires and near
billionaires have proliferated while at the same time social security has become more
precarious and homelessness has exploded.
And of course our overall national debt has dramatically increased. Nobody needs a billion
dollars or even ten percent of it for that matter. Not sure if Warren's plan is the best but
it would generate a ton of money to improve the collective good and it still wouldn't dent
the billionaires much.
The downside to this proposal is that my newest Bugatti Veyron I was planning to
gold-plate may have to be silver-plated instead. Worse, my tenth beach house estate I was
planning on building on the island I purchased off Fiji may have to be scaled back to a
bungalow occasionally rented out to cover the utilities. Oh, the pain. And forget about me
trying a hostile takeover of a major media outlet I will not name.
Prof. Krugman, why do you give credit to Elizabeth Warren's party rather than to Elizabeth
Warren herself? Her party will deserve credit if they can get beyond the corporatists and
nominate her. Otherwise, no. Last night on Lawrence O'Donnell, Sen. Warren explained how the
wealthy have manipulated the system for years to accumulate more and more wealth.
Their lobbyists persistently ask Congress for small, subtle changes in the law that
benefit them. Because the individual changes seem minor, Congress often goes along, but, over
the years, they add up to major benefits allowing the wealthiest to accumulate more and more
assets.
Billionaire Howard Schultz's ability to self-fund a presidential campaign and the Koch
political network's efforts to make its own preferred policies exemplify another reason for
taxing the wealthiest. They can and do use their vast resources to cause significant harm to
the country.
Watched Sen. Warren on MSNBC last night and she did well to explain her plan to us
"regular folks," rare for a politician. Just ask Paul Ryan.
This plan can work if we don't let Republicans lie about its benefits. Nail the Fox crew
to the wall in siding with their uber rich boss Murdoch, who loathes the plan (I wonder why).
This plan can work if it still contains tax break goodies for the 90%---all levels. We all
have to join together and we all have different economic concerns. That's a fact.
This plan can work if the public realizes it prevents tapping into Social Security or
Medicare or cutting benefits. This plan can work if we can hear over and over again how the
money will be spent on climate change, healthcare, college tuition, infrastructure, cyber
security, and poverty, to name a few. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. This plan will work if they
point to the Republican tax debacle giveaway of 2018 did NOTHING to help any of those
problems but was a major giveaway to the rich who did not reinvest into the economy but
cashed in instead.
The ripple effects of more fair, adequate, progressive tax rates are huge throughout the
society. Low tax rates and tax havens for the rich and corporations lets mega donors keep
increasing their donations (investments) in our politicians and elections, thus their
dominance over lawmaking.
This effectively subverts our professed ideals of equality and citizen influence. It
subverts our constitution, bill of rights, and the safeguards of our 3 equal branches. Big
money values infect our executive, legislative and judicial branches. The S. Court legalized
unlimited donor money (investments) in our elections, pretending that any limits would
subvert the 1st Amendment's Free Speech. We see the effects on tax laws and weak regulations
giving huge advantage to the donor elites. In effect they are regulating our govt.
You are wrong in every argument you make. You don't live in isolation, you live in an
organized society that makes your wealth possible. There would be no wealth in the US if we
didn't have a functioning society, and there would be no functioning society without taxation
and government functions. And "the rich" didn't go anywhere in the fifties and sixties when
the taxation was much higher than today. Also these 0.1 to 0.01% that Warren is proposing to
tax don't pay vast majority of the taxes, it's the upper 10% that pays the majority.
I agree that the tax rates from the 1950's were economically, fiscally and socially sound.
Were it not a violation of the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, I would propose a
more rigorous tax be applied to the Kochs and the Adelsons. When it comes to spending more on
Medicare (which I interpret to mean more than the current 17-18% of GDP), however, we should
not. I recently had a health problem while traveling in Germany. I spent 4 days in a teaching
hospital (University Clinic of Bonn--UKB). Not only did I receive excellent care, which my
American doctor told me was as good as any care available here, but the bill came to around
$4300 (€3700). That included three diagnostic procedures. The Medicare-approved payments
for the same care would have been about $28,000. Throwing more money down the bottomless pit
of U.S. medical practice is futile. The proceeds of such a capital levy as that proposed by
Ms.Warren would be better spent on addressing hunger, on infrastructure and on retiring some
of the national debt
A tax on significant accumulated wealth is past due. The same for inherited wealth.
Apparently the hated "Death Tax" doesn't go far enough. Many self-made millionaires promote
the benefits of pulling one's self up by one's boot straps. Why are they so adamant about
denying the opportunity to their children?
When Warren Buffett turned over much of his wealth to charity through Bill Gates, he was
asked if he wasn't giving away his children's inheritance. Buffett responded, (paraphrase,)
"My children have enough to do whatever they want. They do not have enough to do nothing." In
my perfect world, it would be difficult to be very rich or very poor, and no one would ever
go without.
Nice headline---Eliz Warren does Teddy Roosevelt--- who broke up the trusts in the
progressive era. And Bernie Sanders aimed to do Franklin Roosevelt. Sanders had the quixotic
idea to restore the New Deal. But he was soundly bashed and trashed by Krugman and most NYT
columnists/reporters.
Even if he wasn't their ideal candidate, his proposals should have been given the respect
of serious discussion, like we now are getting for Ocasio and Warren. Do a compare and
contrast on policy---Warren and Sanders. Interesting to see what we can learn.
Speaking of billionaires, I just heard Howard Schultz on NPR trashing Warren's wealth tax
plan. So what does this say? Even a so-called progress wealthy person really doesn't want to
give up a scintilla of coin. I think the counter-argument, that increasing the income of the
0.1% with tax breaks, does not lead to significant increases in prosperity for everybody -
the "lifts all boats" ruse. A recent article in the NY Times shows that this is the case.
That is, yachts are being lifted, dinghies are getting shredded by their propellers.
Ignoring the irrelevance of the Teddy Roosevelt comparison (hardly has anything to do with
the rest of his article anyway), this is pretty good from a guy who did all he could to kill
Bernie against Hillary. Bernie would have said pretty much the same as Warren then and
probably would agree with the proposals now. So Dr K, good to have you back in the midst of
the progressives and assume you had a lapse of reason for the past 3 or 4 years. Saez,
Piketty and Zucman are fantastic. I am delighted the first two are helping Warren. Ps. All
three deserve the Nobel Prize. At least as much as you did.
I was disappointed that she didn't run in 16. She knows that large swaths of our
population are under-educated, superstitious, and under the impression that their little
arsenals will make a dent should their conspiracy theories that heroically place them behind
bushes at Lexington and Concord at odds with the US government somehow come to pass. As
someone who has taught school, she appears to understand that trying to engage the back row
not only fails to produce positive results but also annoys and appalls those who showed up in
good faith. Similarly, she appears to know that the best way to enlighten is to lay out the
facts as accessibly as possible and trust that those viewing the facts can come to logical
conclusions. Note that if her theory is fatally flawed, so is the Republic. Adlai Stevenson,
when told that every thinking American would vote for him, reportedly was chagrined and noted
that to win he needed a majority. That was in the 1950's, when sensible tax policies had not
been hijacked by dark messaging funded by those who had so much to gain if American safety
nets such as Social Security and, in the 1960's, Medicare, could be misconstrued as the
insidious tentacles of the Red Menace. The messengers of deceit, thanks to Citizens United,
no longer have to whisper doom from the shadows. Rest assured that if EW moves toward the
nomination we will be frightened by slick ads that equate gross wealth not with a cancerous
concentration but with American lifeblood.
@JW Not sure why anyone on the left sneers at Sanders. Did you know that Sanders has an
approval rating of something like 80% in Vermont, a state that used to be full of Republicans
and still has plenty of conservatives? People who pay serious attention to Sanders like and
respect him. We'll actually be very lucky if we get someone with Sanders' magnetism. If you
listen closely, his anger is at injustice, not at other people. He cares about everyone.
Why do we have college football coaches making $6million per year ? Because slightly
lesser coaches make $5million per year. They could all get by very nicely on a quarter
million per year. It's the same with the 1% : they need their fortune only in comparative
terms. In the meantime 80% of us live in an economy comprising about 20% of our country's
wealth, a very poor country in itself indeed.
Liz has always been ahead of the curve. She knows well that it's time for Democrats to
right the ship of state by reducing income and wealth inequality before it sinks our
democracy. Go Liz! Go Dems! Go big .. before it's too late!
"...public opinion surveys show overwhelming support for raising taxes on the rich." Yet,
congress refuses to support such tax reform. I guess that tells us that most politicians are
serving and protecting their wealthy political donors rather than our country.
One summer in Sigourney, Iowa, when I was a small boy, my grandfather took me into the
library Carnegie built and talked about it with great pride. By the way, he served in both
world wars and was a prominent Republican. Oh, how times have changed.
This is going to be a tough choice for average voters. Work till the day you die, live in
squalor and penury in old age as the social safety net is cut, and condemn your family to
ever decreasing living standards -- or in the alternative, tax the accumulated wealth of
billionaires. Decisions, decisions, decisions...
RICH- THE ANSWER IS NOT CLASS WARFARE VS THE RICH...I'm not rejecting this proposal out of
hand but Warren/Picketty have been putting the cart before the horse-she needs to identify
and focus on a fiscal need, THEN assemble tax policy to pay for it in an earmarked way...and
it has to be gradual, ideally phased in over 10 plus years. Suggestions ? What do we need to
establish Medicare for all ? Or address infrastructure problems over next 10-20 years ? Or
make SS solvent ? Determine the revenue you need, not the "revenge" you might want vs the
"rentiers" - and I think a very good place to start would be top tax advantages accounts very
heavily at high rates.Its absurd Mitt Romney has like what $200 million in his IRA and hes
only taking the RMD ?? Tax any income to an IRA with a balance over say $10 million....nobody
needs a tax break at that level.
But billionaires are the job creators, the noble stewards of finance and cap... and I'm
laughing. Tax the rats. If they complain, tax them more. Let them move to Singapore and share
their crocodile tears with crocodiles (does Singapore have crocodiles?)
America's oligarchs have given the working class 40 years of wage slavery and we've given
them a life in the clouds. Time to renegotiate.
It's I thought was about taxing the rich more, not only on high incomes but on high net
worth also. Rajiv said about how the rich donate to causes that reduce their taxes, by say,
electing more tax-cutting Republicans. The Koch brothers are good examples. I didn't quite
get your criticism of Rajiv.
This column " Elizabeth Warren does Teddy Roosevelt " says a lot about Professor Warren
but very little about Teddy. I read a column yesterday by Charlie Pierce where he goes into
detail about TR`s New Nationalism speech.
There are parts of this speech that are real eye openers such as - The true friend of
property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not
the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man's making shall be the
servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must
effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.
Or- We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people
may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their
management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be
passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes;
it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate
expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service
corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political
affairs. This speech spends a lot of time praising the Saviors of our Country, The Civil War
Veterans. And it also says a lot about the proper place for Capital and Corporations,
servants not masters.
I might agree with you if this was a momentary phenomenon, but it's not. The imbalance
that is finally plain to all began with subtle changes in the balance between capital and
labor in the early 1970s. The truly rich understood what they were doing. They found a
fulcrum that allowed them to pry money and power from the increasingly vulnerable middle and
lower classes, so they did. To correct this by less drastic means will take at least that
long again. I doubt we can wait another 45 years, so yes. We need to use the taxation
authority as the fulcrum to pry back the people's fair share. There is no other option as far
as I can see.
Your characterization of the argument as suggesting that "we should just take all the
money from individuals because we can" is as complacent as your reference to Lenin and Mao.
Did you miss the part where Krugman points out that we have already used progressive taxation
in this country to advance the collective economic good? U.S. economic policy from the Great
Depression to Reagan unleashed a rising tide that truly floated all boats in the U.S.
economy.
It was the gratuitous tax giveaways to the wealthy advocated by Milton Friedman, among
others, that gave our wealth distribution its present hourglass configuration.
Let's add another thing: scrap the cap on the amount of wages subject to the 6.2%
Social Security tax, currently set at $128,400. Why should someone making $20 million a year
only pay the SS tax on the first $128,400? Scraping the cap would make SS solvent forever,
and could even reduce the percentage we're taxed.
@Robert Elizabeth Warren is a good explainer, and when she starts banging on a point she's
convincing. Importantly, she doesn't do it just once, she makes it a theme to be
hammered.
A great lesson of the Vietnam War was that it is *repetition* that drives change -- in
that case, TV news repeatedly showing flag-draped coffins coming home, covering marching
protesters, exposing atrocities, etc.
Whether through timidity or laziness or slavishness to big money donors, Democrats have
failed to create a momentum on the idea of wealth inequality that would persuade the public.
This will change with Elizabeth Warren and, if he chooses to run, Bernie Sanders. In this
regard, a prediction: At some point before November 2020, we will hear the phrase "I welcome
their hatred."
Far from radical, the ideas of Warren, Sanders, and AOC are sensible, logical, and fair.
Bring on any politician who means business such as these proposals and can articulate them,
isn't a billionaire already, and doesn't have a tawdry history of being entangled with Wall
Street, and watch him/her win.
Progressive taxation isn't all that progressive anymore. Capital gains and even earned
income of incredible amounts of money as well as stock options are taxed at low rates. In
case no one has noticed, the AMT is a bust. It doesn't work and when it does, it harms the
upper middle class rather than the super-rich.
The "high-end earners" pay a lot (but not enough) because they are the only ones who have
so much income that taxing them does not adversely affect the economy. We have rich folks who
can afford giant yachts and not so rich folks who can't survive an unexpected $400 bill. That
is not the way the economy should work. Eventually, income inequality will even weaken
corporate profits and destroy the economy. Even large corporations need customers who can buy
their products.
FDR 2.0 must address the social class the Great Recession created. Those are the now 50-60
year olds and millennials who lost jobs, pensions, and are still underemployed and in the gig
economy.
Starting in ten years, if nothing is done,very will have 95 million or so homeless.
Leaving it to states to construct affordable housing won't do. We need Universal Basic
Income. This is needed regardless of whether the GOP and Trump's scams cause a depression.
Bernie and Elizabeth would easily demand Congress act on these ideas. Bloomberg and Schultz?
Not on your life. A decent future is progressive. We need FDR 2.0. we need to be done with
triangulation.
The GOP is an untrustworthy partner. --- Things Trump Did While You Weren't Looking [2019]
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-3h2
Let's hope Warren succeeds, whether she becomes President or not. I recall that under
Eisenhower-era rates of taxation, the middle class and the working class had a lot better
deal than we have today. Heck, we even had a better deal under Nixon-era rates of taxation.
It's weird to be nostalgic for Nixon, but look at what's in the White House now.
Thanks for a great column again, and yes, Ms. Warren in on the right track. Now if we
could only get the corporate media to stop trivializising her policies as "nerdy" we might
get somewhere.
While Warren's proposal and ACO's marginal tax ideas both have merit, let's be honest-
ideas such as these have no chance until campaign finance reform occurs. Given the current
composition of the SOCTUS that seems impossible for several decades, as the obscenely rich
simply buy the government they want.
I suggest that you rethink your position. I appreciate the frustration with the current
system but the public school system is habitually underfunded. The $40k is not a direct
benefit to each child. Look into that. And maybe look at Finland where schooling is
considered one of the most important benefits to a country. As a result you see the best
university graduates going into teaching because they make a very good salary and they are
supported by an administration that supports their efforts, efforts that come with passion
for helping kids.
A 2% tax on wealth is not much more than what many of us pay the financial industry to
'manage' our savings. The investment funds take their percentage, and the companies managing
the portfolio take theirs. Small investors tend to pay a higher percentage in fees than
larger investors. When all is taken into account, people living paycheck to paycheck pay the
highest percentage, of what ends up being zero wealth. This 'wealth tax' would help rectify
the imbalance.
I'm very impressed with Elizabeth Warren,not just for her tax proposals, but because she
is so intelligent - and genuine. Some say that she is too heady to win but she certainly has
more charisma than Adlai Stevenson, who lost in the 1950s because he was too intellectual.
And he didn't have a catchy slogan such as "I Like Ike." Unfortunately, it's all about how
politicians are perceived. I would like to see Warren more poised and not afraid to express
her sense of humor.
If talent and drive - particularly talent - were the deciding factor in wealth
accumulation, the descendants of Fred Trump would be living on the street.
We have a Carnegie library in our small town of 2400 in rural Indiana. It is still in use
as a community resource center and town history museum. It is a beautiful sturdy brick
building and I assume it will be around for 100 more years. We just outgrew it and had to
build a new one. Carnegie will be remembered for this, not his great wealth. Same with Gates
and Buffett.
I've generally been impressed with Warren's economic analyses, going back a couple of
years before she ran for Senate. A close version of this plan deserves support. If it seems
"radical," it's probably because the USA drifted so far to the right. I blame disco and
"Grand Theft Auto."
Her tax proposal would be a nightmare to implement. How do you value thinly traded assets
(real estate, art, antiques, etc.)? Hire a valuation expert? Have the IRS contesting it every
year? Litigate? Please, tax all dividends as ordinary income, eliminate/change the duration
for long term cap gains treatment, make inherited assets have a zero cost basis, etc. Simple
to implement, enforce, ideas.
In 1906, Representatives and Senators did not spend 4.5 days a week, every in a cubicle,
begging for money, calling rich people all day. We have elected telemarketers. (no insult
intended to telemarketers.)
It's not surprising that "the usual suspects" are already trying to disarm Elizabeth
Warren's well thought out tax plan. Many American billionaires are nouveau riche, and don't
have the sense of responsibility that the very wealthy used to feel towards the less
fortunate. And the Republican party is right there egging them on to resist fair
taxation--like Elizabeth Warren's proposal.
I'm all for her. Warren is by far the smartest presidential candidate in the Democratic
pack and I'm all for supertaxing the superrich -- as well as making mega-corporations pay the
proper taxes they've been evading for so long.
The confiscation of excessive wealth is exactly the point and that point is a practical
one -- to mitigate the tendency of unregulated large scale economies to form parasitic
aristocracies that lead to resource deprivation in vast portions of the society's population.
And this is not a scapegoating of the wealthy, it is refusing to worship them, it is to call
them back to Earth and ask of them what is asked of each of us.
"Malefactors of great wealth," Theodore Roosevelt called them. Prosperity that delivers
unbelievable amounts of wealth to a very few while the other 99% struggle is not
sustainable.
TR was no wild-eyed Socialist: he was a man of wealth and property and wished to remain
so. He and FDR were both blue-blooded aristocrats. Both were saving capitalism by restraining
its excesses.
Whether you realize it or not, the good old USA takes away the wealth of individuals and
hands it over to the government to allocate. The rest of your statement, about tyrants, is
just wrong. You are equating communism with taxation, a silly thing to do. Educate
yourself.
I agree with you 1000%. I'm tired of people arguing that certain persons would not be good
candidates because they sound too smart. That's the dumbest argument I've heard so far. If
someone sounds smart, then GOOD. I hope they ARE smart.
Right now we are a laughing stock of the world because our leaders are actually proud
to sound stupid and boorish. Out with charisma and in with intellect and expertise, please. I
wouldn't want Tom Hanks performing brain surgery on me, nor do I want him in the White House
(much as I enjoy seeing him on the big screen
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This
isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is about saving democracy. The concentration of wealth
parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic climate change
with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms.
The challenge will be no less difficult, replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and
greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their battle cry
is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and
the demise of civilization rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious
greed. Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out by a rational majority who now
see the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for
their children if we continue to emulate ostriches.
Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social
dysfunction and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all
of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery in servitude to our one percent
masters.
Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she
isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our
future.
the two issues, inequality of wealth and global warming, are related. The vast wealth of
the Koch Brothers enables them to drown out rational debate with propaganda. Propaganda must
be abolished.
@FunkyIrishman I think Trump intentionally or inadvertently has destroyed anything
resembling the status quo. It's the political equivalent of Newton's Third Law of Motion:
that for every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Trump is the ugly face of unbridled power and privilege, leavened only by vainglory
ignorance.
He's the equivalent of melting icecaps and stranded polar bears when it comes to the
concentration of wealth and economic climate change. His utter failure will be the rational
majority's success in plowing a better and more equitable path forward. There's been nothing
more radical than Trump. He's made radical solutions compelling and necessary. And
inevitable.
@Yuri Asian: "This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and
greed." Their is plenty of power, privilege and "greed" in our nation's capital, and it is
practiced daily by individuals who are elected and un-elected.
@Jim Thanks for your reply and appreciation. I'm lucky to be an Editor's Pick as there are
so many great comments by thoughtful and articulate NYT readers, particularly those who
follow Krugman's columns. I agree with your sense of wealth as a social disease that's highly
contagious. We need a vaccine and I hope Sen. Warren is it and she inoculates a strong
majority by 2020.
November 2018 has Come; 2020 is Coming Vallejo Jan. 28
@Anne-Marie
Hislop
I agree, Anne - Marie. There was a time when being rich carried a responsibility to
contribute more to the world than those with less; a responsibility to serve society overall,
and one's country and community in particular. Also the rich were expected to have better
manners and more discerning taste than those who worked because they had the free time to
study and model grace and refinement.
In addition, the wealthy were expected to be patrons of the arts, the sciences, and
religion by contributing money and time to support practioners, research, and experimentation
in these areas.
Finally, the wealthy were expected to raise children who were role models, leaders, and
volunteers who contributed emotionally and spiritually to their schools and communities.
Compare Franklin D. and Eleanor Roosevelt to Paris Hilton or the tRump family.
Amen and hallelujah, and I'm an atheist. For those asleep or oblivious, we're in the new
gilded age. But faux gold, as evidenced by the occupant sitting in the Oval Office.
These " Job Creators " are creating Jobs only for shady attorneys and accountants
specializing in creative mathematics, sham Corporations, Trusts and TAX avoidance. See: the
Trump Family.
What's the average, law abiding citizen to do ??? Absent actually eating the Rich, WE must
overhaul the entire system.
Warren is very nerdy, and very necessary. Unfortunately, the great majority of Men will
not vote for any Woman, not yet. See: Trump. She would be a most excellent choice for VP, the
back-up with a genius IQ and unstoppable work ethic. President ??? A modern day, working
man's Teddy OR Franklin Roosevelt, and His name is Senator Sherrod Brown, Of the very great
state of Ohio. MY native state. Think about it, it's the perfect pair.
I particularly like Elizabeth Warren's ability to talk policy. But as a career academic
I also realize that she sounds to most like a law professor giving a lecture. Unfortunately,
I don't think this is a winning formula but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Yesterday a billionaire threatened the Democratic Party with certain defeat in the 2020
Presidential election if the Party chose a candidate not to his liking. Increasing
concentration of wealth in the hands of a few will ultimately spell the end of our
democracy.
If there were ever a politician for our time, the second and more egregious gilded age,
it should be Elizabeth Warren. She INVENTED the Consumer Financial Protection Burueau! She
has studied the big banks and Wall Street for decades! She knows how they operate better than
anyone on the planet. She is the Teddy Roosevelt of our time, but are we smart enough to
elect her?
My wife and I find Warren to be the most impressive candidate we've seen in a long time.
She has the mastery of detail that can actually move our country to where it should be. No
lazy demagoguery, either -- and she communicates well.
The primary purpose of taxes should be to raise necessary revenues, not the confiscation
of "excessive" wealth. Making the case for the moral and practical necessity to contribute
more would be more effective than the tiresome scapegoating of the wealthy.
@RR I happen to live in one of those Scandinavian paradises. I, nor my family, have ever
had a problem with ''care''. We also have higher education paid for through a moderately
higher tax structure. (perhaps 10% average higher than the U.S.) I sleep like a baby and all
is taken care of. (as well as 5 weeks vacation per year) You are welcome to visit
anytime.
@Shiv, the wealthiest 20% of Americans also have about 90% of the wealth (as of 2013,
probably higher now). According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 20% in income paid about
87% of individual federal income taxes in 2018. But income tax is just a portion of tax.
Personal income taxes were about 48% of federal revenues in 2017, payroll tax was 35%.
Since payroll taxes are regressive, the top 20% of income tax payers pay a considerably
lower percentage of total taxes than the percentage of the nation's wealth they control.
Saying those paying more in taxes than they receive in direct benefits and services are
'paying all the taxes' is simplistic and deceptive. It isn't even accurate to say that they
are completely funding the transfers and services to the bottom 50%, since the federal
government operates at a deficit.
The deficit is covered in large part by debt owed to the social security fund, which is
funded through payroll taxes. When you include state and local taxes, it looks like the
percentage of total taxes paid by each income quintile is not far off from the percentage of
total income that they bring in.
We probably all remember the scene where Chinatown's detective, J. J. Gittes, asks the bad
guy, Noah Cross, "How much are you worth?" And Cross says, "I've no idea."
There are two take-aways from this. One is the low marginal utility of wealth at Mr.
Cross's level. This is what makes the optimal progressivity of a wealth tax positive. But the
second is the literal take-away: he really doesn't know. Nobody knows.
So, as Prof. Piketty points out (pp. 518ff of his book), the value of even a nominal
wealth tax in terms of transparency -- forcing the system to determine what the distribution
of wealth actually is -- is substantial, aside from revenue generation. If we're going to
give wealth a vote, via Citizens United etc., then wealth should at least have to
register.
As this op-ed shows, even a majority of Republicans ALREADY supports this idea. So the
problem is not so much getting rid of the GOP's fake news, but having a voter turnout where
the demographics of those who vote reflect the demographics of the entire population. In
2016, a whopping 50% of citizens eligible to vote, didn't vote. And the lack of political
literacy among many progressives has certainly been a factor here. So what is needed is for
ordinary citizens to start engaging in real, respectful debates with their family, friends,
neighbors, colleagues etc. again, to make sure that everybody votes. Only then will we have
more impact on what happens in DC than Big Money.
This is a superb insight you are providing....the 'critique' of Late Capitalism from the
perspective of 'Systems Stability'. I work in the field of Distributed Systems Management
though Cloud for Living. The way with Distributed Decision Making is, in a number of
situations it is a lot more resilient and powerful. There are advantages of Command &
Control decision making (war for example). But in Late Capitalism that concentration of
Decision Making in hand of few has gone too far.
To understand all this, to figure out the relevance of Distributed Decision Making, to
articulate all this to masses and then to formulate sane policy proposals out of all that -
that is not a simple task. So Sen. Warren, please continue the 'nerding'. I am Kamala Harris
constituency, but the intellectual heft Warren is bringing to this campaign; I love that. She
needs to bring her such big guns for a couple of marquee social issues as well as about
America's Foreign Policy. Obviously, it cannot degenerate into 63 details policy papers like
HRC.
The trick is to make the campaign about few core issues and then there to 'have the house
cleaned' - completely worked out theory, understanding, explanation and policy proposals.
Hope E. Warren does that, she is capable no doubt. (Predictable election cycles - such a good
thing with American System....for a while just to think and discuss things apart from the
Orange Head in White House - it is so refreshing...)
J suspect that the notion that proposals to raise taxes sharply on the wealthy are too
left-wing for American voters is wishful thinking or propaganda by the wealthy, on whom many
pundits and analysts rely, one way or another, for their jobs. "It's difficult to get a man
to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." I don't know
whether I agree with Warren on enough things to support her, but I hope this idea influences
the Democratic platform and becomes reality.
@Tom The current Republican Party is toxic – to democracy, truth, ethics, human
health, human survival, equality, education, nature, love... most anything a decent person
values. We can get rid of it and still have a two-party system of reasonable people who
disagree on the best way to solve problems.
I read somewhere that the Davos crowd was intent on speeding up the development of robots
to do those jobs so they wouldn't have to deal with pesky humans who want an occasional
break.
As a person who has done fairly well, there is no end to your "needs" once your start
getting wealthy. Let's take flying. First, you are happy to get a deal every now and then on
a flight to Hawaii. After a while, you earn status, so now you want to be first in line, have
baggage privileges and get into premium economy with an extra 5 inches of leg space. Then,
it's enough status to "earn" business class upgrades. Next you have to have business class on
every flight, so you pay up. There's first class, but now you can afford NetJets where you
get fractional ownership of a jet to fly almost anytime you like. If you get even wealthier,
you get your own jet with an on demand staff. It's "worth it" as your time is valuable. It
goes on and on. Every time you get more, you can't live without it. You feel like you deserve
it because you've worked so hard for that money. Knowing some of those super rich, they will
complain about those fascist attacking their success. They "donate" a lot to candidates whose
job it is to protect their wealth. While Warren's ideas via Piketty are really interesting,
maybe we need to work on our culture and values so people understand what they are doing when
they expect that jet with a staff that waits in them like royalty. Then let's invest in the
IRS to stop the cheating that deprives our citizens of at least $200 billion/year. After
that, let's look at closing loopholes and increasing taxes.
Until we get the money out of elections, the moneyed will control those elected. I'm not
sure what our elected officials are more afraid of - meeting with their electorate and facing
our anger, or voting against Grover Norquist et al.
During the primaries and the subsequent campaign, Democratic candidates should run
explicitly and continually as new Teddy Roosevelts, using his words and images of him --
presenting the Democratic Party as the Roosevelt Republican alternative when it comes to
taxation policy. It would reduce right-wing attempts to cast them as Maduros-in-waiting to
pure late-night comic fodder: which is what they properly are. In fact, they should identify
past Republican champions of as many of their policy proposals as possible and run as
"Democrats: the Real Republicans."
Warren, Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie have blown open up a discussion that had been locked
down since Reagan -- tax the rich. Krugman is too timid.
Time to radically redistribute wealth from the capitalist class to the people in the form
of jobs and social benefits.
Tax the banks and corporation to 40+% and end all tax incentives -- corporate welfare.
Apple used its tax break to buy back stock to enrich investors. Facebook bought up
competitors like Instagram and suppresses start-ups. A hedge fund bought Toys R Us, loaded it
with debt, then bankrupted it.
The right-wing turn of rural white Americans is largely due to economic anxiety resulting
from the industrialization of agriculture and global commodification of grain -- all the
profits leave farm communities for mega-corporations based in cities and Wall Street, as well
as global capitalist de-industrialization.
Americans on both the right and left believe the system is rigged, because it is. Warren's
tax on personal assets is the first baby step. To win 2020, Democrats have to secure the vote
of minorities, women, and Millennials, and peel off some white working-class voters. They
have to fight for working people against the capitalists.
And we have to keep educating people, in large part at taxpayers expense, so they can
continue to speak up as you have. The idea that everything, education, healthcare,
prescriptions, housing, food, etc has to be on a max-out-profit basis is not sustainable for
a decent society. If you look into the history of successful billionaire families who might
profess that government should not be used to create equal financial opportunity, you may
find that they have benefited from U.S. government policies themselves to get to where they
are. So why prevent others from having the opportunity to join them ?
@Bill A small transaction tax on sales of stocks would not raise that much money. What it
would do is much more useful -- put program trading and the arbitraging of tiny, tiny price
differences on huge, huge trades out of business. The sort of liquidity they provide is not
needed by the market and is not worth the price we pay for it.
Absolutely agree with R. Law--the carried interest loophole has got to go. That's probably
contributed more to the aggrandizement of oligarchical fortunes than just about anything
else. But I'd also add two more modest suggestions: --Eliminate the cap on individual Social
Security contributions. There's no reason it should fade to black at $132,900 gross annual
income. It should be applicable to ALL earned (and unearned) income. --Institute a small
stock trade/financial transactions tax; even a 0.1% rate here would raise significant
revenue, and it also might curb a lot of wild equities speculation. But, of course, none of
this is likely until we can get big money out of politics; it's impossible to get
representatives to represent their actual constituents, rather than their oligarchic campaign
funders, if the latter are the prime source of campaign money. So, as the risk of repeating
myself: --Publicly funded elections, with low three digit limits on individual campaign
contributions and NO corporate, organizational, church, or (yes, even) union contributions.
No PAC's, 501's, or any other letter/number combinations. --Reinstatement of the Fairness
Doctrine. --Legislative repeal of the Citizens United decision.
@Tom "Wealthy people reinvest their money in economic ventures that grow their wealth,
which generates greater productivity while creating jobs and wealth for the society." Like,
for example, the investments that caused the 2008 Republican Great Recession for example?
That plan hasn't worked since Reagan. And taxing 2%-3% of enormous wealth is hardly taking
away "all the wealth of individuals!" We also need to roll back estate tax to pre-Reagan
policies.
So businessmen and financiers need checks and balances, and these checks and balances
include high taxation and occasionally breaking a business into pieces because it is too big
and powerful. We broke up Rockefeller's company. We should be thinking about Amazon, Google,
Facebook, and even Microsoft. We are using Word and Excel because Microsoft owned the
operating system they run under, not because they were better products. Now we are stuck with
their strengths, weaknesses, and odd habits.
Boy do I wish I could share Dr, Krugman's hopefulness. But after the Supreme Court
decision equating money with speech and one of the two major political parties literally a
"wholly owned subsidiary" of those very 0.01%, as the ancestral Scot in laments, "I hae me
doots."
@Blair A Miller....Rewarded for hard work and talent? Well that is the myth. There is a
case to be made that capitalism rewards greedy and unethical people who have a talent for
working the system. There is also no question that it rewards monopolists and the
fortunate.
@Kurt Heck It doesn't. That's precisely why we have to stop the GOP strategy to pass tax
cut after tax cut for the wealthiest all while making life even more difficult for the other,
very hard-working 99%. And if you believe that in order to be a billionaire today you must
work hard, it's time to update your info. Most of them inherited a fortune already, together
with the knowledge needed to engage in financial speculation, which in the 21st century is
totally disconnected from the real economy - or rather, they PAY experts to engage in
financial speculation, and that's it.
It's time for the most industrious to at least be able to pay the bills, get the education
and healthcare they want, and become represented in Congress again. THAT is why we need a tax
increase for the extreme rich, all while increasing the minimum wage, and expanding Medicaid
and Medicare. THAT is how we'll finally become an entirely civilized country too. Not by
adding trillions and trillions to the debt just to make the extreme wealthy even wealthier,
as the GOP just did again.
The NYTimes reported in October, "Over the past decade, Jared Kushner's net worth has
quintupled to almost $324 million. And yet, for several years running, Mr. Kushner paid
almost no federal income taxes." Let's not get lost in the details of how we do it:
taxing wealth, making income taxes more progressive, restoring the estate tax, or something
else. Let's remember that Jared Kushner is the poster boy for our current (extremely unfair)
tax system.
I care about taxes and wealth inequality, so I like that Warren is talking about them. I'm
also a bit of a policy wonk, so I like the fact that Warren focuses on policy issues. As a
classically trained economist, though, I know how quickly others' eyes glaze over when I get
too excited about anything related to finance or economics. The vast majority of people lack
the patience for it. Too many think they understand far more than they really do because they
read a handful of articles and watched CNBC a couple times. And when people believe they
already know something, they're unlikely to greet new ideas with an open mind. A wealth tax
makes sense to me on a lot of levels. I just hope Senator Warren keeps the explanation as
simple as possible. For every wonk she wins over, she risks pushing two rubes away if she
makes it any more complicated. It's unfortunate that we live in the Twitter era of gadfly
attention spans, but we do. Dems need to do a better job of distilling their platform to
bumper stickers. If they do that, the polity might actually remember some of their talking
points.
Win or lose, Elizabeth Warren will bring the lion's share of ideas to this presidential
season. It's one to say that you support a trendy concept, but it's quite another to have
thought through the implications of your proposals - and be prepared to first defend, and
then implement them. Warren is, and will be - from Day 1. We shouldn't settle for "hope and
change" this time; we need a President in 2021 capable of thinking her way through a maze of
societal problems, and unafraid to passionately, untiringly champion her preferred
option.
Paul, as an aside, do you think that we would have lost the House of Representatives in
2010 if someone had opted for that much larger stimulus package that you, Joe Stiglitz and
Robert Reich were recommending (thus causing the economy to more quickly and fully rebound in
time for the midterms)?
@Tom A 2% tax on wealth from $50 million to $1000 million, will have minimal impact on the
mega rich, with hopefully maximum benefit going to those who need government assistance.
The primary purpose of Citizens United was to allow the wealthy a back door into
stealing our public institutions and public contracts along with reducing the taxes on
passive income for their own personal expansion of wealth. While I agree this is a form of
class warfare, the rich have won the war. Instead of thinking of this as confiscation,
consider it insurance for keeping your head up.
As Yascha Mounk has been saying for years, democracy isn't about a firm belief in the
power of the people, or a belief in personal liberty - above all, its support is determined
by one thing: whether it is delivering results for the majority of the population. If it
doesn't, it loses support; and unfortunately, for decades now, it hasn't been delivering
results. Even Obama, the great liberal hope, stacked his cabinet and advisors with the likes
of Geithner, Bernanke, and Sommers, appointing people to the FTC who were too soft to
trust-bust or aggressively tackle mergers. I am of the belief that Trump was a warning. We
got him because ordinary people have been losing faith that the government is working for
them. If we want to regain that faith, we need a government (meaning both an Executive and a
Legislature) that is prepared to go full FDR in 2021. Trust bust corporations that have
decreased power of workers by consolidating labor market, and the power of consumers by
monopolizing goods and services. Expand social security. Cut the red tape to build millions
of desperately-needed housing units. Take away the excess wealth of the plutocrats, and their
political power. Expand voting rights. Make unionization easier, and healthcare more
affordable by socializing it. Without this, we run the risk of losing our democracy. 2020 is
do or die. Warren has a record of fighting for this. She has my vote.
If the people who make their fortunes in America because of Americans don't want to
support the country that helped them perhaps they should consider this: our sweat, our hard
work, and our tears were a vital part of their success. It doesn't matter how brilliant the
idea is or smart the inventor is or how cleverly the product is marketed. If the public isn't
ready for it, it won't sell and money won't be made. There is a lot of luck involved in
making a fortune. Part of that luck depends upon us and our willingness to buy into what is
being sold. Yes, the inventor or the creator has to have the drive to succeed. S/he has to
accept failure, work very hard, and have faith that s/he will succeed.
It's nonsense to claim that Bill Gates would not have created Windows if he knew he'd be
taxed at very high rates. He didn't know if it would succeed as well as it did. The purpose
of taxes is to support the country. It's to have a government that can fund basic research to
help us, create nationwide rules to ensure that milk in New York is milk in North Dakota, and
to regulate those little things like roads, bridges, water safety, and keep the country safe.
Any exceedingly rich corporation or person who doesn't want to support that is not patriotic
in the least. They are greedy.
The American Revolution was a revolt of American born property holders, not of the
peasants or the slaves. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are both very strong on
property rights. The rights of an individual to own property free from seizure by the
government is at the heart of Liberalism. We live in a two party state. If we truly
eliminated the Republican party we'd be no different than China. America only gets better if
the Republican party gets better. The Democratic party could use some improvement too. I
support Warren's tax plan. It's a reasonable and sensible move, not just a bunch of poorly
thought out hot air.
This is but one in a long line of cogent reasonable suggestions to tax mega rich a little
more. Unfortunately while the economics makes sense, these schemes fail politically because
enough of the vast majority of much poorer people in the middle class can be convinced that
there is something unfair by singling out the successful.
The Steve Jobs story, whereby a poor boy with a great idea should be able to make tons of
money. The only way a change will come is if the middle class' eyes can be opened to the fact
that for every Steve Jobs there are thousands of Jay Gatsbys who inherited their wealth and
privilege and who now spend much of their time and money ensuring that the laws are written
so that they can keep their wealth.
The inequity of the present laws, via tax loopholes and corporate subsidies to favour the
very rich should be highlighted, showing the middle class how they are constantly being
ripped off in order to fund the rich.
There are polls and then there is reality. In Alabama in 2003, a newly-elected
conservative Republican governor proposed a constitutional amendment to raise taxes on the
wealthiest Alabamans. The measure was defeated 67.5%-32.5% with low-income voters opposing it
by a significant margin. In Washington in 2010, voters defeated a referendum to impose a
modest income tax on the state's wealthiest residents. (There is no income tax in
Washington.)
It seems unlikely that in the state with the country's most regressive tax system that 65%
of the voters are wealthy. Despite language in the referendum that guaranteed it could never
be applied to lower incomes without a vote of the people and a provision to lower property
taxes by 20%, paranoia, not reason, ruled the day. It lost 65%-35%.
Polling is easy. But when concrete proposals go to the voters, the wealthy interests
overwhelm voters with fear and lies, and the voters, complacent and ill-informed, can be
easily manipulated. Conservative Alabama and liberal Washington State both defeated measures
that would have helped their state finances significantly.
The money raised was to be spent on education, health care for the elderly and other
radical things some of which would have helped the poor, but lower income voters cast their
votes as though, despite their current conditions, they'd be subject to the taxes tomorrow or
next month or next year.
@Acajohn "Why isn't there one billionaire or multi billion dollar company that actually
takes pride in paying their fair share?" Like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the two richest
men in America, who have pledged to follow Carnegie's example, and taken actions to do
so?
The notion that Sanders has no deep understanding of the policies that he champions is a
stroke of common wisdom that is not very wise, as anyone who ever bothered going to he web
site would find. In 2016, at least, it was chalk full of issues and positions with a long
section on how it could be paid for.
Krugman seemed to shun him for reasons that were never clear to me, but Sanders' proposals
had the ear of quite a few economists.
Even Krugman's crush, Thomas Piketty was intrigued. I'm thrilled that both Warren and
Sanders are in this, and if the primary were today I could probably toss a coin. But I find
this constant picking at Bernie Sanders and his "flailing arms" to be grating and uninformed.
It's akin to asking him to just smile more.
Not just Roosevelt. "The consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery
to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing
property... Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all
from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in
geometrical progression as they rise." - Thomas Jefferson, October 28, 1785.
"An enormous proportion of property vested in a few individuals is dangerous to the
rights, and destructive of the common happiness, of mankind; and therefore every free state
hath a right by its laws to discourage the possession of such property." - Benjamin Franklin,
July 29, 1776.
"All property ... seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public
has the right of regulating descents and all other conveyances of property, and even of
limiting the quantity and the uses of it." - Benjamin Franklin, December 25, 1783.
Senator Warren should consider a few adjustments to her plan. First, tax capital gains
income at the same rate as earned income. Eliminate the carried interest deduction and close
some other egregious loopholes (including the new "pass through" income loophole). Finally,
give the wealth tax a nine year period after which it would have to be renewed. Call it a
"Patriotism Tax". Pledge to use it for infrastructure improvements and debt reduction. I
think that could be very popular.
That is a radical plan, one tried many times before. It fails because humans are not
perfect, and not perfectible. They try to accumulate wealth and power, are jealous of each
other's possessions and mates, and try to create circumstances that favor their offspring
over others of the next generation.
The fields of human evolutionary biology and psychology tell us that your plan can not and
will not work. Not only that, countless Utopians have tried this in the past. Most fail
within months, even with a small group of people who all supposedly love one another. All
societies founded on the belief that humans are perfectible have failed. Societies founded on
the belief that humans will be venal, corrupt, and power-hungry tend to have the safeguards
that allow them to survive. That's why the constitution is full of "checks and balances".
Don't think you can replace them with a society of peace and love where we will all live in
quiet harmony. You can only replace them with better checks and balances if you hope to
succeed. John Lennon's "Imagine" is a lovely song. But it's just a wish list, not a
manifesto.
Yes, what kind of person, especially one with obscene wealth, prefers to keep every penny
rather than pay taxes that make our country function? Why isn't there one billionaire or
multi billion dollar company that actually takes pride in paying their fair share?
Sanders said little about taxation. In his debates with Clinton, he advocated scrapping
the ACA and starting de novo, whereas Clinton suggested legislation to improve it. Thanks in
part to Sanders' attacks on Clinton, both personally and on policy, Trump got elected and the
Republicans have tried in every possible way to destroy it. On this issue, will Pelosi and
Warren follow the so-called progressivism of Sanders?
I don't get your criticism of Rajiv either. Rajiv know what he is talking about. The rich
can never have enough; more is not enough. We see it all the time. We need to eliminate the
dynasties and equalize the democracy.
Existing wealth and annual income are two very different things. Both are now problems.
Existing wealth disparity is the accumulation of all the last 40 years of income disparity,
plus the "work the money did" to pile itself up higher. Our laws magnified the wealth
disparity. That was deliberate and calculated. Our laws allow it to pile up without the
former taxation at death to trim it back. We charge only half the tax rate on the "work" of
the money itself, the special "capital gains" rate. It is specially privileged from taxes,
which is entirely new over these last few Presidential Administrations. It was said that
would encourage job growth. It never did. Nobody who knew anything about the subject ever
really believed it would. What is now proposed by Warren is to fix what they so deliberately
broke. This would not come up if they had not done that first. And if we hadn't done this,
we'd have had the job growth this stifled, from the consumer purchasing power it took to pile
up as wealth, much of it speculative and overseas.
Conservative voters are against taxes because *if* they get rich they don't want to pay
them. As a liberal I, on the other hand, would be *delighted* to have to pay this tax!
By all means let's tax the rich. But what I find most alarming is Kamala Harris's call for
yet ANOTHER tax cut for the middle class. Every since the days of Saint Ronnie, Americans
have been misled into believing they deserve tax cut after tax cut. And the result for the
commons (those goods and services that we share) has been disastrous. Americans already pay
lower taxes than most of the developed world. Yet the candidates are also calling for more
benefits: Medicare for All and free college. The defense establishment continues to clamor
for more resources. What we need is to increase taxes on the rich along with a robust tax
enforcement system, so that Americans see that EVERYONE is pulling their weight, according to
their means.
Redistribution of wealth through progressive taxation is as American as apple pie. In
addition to taxing wealth, there should be a significant estate tax on the top 1%. Getting
rich is for many the American Dream, but that does not entitle the rich to endless wealth
forever. Others should have an opportunity to take their shot.
A couple of points: at the turn of the 20th Century (about the time that Teddy
Roosevelt was railing against the rich), John D Rockefeller had more lawyers on staff than
the United States Government. Rockefeller's net worth at that point (they had not yet broken
up Standard Oil at that point), was $1 billion, at a time when the total receipts of the US
Government were $700 billion.
Krugman also mentions Piketty and his book. A central theme in Piketty's book, not
mentioned here, was that there is no countervailing force that naturally takes us back to a
more equitable distribution of wealth.
That only occurred because the world suffered through two world wars, and a depression,
out of which came a determination by FDR to use government as a countervailing force. And so
it is not an accident that the Republican Party is trying to kill government because that is
the only large, countervailing force known to be effective. Do we really want a world where a
Jeff Bezos has more lawyers on staff than the US Government? Don't laugh; something similar
has happened in the past.
@dajoebabe For the last 40 years, we have had the GOP tell us that government is the
problem and lower tax rates will supercharge economic growth. Now we have a nation with a
superpower's army, third rate infrastructure, a porous social safety net and a mediocre
education system. Granted that government cannot solve all problems (nor should it try!), but
the evidence is clear that the effects of our disinvestment in ourselves is now coming to the
fore. If we are truly at the point where raising the marginal tax rate on a very small number
of households will cause economic collapse, then our capitalist system has failed and should
be replaced.
Interesting ideas, but to get Americans (read Republicans) to swallow this whole is
doubtful. Perhaps some marketing is in order. Let's not call this a tax. Let's call it a
gift. High value households would give to the government agency of their choice (Social
Security, Veteran's Affairs, EPA etc..), garner a modest tax credit as in charity donations,
and as a plus receive a full accounting of how their money was spent by an independent
auditor. Their gifts could be publicized on social media, thus generating the kind of
attention that could generate higher and higher donations. Just a thought.
We could also use Teddy Roosevelt's anti-corruption and environmental values as well. I
think he is one Republican completely disowned by the current Republican Party. While I
do not believe Elizabeth Warren has any chance to be President, her candidacy will certainly
force intelligent debate on the Democratic Platform for 2020. She will make a tremendous
Treasury Secretary and break the Goldman Sachs stranglehold on that position.
Let's not stop with progressive taxes on the income and wealth of corporations and
individuals. We need to ban monopolies outright, and limit the market share of oligopolies to
something like 20%. And we should even limit the fraction of a corporations' shares (e.g.
10%) that can be owned by any one entity (corporal or corporate), and make privately-held
corporations go public once they reach a certain size.
There's a lesson we can learn from Mother Nature: "Too big to fail" really means "Too
big to exist"!
Maybe Piketty instead of Teddy Roosevelt -- but the rates for the wealthy should be
higher, especially for passive income, to force the rich if for no other to avoid taxation to
invest their money in the economy.
@Linda: Your comment is just wonderful, and gets to the crux of what is right, fair,
decent, moral. Some super wealthy people will always be superficial and greedy, and others
will always be generous, and have profound character and depth.
People who are remembered with the greatest respect, fondness, reverence, and joy, are not
those who have amassed fortunes, but those who have done what they could with their fortunes,
for those who would never have fortunes. Or people who sacrificed for others, if not with
their fortunes, then by other means. It is not desirable to be remembered for being selfish,
greedy, and financially predatory like trump and his ilk.
Aside from the fact that a a massive concentration of wealth is inimical to a functioning
democracy because it inevitably leads to a concentration of power, if the tax code is meant
to give incentives to productive behavior, what is less of an incentive to being productive
than inheriting hundreds of millions of dollars?
I personally knew an heiress from one of the most famous wealthy families of the 20th
century; the name would be familiar. She was a good person, but a drug addict. So was her
brother. No one needs to start life with a hundred million dollars. It's not healthy.
tax and spend is what a government is for. Spending it on infrastructure as opposed to
increasing the already bloated pentagon budget and not on a wall, would be preferable.
And reallocation, so that for instance teaching becomes a viable career choice again, would
be a very useful government task. I don't know whether mr. Coctosin ever worked in the
private industry but if he did he must have seen a lot of waste. Though willful blindness is
of course "so expected from" the right.
"Conficatory taxes on excessive wealth" is a sin tax-a tax on greed. There is only so
much money on person can use in a lifetime if it is to be more than a competitive status and
power symbol and is not given back as an investment to build society and the future.
The numbers-$50 million are HUGE. Anyone, with that kind of money who could resent paying
1% toward the future and toward society is simply, selfishly and sinfully, GREEDY! It's about
time the excessively wealthy, who do not allow their wealth to trickle down as wages, or even
trickle through the economy as investments for the benefit of society, are taxed because it
has become apparent that only taxes will force them to let go of their wealth.
Trump making his tax returns public has nothing to do with IRS staffing. And yes, a better
staffed IRS does a better job of catching tax cheats. (No idea why they never nailed Trump's
father, though.)
We will only have a government for the people if it's a government BY the people. That
means politicians who REALLY are just like you and me, not always very charismatic, not
always your ideal best friend, or a "savior", or common sense spiritual leader such as
Michelle Obama, but instead people who flaws, all while being decent citizens, with a very
clear moral compass, AND the skills and intellectual capacity to know how to design new,
science-based law projects and how to obtain political agreements in DC without even THINKING
of starting to stop implementing already existing law (= shutting down the Executive branch
of government).
Warren would be an excellent Cabinet member. But people vote for President on an emotional
level, and I don't think Warren has that emotional charisma. It's excellent that she is
running and running early, because that way she can set some of the parameters of discussion,
which is what she's doing now.
Just how much money does somebody really need? The Bezos divorce is going to result in two
people having "only" 70 billion dollars each. 1 billion, 10 billion, 70 billion; at some
point, how can you tell? At some point, doesn't it just become a number?
@Yuri Asian Best comment I have read on this subject, Thank you. It should be understood
that the wealthy just don't care and are very un- American. Wealth in our society will equal
slavery for everyone else and it has already begun. See the republican tax plan if you have
any doubts.
Two points: If you add the compound interest forgone on the amount paid in SS taxes I
wonder if the calculation changes. The wealth of the over 65 group is very differentially
distributed, just like wealth in general. Think what the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, the
Walmart heirs and Warren Buffet do to that distribution.
Just because Ellen is 70 does not mean she is participating in the relative wealth growth
of the over 65 cohort you note. I imagine with few exceptions most very wealthy people are
over 65, but that does not mean the reverse is true, that most over 65 are wealthy or even
comfortable. For a large number SS is their main source of support, and rampant ageism makes
it very difficult for even healthy over 65 years to find a job to supplement it.
Taxing SS is a form of double taxation. People with high incomes could still be taxed on
their income after excluding SS. Or, since you are so concerned about the people collecting
more in SS than they paid in, taxation could start on all benefits exceeding that figure.
(And you seem totally unconcerned with all the people who collect nothing or much less than
they paid in. If you are worried about one group not being in balance you should be equally
worried about the other group not being in balance.
I am ok with both because I consider SS to be an insurance program. I don't pay income
taxes on my insurance proceeds paid for by premiums on which I did pay taxes.
The shutdown taught a clear lesson: people squarely located in the middle class (in this
case, federal workers) cannot afford to miss a single paycheck.
Add that awareness to the cluelessness of the wealthy who, with the attention brought to
them by their position in the trump administration, put that cluelessness on full display --
and add the awareness that the trump tax break benefitted the wealthy only while saddling the
nation with debt -- put those together, and we will find positive support for what amounts to
a relative pinprick of sacrifice from the ultra wealthy, as proposed by Warren and likeminded
Congresswomen.
American public policy is designed to concentrate wealth at the top and impoverish the
bottom. Progressive taxation is but one measure to correct the economic structure that
results in death and destitution, even among fully employed workers. Health care for all and
living wages are additional measures.
Extreme poverty in America is a result of public policy which further enriches the
wealthy. Course correction is a moral imperative.
It's a giant leap to say that a 2% tax or a higher marginal rate is the confiscation of
wealth. It's also a giant leap imply that only the very wealthy reinvest their money. Where
do you think the dividends and gains in your 401K account go? They are reinvested! The key
point is that many of the very wealthy have used their wealth and influence to change the tax
code and other laws to their benefit. There is zero evidence that a lower marginal tax rate
on the wealthy has any correlation to job creation, but there is a very strong correlation
between lower tax rates and income disparity.
Taxes are the necessary fact of a thriving civilization. When confronted by the trained
mindset of anti-tax rhetoric issuing from a clone of selfish leadership, I simply say; if it
were not for taxes, we'd all be driving on rutted dirt roads and dying young. Tax the rich so
they survive the slings and arrows of discontent they created. They will thank us for it
later.
You already pay a wealth tax, if you own a home. It's called "property tax". Why should
the very wealthy not pay a property tax, too? But in the present condition, they do not, and
can easily hide their wealth from view, and pass it to their heirs without paying any tax.
Which just adds and adds to the concentration of wealth among the few.
Of course it makes perfect sense. Which is why those uber-rich people will not allow this
to happen. They'll do everything they can to shut down Ms. Warren. It's what they do
If I were doing tax policy from scratch, I'd include both the Warren wealth tax, a
progressive income tax culminating with the AOC 70% marginal rate, treat capital gains as
regular income, eliminate the carried interest loophole, and investigate the taxing of all
"non-profits" including religious and political organizations. I would replace the standard
deduction and personal exemption with a universal basic income. I would reduce the military
budget and provide at least a buy-in to medicare.
Anything less that than, I don't consider "radical."
If the Democratic party continues to do nothing to address the problem of the top .1
percemt owning 90 percent of American wealth, we are destined to sit idly by as the
heartbreaking inequities and divisions of this country deepen.... and this means, too, that
we will be doing very little to address the deeper causes of a certain kind of American
desperation and violence.
It's time to address the radically warped system with sensible countermeasures. This is,
in my view, a moderate position that moderate, sensible politicians will promote. Doing
nothing to address this enormous problem is the most radical position of all.
I work and pay taxes and have done so for 40 years. I'm happy to pay taxes, not because
I'm dependent on them, but because I realize a few things that make you uncomfortable:
1. No one does it by themselves; we all rely on others at work, at home and in life; we're
part of society; we are not solo warriors on some mystical heroic island
2. Not everyone is as fortunate as I; I'm glad the poor, the disabled, the unlucky, the
elderly, the uneducated and the unskilled can get a modicum of government assistance when
their chips are own
3. Canadians and Europeans and the Japanese do not suffer from 'dependency' syndrome;
they're hardworking people with healthy market economies who have decent government that
regulate healthcare extortion and corporate extortion to a minimum; it's a pretty humane
arrangement
4. Corporations and CEO's have been redistributing upward for about fifty years; 20:1
CEO:worker pay was the 1960's norm....now a 350:1 ration is common.
5. Tax rates for the rich and corporations have collapsed from the 1950's to 2019; the
right-wing pretends they're high, but they're not. 6. America has the greatest health-care
rip-off in the world at 17% of GDP; it's an international 'free-market' disgrace that no
foreign country would touch a 300-foot pole because it would bankrupt them, just as it
bankrupts Americans.
Keep living in a 1787 time tunnel and see where it gets you. Or buy a calendar...and
evolve.
[Drive toward] Equality is the basis of society; it has always been close to my heart.
Thank you, Paul Krugman, for standing clearly for economic equality.
The purpose of taxes is not only to fund public necessities, but also to encourage society
to behave in a manner which is good for all of society.
Thus, in World War 2 income tax was set quite high, to discourage consumption of scarce
resources.
It is not scapegoating the wealthy to have them pay a proportional share of their wealth
to fund the public good, and to, in a small way, discourage inherited wealth. It is through
our society that they are able to accumulate their wealth, it follows that they should have
incentive to preserve and further that society.
I agree completely with a progressive tax on net wealth. Piketty proposed this in "Capital
in the Twenty-first Century" back in 2014. I'm happy to hear that Elizabeth Warren has picked
up the idea.
The elegance of it is that it does not prevent the wealth-motivated from seeking high
incomes and accumulating a lot of wealth in their lifetime. But it reduces the incentive to
earn an ever-higher income, and it prevents the wealthy from creating wealth dynasties.
And consider this: even a 90% tax on inherited wealth would mean, for someone who
accumulated a $10 billion estate, that their heirs would receive a $1 billion inheritance as
a grubstake. Not a bad start in life, if I say so myself.
Almost any tax measure to re-distribute wealth is appropriate in a nation that values
economic justice. However, answering the question of just how people accumulate billions,
while so many others struggle so hard to remain in place. First, it is necessary to dispense
with the fiction that the wealthy earned it so let them keep it.
No one person or one family EARNS billions. The hard work necessary to create wealth
belongs to many hard working and creative people and to numerous public institutions that
make its creation possible.
Both are entitled to a fair share of the wealth they help to create. It is the laws and
even traditions that allow one individual to CAPTURE and keep so much wealth. And those laws
and traditions need to be changed.
Start with a Living Wage plus full benefits for all workers and salary scales that are
reasonable, not the 1:300 that some CEO's currently enjoy. End golden parachutes for retiring
or even fired executives and tax unearned income at the same rate as earned income. Equal
opportunity cannot stand without economic justice.
No, part of the purpose of taxes should be to counteract the normal power of capital
that causes the formation of massive personal fortunes which distort the economy relied on by
all. It's not scapegoating to try to put our economy back in balance, to curtail its division
into the Main St. economy, currently starved by that wealth division so heavily favoring the
fabulously wealthy, and the shadow economy of Wall St. gambling, commodity market
manipulation, and asset ownership.
I like the idea, although it may be very difficult to value certain kinds of assets and
how they may have appreciated. For example, if the Republican Congressman you bought as a
freshman goes on to win a Senate seat, how much would his value have increased?
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Sunday said that President Donald Trump "may not even be
a free person" by 2020, suggesting the president might become ensnared by the special counsel's
investigation before she has a chance to face him in a general election.
"Every day there is a racist tweet, a hateful tweet -- something really dark and ugly,"
Warren said during a campaign event in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "What are we as candidates, as
activists, as the press going to do about it? We're going to chase after those every day?"
She added: "Here's what bothers me. By the time we get to 2020, Donald Trump may not even be
president. In fact, he may not even be a free person."
The jab marks Warren's first foray into campaign-trail skirmishing with Trump since entering
the Democratic presidential fray with a Saturday announcement event in Lawrence, Mass.
During her kickoff speech, Warren, a consumer protection advocate and former Harvard Law
School professor, attacked Trump as being part of a "rigged system that props up the rich and
the powerful and kicks dirt on everyone else."
Earlier Saturday, Trump mocked Warren's rollout and took aim at the controversies
surrounding her past claims of Native American heritage, which intensified Wednesday after The
Washington Post revealed that she had identified herself as American Indian on her Texas State
Bar registration card.
"Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for
President," Trump tweeted. "Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate,
or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore?"
"See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!" the president added, in what many Democrats judged to
be a reference to the forced relocation of several Native American tribes in the Southeast U.S.
in the 1830s known as the Trail of Tears.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Monday her campaign will shun fundraising through
some of the old-fashioned means: dinners, donor calls and cocktail parties.
In an email to supporters Monday, Warren also said she won't sell access to big-name donors
as candidates often do to raise money for a presidential bid.
Warren has demonstrated as much in organizing events where she poses for photos with anyone
who stands in line and requests it. Typically, candidates put a premium on such access,
sometimes charging thousands of dollars for a personal photograph.
"My presidential primary campaign will be run on the principle of equal access for anybody
who joins it," Warren said in a message to supporters.
"That means no fancy receptions or big money fundraisers only with people who can write the
big checks. And when I thank the people giving to my campaign, it will not be based on the size
of their donation. It means that wealthy donors won't be able to purchase better seats or
one-on-one time with me at our events. And it means I won't be doing 'call time,' which is when
candidates take hours to call wealthy donors to ask for their support."
The self-imposed restrictions allow Warren to distinguish herself from the field at a time
when candidates are in a mad race for donations from small donors.
The Democrat, who launched a full-fledged campaign earlier this month, has already vowed not
to take money from lobbyists or super PACs.
She has rejected all PAC money and challenged others in the sprawling field of candidates to
reject PAC money. A group of competitors have said they wouldn't take corporate PAC money --
including Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Amy
Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, a prospective candidate, shattered
records in the 2018 midterms after rejecting PACs and relying on small-dollar donors.
Warren's move, though, takes that promise a step further, saying she won't spend time making
donor calls or that she will host private fundraising dinners or receptions.
While Warren did hold fundraisers in her years as a senator, she hasn't held any since she
first launched her exploratory bid Dec. 31, according to her campaign.
Warren has a proven network of small dollar donors, but she's also seemed to lag others in
the primary field in early fundraising, including Harris and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose
one-day $6 million haul swamped all his competitors in the field.
America invented progressive taxation. And there was a time when leading American politicians were proud to proclaim their willingness
to tax the wealthy, not just to raise revenue, but to limit excessive concentration of economic power.
"It is important," said Theodore
Roosevelt in 1906, "to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes" -- some of them, he declared,
"swollen beyond all healthy limits."
Today we are once again living in an era of extraordinary wealth concentrated in the hands of a few people, with the net worth
of the wealthiest 0.1 percent of Americans almost equal to that of the bottom 90 percent combined. And this concentration of wealth
is growing; as Thomas Piketty famously argued in his book "Capital in the 21st Century," we seem to be heading toward a society dominated
by vast, often inherited fortunes.
So can today's politicians rise to the challenge? Well, Elizabeth Warren has released an
impressive proposal for taxing extreme wealth. And whether or not she herself becomes the Democratic nominee for president, it
says good things about her party that something this smart and daring is even part of the discussion.
The Warren proposal would impose a 2 percent annual tax on an individual household's net worth in excess of $50 million, and an
additional 1 percent on wealth in excess of $1 billion. The proposal was released along with an analysis by
Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman of Berkeley,
two of the world's leading experts on inequality.
Saez and Zucman found that this tax would affect only a small number of very wealthy people -- around 75,000 households. But because
these households are so wealthy, it would raise a lot of revenue, around $2.75 trillion over the next decade.
Make no mistake: This is a pretty radical plan.
I asked Saez how much it would raise the share of income (as opposed to wealth) that the economic elite pays in taxes. His estimate
was that it would raise the average tax rate on the top 0.1 percent to 48 percent from 36 percent, and bring the average tax on the
top 0.01 percent up to 57 percent. Those are high numbers, although they're roughly comparable to average tax rates in the 1950s.
Would such a plan be feasible? Wouldn't the rich just find ways around it? Saez and Zucman argue, based on evidence from Denmark
and Sweden, both of which used to have significant wealth taxes, that it wouldn't lead to large-scale evasion if the tax applied
to all assets and was adequately enforced.
Wouldn't it hurt incentives? Probably not much. Think about it: How much would entrepreneurs be deterred by the prospect that,
if their big ideas pan out, they'd have to pay additional taxes on their second $50 million?
It's true that the Warren plan would limit the ability of the already incredibly wealthy to make their fortunes even bigger, and
pass them on to their heirs. But slowing or reversing our drift toward a society ruled by oligarchic dynasties is a feature, not
a bug.
And I've been struck by the reactions of tax experts like
Lily Batchelder and
David Kamin ; while they don't necessarily
endorse the Warren plan, they clearly see it as serious and worthy of consideration. It is, writes Kamin, "addressed at a real problem"
and "goes big as it should." Warren, says The Times, has been "
nerding
out "; well, the nerds are impressed.
But do ideas this bold stand a chance in 21st-century American politics? The usual suspects are, of course, already comparing
Warren to Nicolás Maduro or even Joseph Stalin, despite her actually being more like Teddy Roosevelt or, for that matter, Dwight
Eisenhower. More important, my sense is that a lot of conventional political wisdom still assumes that proposals to sharply raise
taxes on the wealthy are too left-wing for American voters.
By the way, polls also show overwhelming public support for increasing, not cutting, spending on
Medicare and Social Security . Strange to say, however, we rarely hear politicians who demand "entitlement reform" dismissed
as too right-wing to be taken seriously.
And it's not just polls suggesting that a bold assault on economic inequality might be politically viable. Political scientists
studying the behavior of billionaires
find that while many of them push for lower taxes, they do so more or less in secret, presumably because they realize just how
unpopular their position really is. This "stealth politics" is, by the way, one reason billionaires can seem much more liberal than
they actually are -- only the handful of liberals among them speak out in public.
The bottom line is that there may be far more scope for a bold progressive agenda than is dreamed of in most political punditry.
And Elizabeth Warren has just taken an important step on that agenda, pushing her party to go big. Let's hope her rivals -- some
of whom are also quite impressive -- follow her lead.
This isn't about taxing wealth. It's about taxing power, privilege and greed. This isn't about punishing oligarchy. This is
about saving democracy. The concentration of wealth parallels the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it is economic
climate change with consequences equally as dire as global warming on all lifeforms. The challenge will be no less difficult,
replete with a powerful lobby of deniers and greed-mongers ready for war against all threats to their power and position. Their
battle cry is apres moi, le deluge -- as if taxing wealth and privilege is barbarians at the gate and the demise of civilization
rather than curbing cannibals driven not by hunger but voracious greed. Everywhere climate change deniers are being drowned out
by a rational majority who now see the signs of global warming in every weather report and understand what this means for their
children if we continue to emulate ostriches. Likewise, the same majority now sees the rising tide of inequality and social dysfunction
and what that means for the future as a global caste system condemns nearly all of us -- but mainly our progeny -- to slavery
in servitude to our one percent masters. Elizabeth Warren is no nerd. She's our Joan of Arc. And it's up to us to make sure she
isn't burned alive by the dark lords as she rallies us to win back our country and our future.
Warren's proposal- and her desire to try to actually explain these basic economic realities without dumbing them down- has
put her at the top of my list for the Dems so far. I was/am a big Bernie fan, and Bernie is great with the big picture (it's Yuge).
But Warren really knows the details and how to craft an economic policy. Trump will call her names (that's his specialty), and
she will explain reality (her specialty).
@George, It's not scapegoating the wealthy. When I was born, the top marginal tax rate was 91%. This has shriveled, along with
inheritance and cap gains taxes. This was not due to an act of nature: it was a series of conscious policy decisions and SCOTUS
decisions that created the situation we face today. Great societal damage derives from wealth inequality -- think public schools,
access to college, housing costs, and more recently, political influence. Those who have far more money than they need distort
the economic and political landscape, to the detriment of the majority. Class warfare against the poor and middle classes must
end. Reversing the policies that changed the US from having a growing middle-class of my childhood to the shrinking one my kid
faces is simply correcting bad policy. It can't come soon enough.
I recently listened to a TED talk where Yuval Harari observed that capitalism beat out communism in the 20th century in large
part due to the distributed decision making platform it provided that far out-performed what was available to the limited number
of central planners in communist systems. It occurs to me that this same limiting dynamic of a restricted number of decision makers
can occur in capitalist systems if wealth (and power) become concentrated. When just 2200 billionaires meet in Davos to choose
the path forward for the rest of the 7.53 billion inhabitants of this planet (without their input) we can be assured that a series
of sub-optimal decisions will have been made.
Elizabeth Warren is impressive. She has the passion of Bernie Sanders. Unlike Sanders, she has a deep understanding of
the policy and mechanisms that can achieve that result. A plan to tax extreme wealth is brilliant and, at about $275 billion per
year, will ease the budget deficit.
As the Times noted, Warren also can talk expertly about subjects as diverse as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
net power metering. The political punditry is probably wrong about voters rejecting a too-intellectual candidate. (They seem to
be wrong a lot lately.) Especially in contrast to Trump, voters hunger for someone who is passionate, smart, has their interests
at heart, and is very well informed.
If amassing billions of dollars isn't a hoarding disease, nothing is. Who needs more than a few hundred millions dollars, anyway?
Perhaps it would be less of a problem if the uber-wealthy didn't secretly try to get their taxes lowered. They also, like the
Koch brothers, like to buy policy positions and elect politicians that hurt most of the rest of us. The Bill of Rights isn't meant
to be a list of suggestions. A democratic republic isn't meant to be ruled by the wealthiest 0.01 percent of all Americans. When
those with the money get to establish opinions as to what is and isn't too radical for this nation, all of the marching and demonstrating
the rest of us do doesn't amount to much. Vote the Republicans out of office in the next election and keep voting them out until
their number fit in the bathtub they would have liked to drown the government in. That's two or three, tops.
A small transaction tax on the sale of stocks and bonds that was proposed as a way to sure-up and expand social security and
Medicare should be added to the list of higher taxes on earned income. Furthermore, the tax rates on salaries and wages should
no longer be penalized with high rates so that the privileged who make their money from transactions can pay a favored tax rate
that is much much lower than the rates paid by people who work. Please, Paul, write a column on what Teddy Roosevelt and FDR advocated.
They were nearly a hundred years ahead of where Americans want us to be. Minimum wage, from the Roosevelts' perspective meant
a wage that could support a family. It meant making enough for a family to take a vacation and put some money away to retire.
They weren't contemplating a wage for teenagers when they talked about minimum wage. The Roosevelts wanted to see retirement security.
They were advocates of legislation that prevented employers from ripping off the wages of their workers. Liz Warren isn't radical;
neither is OCA, or Bernie Sanders. They are merely informed about our history and the trends around the world.
We should use some (a pittance) of the $300 billion a year this proposal would raise on giving the IRS the resources it needs
to actually enforce the laws already on the books, and to the prisons, to house tax-cheats like our "president".
''Make no mistake: This is a pretty radical plan.'' - Uhm No. A radical plan is not allowing any single person or family to
even HAVE a billion dollars, let alone tax them @ a paltry 3%. A radical plan would be to do way with money altogether, and have
all of us contribute proportionally and progressive into one single community, instead of having 26 people have the SAME wealth
as HALF of the world's population. A radical plan would be to actually work together so that our species could actually survive,
instead of destroying our planet, and us as an extension. I am really tired of people and pundit alike trying to box in people
and ideas before they even get off the ground, because all it does is continue the status quo. Perhaps the point, I suppose...
I'm reading Susan Orlean's book, The Library Book. It's not just about the fire in Los Angeles but covers much of the history
of libraries. If you love libraries, you probably know who Andrew Carnegie was. At one time, he was the richest person in the
world. In middle-age, he decided to give his money away. He built 1,700 libraries for towns that couldn't afford them. I'm sure
he had his problems and wasn't perfect. But, Carnegie realized you really can't take it with you and you can do much good while
on earth. When I see rich people who only seem to care about showing up at premiers, jetting around the world, wearing different
outfits every time they're photographed, and not seeming to care about all the pain on earth, it hurts. A certain billionaire
bragged that not paying taxes made him smart. That means he's not paying to help the poor, the sick, the elderly, not paying for
safe roads or safe water systems, not paying for the soldiers he claims to be so proud of. If these rich people were true Americans,
they'd be proud to pay their fair share, proud to support the country that gave them so much. Happy to give away their money because
they have more than they'll ever use. They won't be remembered for being rich. But look when you drive through small towns. More
than 100 years after he gave his money away, you still see the name Carnegie on libraries across America.
Let's be honest: there's a limit to how much wealth one person or even one clan can reasonably use, and it's way below
$1 billion. The super-rich are not motivated by money. Many of them are motivated by power, and money is an important surrogate
for power, but by no means the only We need to think about all the ways that the super-wealthy exercise power -- not just about
money -- about which ones are harmful to society, and how they can be restrained or redirected.
It's only a matter of time before the uber rich pay more in taxes. And when all the tired right-wing arguments about "penalizing
people for being successful." and "socialism" get trotted out by the right-wing media echo chamber, there's a quick and decisive
answer. The additional taxes (that have been there before and always should have been preserved) are the price of admission to
a system that is the only one in the world where such vast sums can be accumulated with so little being required in return. Taxes
pay for the roads, bridges, sewer systems, public protection, airports, seaports, armies, navies, court systems, research, health
assistance, disaster relief, and future employee training and education of the society, to name just a few things. Having the
middle class and poor pay for this disproportionately is absurd. And is unsustainable. People have to buy things, money has to
circulate, or capitalism falls apart. Period.
Warren's approach could work, but persuading the public is another story. Every time Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy,
Republicans claim Democrats are raising taxes on everybody. This has gone on for decades! Why can't Democrats get this point across
without having it perennially hijacked?
These potential changes in the tax law are important and, if enacted, will actually replicate what happened at the turn of
the 20th century, when marginal tax rates started to rise dramatically, eventually landing in the 90% range in mid-century. That's
when the middle class was truly allowed to come into existence. Accumulated wealth, it was learned more than 100 years ago, is
not healthy for society in general. Personally, I would like to see a complete overhaul of the tax structure so that the earnings
on the first 10K to 20K are not taxed at all. This would put much more money into the hands of people who, in the immortal words
of Molly Ivins, would use it to go out and buy shoes for their babies.
Raising taxes on the super wealthy won't really hurt them. How about eliminating taxes on Social Security? That would be very
popular with most senior citizens.
"And there was a time when leading American politicians were proud to proclaim their willingness to tax the wealthy, not just
to raise revenue, but to limit excessive concentration of economic power." I believe it's only since the 1980s that taxing wealth
became akin to killing one's newborn. That's when voo-doo economics started the mess we we're in, where every Republican administration
then and since delivered tax cuts for the folks who needed it least. The latest abomination, the Trump tax heist, was, really
the coup de grace. That the net worth of the 0.1% equal the bottom 90% of the entire nation is not only obscene, it bodes ill
for our society. Of course, it's gotten even worse since Citizens United, because, greed feeds on itself, now that every wealthy
family can buy some politicians. The fact that so many, even Republicans, aren't screaming their heads off makes me think that--like
Medicare for All--a new wealth tax is not the anathema it once was. Maybe ordinary Americans are sick and tired of hearing corrupt
cabinet members tell unpaid federal workers to just apply for a loan.
Elizabeth Warren is my personal pick. Flashy she ain't. But experience, knowledge of government, the details of policy
changes, and , most of all - integrity, she's got it in spades. Remember the kick back on Nancy Pelosi and how that proved
totally unjustified? Same with Warren. This kind of experience, savy, and integrity is just what we need right now.
Coming from Senator Warren, I find this is THE MOST EXCITING 2020 campaign proposal on the table. Senator Warren and her team
of world class economists are serious and credible. It might take two years to understand some of these issues, but we are coming
out of a four year soak in corruption and lies like we never knew. We need some all-American TLC. Senator Warren can help us recover
our national mojo.
@George The practical necessity is that we have crumbling infrastructure and are woefully behind the times in providing affordable
medical care, secure retirements and quality public education. The alternative, is to take funds from the military - the other
elephant in the room that remains strangely out of bounds in this discussion when cuts to "entitlement programs" are discussed.
And further, what is the larger immoral situation: excessive wealth concentrated in the hands of a few or the inability of the
richest country on the planet to provide a healthy, safe, well-functioning society for its citizens? And don't try the philanthropy
non-starter - this reflects the priorities of the ultra rich, not the nation as a whole.
@Peter Wolf We have all these Democrats approaching the same issue from different directions, at different levels of sophistication,
which is good. So long as they, with the kind cooperation of the media, are able to flesh out their case, the more people from
varied backgrounds they will reach. It's great that we're already talking about such things relatively early in our interminable
election cycle. In fact, any candidate who is not talking about tax policy, but instead is focused on "working across the aisle"
should be immediately scratched off everyone's list. We've had enough of such pablum, where "bipartisan" is just a euphemism for
being a good corporate stooge.
We can all thank Ronald Reagan for taxes on social security benefits. Taxing social security benefits was necessary to
narrow the deficit he created with Trickle Down I. Trickle Down II (The Job Creators), and Trickle Down III (Ryan's Private Objectives)
have followed with their own form of penalizing the little people.
Warren has excellent ideas that must be carefully explained to various groups of Americans who a very susceptible to Fox and
other right wing pundits. She must stay on the offensive to be sure her ideas are not twisted by those who will be very upset
with her message getting out. She will constantly need to inform and "teach" the underlying math to win over the group that will
take the right wing click bait and Kool aid. It will be tough reaching this group but then again Warren is tough!
Billy The woods are lovely, dark and deep. Jan. 28
Fixing the consequences of ultra-concentrated wealth and power is going to take whatever it takes. It has to be done. When
a cop arrests a person for resisting arrest, the person resisting doesn't really get much chance to plead that the world would
be a better place for all if he were not in jail.
It should not be left to the wealthiest among us to decide what tax they themselves pay. A tiny minority calls the shots as
to the fundamental frameworks that underlie our problems. This has to change. Taxpayers bailed out the rich ten years ago. None
of them went to jail. It's time to pay the taxpayers back.
Look at this forecast now and laugh... Trump betrayed all hopes.
Notable quotes:
"... It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding a change on foreign policy. ..."
Eight years ago, President Obama had a chance to change the warmongering direction that outgoing
President Bush and the U.S. national-security establishment had led America for the previous eight
years. Obama could have said, "Enough is enough. America has done enough killing and dying. I'm going
to lead our country in a different direction - toward peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people
of the world." He could have ordered all U.S. troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan to return
home. He could have ended U.S. involvement in the endless wars that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA
spawned in that part of the world. He could have led America in a new direction.
Instead, Obama decided to stay Bush's course, no doubt believing that he, unlike Bush, could win
the endless wars that Bush had started. It was not to be. He chose to keep the national-security
establishment embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Death and destruction are Obama's legacy, just as
they were Bush's.
Obama hoped that Hillary Clinton would protect and continue his (and Bush's) legacy of foreign
death and destruction. Yesterday, a majority of American voters dashed that hope.
Will Trump change directions and bring U.S. troops home? Possibly not, especially given he is
an interventionist, just as Clinton, Bush, and Obama are. But there is always that possibility, especially
since Trump, unlike Clinton, owes no allegiance to the U.S. military-industrial complex, whose survival
and prosperity depends on endless wars and perpetual crises.
If Clinton had been elected, there was never any doubt about continued U.S. interventionism in
Afghanistan and the Middle East. Not only is she a died-in-the-wool interventionist, she would have
been owned by the national-security establishment. She would have done whatever the Pentagon, CIA,
and NSA wanted, which would have automatically meant endless warfare - and permanent destruction
of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly
what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who
supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending
and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding
a change on foreign policy.
Imagine the benefits to American society if Trump were to change directions on foreign policy.
No more anti-American terrorist blowback, which would mean no more war on terrorism. That means the
restoration of a sense of normality to American lives. No more TSA checkpoints at airports. No more
mass surveillance schemes to "keep us safe." No more color coded warnings. No more totalitarian power
to round up Americans, put them into concentration camps or military dungeons, and torture them.
No more power to assassinate people, including Americans. In other words, the restoration of American
civil liberties and privacy.
The Middle East is embroiled in civil wars - wars that have been engendered or magnified by U.S.
interventionism. Continued interventionism in an attempt to fix the problems only pours gasoline
on the fires. The U.S. government has done enough damage to Afghanistan and the Middle East. It has
already killed enough people, including those in wedding parties, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Enough
is enough.
Will Trump be bad on immigration and trade? Undoubtedly, but Clinton would have been bad in
those areas too. Don't forget, after all, that Obama has become America's greatest deporter-in-chief,
deporting more illegal immigrants than any U.S. president in history. Clinton would have followed
in his footsteps, especially in the hope of protecting his legacy. Moreover, while Trump will undoubtedly
begin trade wars, Clinton would have been imposing sanctions on people all over the world whose government
failed to obey the commands of the U.S. government. A distinction without a difference.
Another area for hope under a Trump presidency is with respect to the drug war, one of the most
failed, destructive, and expensive government programs in history. Clinton would have followed in
Bush's and Obama's footsteps by keeping it in existence, if for no other reason than to cater to
the army of DEA agents, federal and state judges, federal and state prosecutors, court clerks, and
police departments whose existence depends on the drug war.
While Trump is a drug warrior himself, he doesn't have the same allegiance to the vast drug-war
bureaucracy that Clinton has. If we get close to pushing this government program off the cliff -
and I am convinced that it is on the precipice - there is a good chance that Trump will not put much
effort into fighting its demise. Clinton would have fought for the drug war with every fiber of her
being.
There is another possible upside to Trump's election: The likelihood that Cold War II will
come to a sudden end. With Clinton, the continuation of the new Cold War against Russia was a certainty.
In fact, Clinton's Cold War might well have gotten hot very quickly, given her intent to establish
a no-fly zone over Syria where she could show how tough she is by ordering U.S. warplanes to shoot
down Russian warplanes. There is no telling where that would have led, but it very well might have
led to all-out nuclear war, something that the U.S. national-security establishment wanted with the
Soviet Union back in the 1960s under President Kennedy.
The danger of war with Russia obviously diminishes under a President Trump, who has said that
he favors friendly relations with Russia, just as Kennedy favored friendly relations with the Soviet
Union and Cuba in the months before he was assassinated.
Indeed, given Trump's negative comments about NATO, there is even the possibility of a dismantling
of that old Cold War dinosaur that gave us the crisis in Ukraine with Russia.
How about it, President-Elect Trump? While you're mulling over your new Berlin Wall on the Southern
(and maybe Northern) border and your coming trade wars with China, how about refusing to follow
the 16 years of Bush-Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign interventionism? Bring the troops home.
Lead America in a different direction, at least insofar as foreign policy is concerned - away from
death, destruction, spending, debt, loss of liberty and privacy, and economic impoverishment and
toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.
Not so quick. He proved to be Bush III. But illusions after his election were abundant.
Notable quotes:
"... I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the interests and concerns of most Republican voters. ..."
"... Party leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them. ..."
"... Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes that judgment all the more damning. ..."
Trump officially
secured the Republican nomination last night:
Mr. Trump tallied 1,725 delegates, easily surpassing the 1,237 delegate threshold
needed to clinch the nomination. The delegate tally from his home state of New York,
announced by Mr. Trump's son Donald Jr., put him over the top.
Like
Rod Dreher, I see Trump's success as proof that "the people who run [the GOP] and
the institutions surrounding it failed." They not only failed in their immediate task of
preventing the nomination of a candidate that party leaders loathed, but failed
repeatedly over at least the last fifteen years to govern well or even to represent the
interests and concerns of most Republican voters.
Had the Bush administration not presided over multiple disasters, most of them of
their own making, there would have been no opening or occasion for the repudiation of
the party's leaders that we have seen this year. Had the party served the interests of
most of its voters instead of catering to the preferences of their donors and
corporations, there would have been much less support for someone like Trump.
Party
leaders spent decades conning Republican voters with promises they knew they wouldn't or
couldn't fulfill, and then were shocked when most of those voters turned against them.
Trump is millions of Republican voters' judgment against a party that failed
them, and the fact that Trump is thoroughly unqualified for the office he seeks makes
that judgment all the more damning.
"... What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. ..."
"... Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war. ..."
Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they
are ready for action. And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what
is shaping America's present reality. Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation.
It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines
finally take shape and find resolution.
The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln's election so enraged the
South that those states began agitating for secession. Trump is today symbolic of a very real American
tradition that during
the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.
Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of "isolationism."
Prior to WWII it was known as "non-interventionism." Afterward, that movement attempted to use
Sen. Joseph
McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold. And in the 1960s it became the primary target
of the "counter-cultural revolution."
Its last bastion was
Richard
Nixon , whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974.
And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current
fight.
And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has
repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led
to Nixon's forced resignation under threat of impeachment. But the liberal American media remains
silent, as if nothing has happened.
By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment. But before
turning to the future that might await us, let's take a quick glance at the history of conflict between
revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.
***
Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of "expansionism" (we'll
call it that). The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy. Enemy number
two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional "Americanism"
was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.
The country's cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as
the " New York
Intellectuals ." Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation's literary life
was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist
magazine known as the
Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and
1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.
The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants
from the Frankfurt School
, which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to
the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to
liberal, they set out to design a "theory of totalitarianism" in addition to their concept of an
"authoritarian personality" – both hostile to "democracy."
The "New York Intellectuals" and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and
Hannah Arendt , for example, was an
authoritative representative of both sects. This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot
A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience. The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth
International and godfather of the neocons,
Max Shachtman , held a place
of honor in the "family of intellectuals."
The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology
and sociology at that time. The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and
racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of "national culture"
and "national community" were meaningless).
Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions
and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.
The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism. Did something look fishy
in this? But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all
labeled "fascist." From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national
identity was potentially a "fascist."
Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail
the seizure of America's cultural, political, and mental landscape by these "liberal sects" in his
brilliant book The Culture
of Critique , writing:
"The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly
Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while
psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia.
"The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual
discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution
of the 1960s."
It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.
Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new
Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating
the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated
melting pot to "dilute" the "potentially fascist" descendants of European immigrants by making use
of new ethno-cultural elements.
The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives
from both wings of the expansionist "party" – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.
Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment.
In the same year the US Congress passed the
Jackson-Vanik
Amendment (drafted by Richard
Perle ), which emerged as a symbol of the country's "new political agenda" – economic war against
the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.
At that same time the "hippie generation" was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of
Senator George McGovern's campaign . And that was when Bill Clinton's smiling countenance first
emerged on the US political horizon.
And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry "Scoop"
Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.
In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the
Committee
on the Present Danger , an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch
of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.
Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick)
and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas
Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other "Christian" politicians with the intention
of launching a "campaign to transform the world."
This is where the neocons' "nonpartisan ideology" originated. And eventually today's "inalterable
US government" hatched from this egg.
American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era. In economics this
was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital)
and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of "holy war against the forces of evil." The Nixon-Kissinger
tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which
is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.
The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the "neocon revolution."
At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the "end of history."
***
As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in
economics) only expanded. Through all manner of committees, foundations, "think tanks," etc., the
students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science
at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington
power machine. The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which
the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge
the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.
By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the
US. That's why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move
into the White House for the next eight years. The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums
of power and returned to their "influential committees." It is likely that this election was intended
to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in
"new packaging." For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton.
But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open
What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this
time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly
becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they
had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests.
Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite
caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots
in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos
could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children
and no one wants a new world war.
How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end? Will Trump manage to "drain the swamp
of Washington, DC" as he has promised, or he will end up as the system's next victim? Very soon we
can finally get an answer to these questions.
They bought in 2016 was Trump was selling not realizing that this was Obama-style bait and switch
Notable quotes:
"... With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration. It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico. ..."
"... "It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico." You forgot India. ..."
"... Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite an economic accomplishment ..."
"... In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents. ..."
"... Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive. So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party. ..."
"... So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering "what the hell just happened?" ..."
"... Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years. Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the 2008 financial crash. ..."
"... Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed ..."
"... Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time. ..."
"... There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media? ..."
"... What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said. ..."
"... Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing, and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses with their fingers in many pies. ..."
With paychecks remaining disappointingly small and
layoffs reaching a seven-year high , many have subscribed to Trump's narrative instead the one presented by Obama's administration.
It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico.
"People don't really want to hear that it could have been worse. Sometimes such statements anger people and make the president
seem out of touch. It doesn't resonate because they can't observe that alternative outcome," explained Lawrence Mishel, president
at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "It's progress in their weekly paychecks that resonates."
"Wages are the unfinished business of the recovery," the US labor department has noted repeatedly over the last few months
as jobs report after jobs report have shown wage growth to be in the vicinity of just 2%. In addition to jobs, wages are one of
the most important parts of this recovery.
In order for working class Americans to feel its effects, wage growth would have to be closer to 3% to 4%. When the US census
last released its data about median household incomes in the US, it found that the average American was bringing home the same
paycheck as Americans in 1997.
With rents and food costs going back, wages from 20 years ago are no longer cutting it. As a result, working Americans are
tired of what they think of as "status quo" politics.
"People are feeling ornery and that's the result of stagnant wages for the vast majority for at least the last dozen years,"
said Mishel. "That may explain why among conservative GOP voters Trump has made headway. This is the first election I ever heard
any GOP candidates talk about wages."
AmyInNH, 7 May 2016 09:39
Nailed it, Ms. Kasperkevic. Bravo.
"It's a horror story about an American economy in terminal decline, its workers sold down the river to China and Mexico."
You forgot India.
salfraser, 7 May 2016 08:54
Mr Obama has the distinction of running the biggest soup kitchen in living memory - 46 million on food stamps. Quite
an economic accomplishment
DJROM 7 May 2016 08:39
Good article. Seemed like an honest effort to explain the appeal of Trump without lazily using racism, misogyny, or stupidity
as a half baked rationalization.
In the US the Democratic party has lost touch with the working class. The media in the US are even worse. The Democrats
are now the party of cosmopolitan elites, college students, and identify politics adherents.
Blue collar workers have long know they didn't have a voice in the beltway. That their "champions" viewed them as lower
beings, children that needed to be taken care of. The fact that Trump annoys these very people is viewed as a great positive.
So these former Demcrats crashed the Republican party.
So now we have a populist vs a establishment Democrat. Standard Republicans are now left scratching their heads wondering
"what the hell just happened?"
The Guardian had an article about how Labor should not dismiss the grey haired blue collar workers that were joining UKIP.
It was in 2014,long before the Trump phenomenon, but when i recently read it i thought " that is Trump.
Trump's ultimately selling recession, despite his opposition to unfair global trading tactics, but hardly anybody understands
this because they're clueless about how their money system works. Trump proposes to get rid of the National Debt in eight years.
Since that money resides in the pockets of the private sector the net outcome in getting rid of the "debt" (government money
injection into the private sector) will be to substantially reduce the amount of money in active circulation and could result
in excessive private borrowing to compensate for that loss resulting in an unsustainable debt build-up and a re-run of the
2008 financial crash.
As for Clinton and Sanders, you can't trust the former and the latter sends a mixed message in regard to how well he understands
how the country's money system works. Like the UK the US is in a pickle with politicians who should rightly say "I'm not an
idiot but I've got a few parts missing!"
TheBBG -> Hendrik Bruwer 7 May 2016 08:08
You obviously are oblivious to the concepts of and necessity for tact and diplomacy, two basics for foreign policy as well
as cajoling congress. Be careful what you wish for, and even more so what you vote for - you might get what you want - the
US going down the toilet.
Madranon 7 May 2016 08:03
Consecutive Bushes did too much damage economically and socially to be fixed by either Clinton or Obama administrations.
It is like running down someone's immune system that it is unable to fight off aggressive and opportunistic germs.
bcarey 7 May 2016 07:58
Unfortunately, they cannot return what they bought from President Dubya and President Hope and Change.... the same thing
that Hillary is peddling, but with a nice girly twist this time.
dallasdunlap -> Solomon Black 7 May 2016 07:56
The dislike of Trump stems from his remarks re illegal immigration. That triggered an organized effort by left wing groups,
abetted by media organizations, to depict him as a racist and, by extension a fascist, fascist being the designation for any
moderate of conservative politician who is obviously popular.
GeorgeFrederick 7 May 2016 07:43
There has been much talk about Donald Trump being the "elephant in the room" that cannot be ignored when discussing
the presidential election. The Donald is a wizard at dispensing outrageous but irrelevant comments which the news media are
drawn to like cats to catnip. For example "Elizabeth Warren is NOT 1/32 Cherokee!" As far as I know, Elizabeth Warren is not
running for President. If Donald Trump said that "Micky Mouse is NOT 1/32 gerbil", it would make many headlines. He's brilliant
at manipulating the media. Or, is he simply colluding with the news media?
What journalists are not reporting is who is doing the dirty work in Congress and in the Obama Administration to skew
the economy toward benefitting the wealthy. Big campaign contributors, lobbyists, and conniving legislators have worked hard
to "stack the deck against the average American" as Elizabeth Warren has rightly said.
Why aren't Washington journalists unpacking and describing the many, many financial deals being made in the halls of
Congress to benefit the politically connected few? The reason is simple. They are afraid to. They have to provide food, clothing,
and shelter for themselves and their families. The big media corporations they work for would not be pleased by any discomforting
of their political allies, and the corporations themselves may be involved. Many are conglomerates made up of many businesses
with their fingers in many pies. Yes, the average American may not be doing well, but the gravy train in Washington is
running on schedule and doing very well, thank you. (I'll let someone else comment on all this nonsense about how many jobs
have been created by Obama.)
First vices about the color revolution against Trump were heard on December 2016
Notable quotes:
"... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
"... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
"... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
"... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
"... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
"... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
"... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.
I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment
hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have
already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.
Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced
opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes
a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First
goals.
Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical
demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending
satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural
landscape.
But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent
opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.
Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our
business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.
If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet,
you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after
Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to
win concession after concession from the Trump White House.
What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda?
There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could
generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans
Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's
immigration laws.
On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump.
But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises
were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.
Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education
Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy
doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms.
Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers"
from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan
Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting
to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite
five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power
to do so.
And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to
campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and
most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.
It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration
enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his
most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.
So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on
immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within
his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional
critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement:
about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation
in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce
those laws.
Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you
are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.
The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came
in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed
by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now
they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement.
And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist,
open borders status quo.
The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher,
it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative
calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's
other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.
What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield
of congressional committee votes.
Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning
with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation
of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican
Party.
The attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the military supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process.
The evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate with Mueller appointment very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from
taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup'
is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his
Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party
prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green
Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George
Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money
financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media.
The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called
on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort
will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well
and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with
Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack
support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among
the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to
the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the
whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists
eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a
failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred
of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces
in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and
it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being
questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic
than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country
Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises
by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and
the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since
before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans
are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the
books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with
this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to
assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was
the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is
real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws.
–Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of
"man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could
be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and
substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws.
--Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all
the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some
balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or
will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say.
Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and
qualifications, though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to
confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set
about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive
amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that
Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not
until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game. , @map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile... The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS
directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now
be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying
slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing
the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality:
are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter
is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want
to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest
policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to
file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are
not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for
a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be
from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white
interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up
to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media.
While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law
which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press
For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth"
in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred
of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity -- If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8
million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and
NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American
voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term;
this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before
Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed
up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books,
but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is
that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent
by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it
was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl
the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before
Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
@Max Havelaar
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to
revenge Aleppo loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites"
in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does
not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is
the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and
never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated
opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar
A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as
to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2
million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert
Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There
are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass
Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for
the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below,
for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy
destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically
elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments
have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the
Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence
wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long
decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well
as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without
a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the
nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has
been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings
cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700
military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the
nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military
and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the
Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous
administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens
of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act
and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions
of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is
bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for
imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts
owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts,
will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their
own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of
the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead
and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government
which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression,
freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which
will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means
a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people.
We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians
of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic! Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones
The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and
pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two
palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious
explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation
certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess
who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year
contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered
that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years
I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably
split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined
these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects,
and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can
set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel
has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words
in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and
Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.
Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds
of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster
What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have
sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power
two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia
– hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up
before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at
war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on
Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It
is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if
Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis
to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the
Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably
did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the
zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last
month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their
supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on." Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes: "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek
inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This
shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see
https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .
@annamaria
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and
war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ...
the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted
last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut
their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their
land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not
change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a
comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on
board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose
a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them.
,
@joe webb
good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim
Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs.
Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything
for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there
were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty
will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like
Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as
Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their
jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other
race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the
Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to
shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge
his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist
policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has
for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist.
A black mark on both countries' report cards.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at
the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of
hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you
seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains
are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined
with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people
over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut
Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his
bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of
affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns
anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere
that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under
discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way
humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like
Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just
as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for
their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any
other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain. Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking
heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian
hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically
important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
"... None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape of American politics will be gone for good. ..."
"... Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic. Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the rule of law for a version of caudillismo ..."
Whether or not Donald Trump ultimately succeeds in winning the White House, historians are likely to rank him as the most consequential
presidential candidate of at least the past half-century. He has already transformed the tone and temper of American political life.
If he becomes the Republican nominee, he will demolish its structural underpinnings as well. Should he prevail in November, his election
will alter its very fabric in ways likely to prove irreversible. Whether Trump ever delivers on his promise to "Make America Great
Again," he is already transforming American democratic practice.
Trump takes obvious delight in thumbing his nose at the political establishment and flouting its norms. Yet to classify him as
an anti-establishment figure is to miss his true significance. He is to American politics what
Martin Shkreli
is to Big Pharma. Each represents in exaggerated form the distilled essence of a much larger and more disturbing reality. Each
embodies the smirking cynicism that has become one of the defining characteristics of our age. Each in his own way is a sign of the
times.
In contrast to the universally reviled Shkreli, however, Trump has cultivated a mass following that appears
impervious to his missteps, miscues, and misstatements. What Trump actually believes-whether he believes in anything apart from
big, splashy self-display-is largely unknown and probably beside the point. Trump_vs_deep_state is not a program or an ideology.
It is an attitude or pose that feeds off, and then reinforces, widespread anger and alienation.
The pose works because the anger-always present in certain quarters of the American electorate but especially acute today-is genuine.
By acting the part of impish bad boy and consciously trampling on the canons of political correctness, Trump validates that anger.
The more outrageous his behavior, the more secure his position at the very center of the political circus. Wondering what he will
do next, we can't take our eyes off him. And to quote Marco Rubio in a
different context
, Trump "knows exactly what he is doing."
♦♦♦
There is a form of genius at work here. To an extent unmatched by any other figure in American public life, Trump understands
that previous distinctions between the ostensibly serious and the self-evidently frivolous have collapsed. Back in 1968, then running
for president, Richard Nixon, of all people, got things rolling when he
appeared on
Laugh-In and uttered the immortal words, "Sock it to me?" But no one has come close to Trump in grasping the implications
of all this: in contemporary America, celebrity confers authority. Mere credentials or qualifications have become an afterthought.
How else to explain the host of a "reality" TV show instantly qualifying as a serious contender for high office?
For further evidence of Trump's genius, consider the skill with which he plays the media, especially celebrity journalists who
themselves specialize in smirking cynicism. Rather than pretending to take them seriously, he unmasks their preening narcissism,
which mirrors his own. He refuses to acknowledge their self-assigned role as gatekeepers empowered to police the boundaries of permissible
discourse. As the embodiment of "breaking news," he continues to stretch those boundaries beyond recognition.
In that regard, the spectacle of televised "debates" has offered Trump an ideal platform for promoting his cult of personality.
Once a solemn, almost soporific forum for civic education-remember Kennedy and Nixon in
presidential debates now provide
occasions for trading insults, provoking gaffes, engaging in verbal food fights, and marketing magical solutions to problems ranging
from war to border security that are immune to magic. For all of that we have Trump chiefly to thank.
Trump's success as a campaigner schools his opponents, of course. In a shrinking Republican field, survival requires mimicking
his antics. In that regard, Ted Cruz rates as Trump's star pupil. Cruz is to Trump what Lady Gaga was to Amy Winehouse-a less freewheeling,
more scripted, and arguably more calculating version of the original.
Yet if not a clone, Cruz taps into the same vein of pissed-off, give-me-my-country-back rage that Trump himself has so adeptly
exploited. Like the master himself, Cruz has demonstrated a notable aptitude for expressing disagreement through denigration and
for extravagant,
crackpot promises . For his part, Marco Rubio, the only other Republican still seriously in the running, lags not far behind.
When it comes to swagger and grandiosity, nothing beats a vow to create a "
New American Century
," thereby resurrecting a mythic past when all was ostensibly right with the world.
On two points alone do these several Republicans see eye-to-eye. The first relates to domestic policy, the second to America's
role in the world.
On point one: with absolute unanimity, Trump, Cruz, and Rubio ascribe to Barack Obama any and all problems besetting the nation.
To take their critique at face value, the country was doing swimmingly well back in 2009 when Obama took office. Today, it's FUBAR,
due entirely to Obama's malign actions.
Wielding comparable authority, however, a Republican president can, they claim, dismantle Obama's poisonous legacy and restore
all that he has destroyed. From "day one," on issues ranging from health care to immigration to the environment, the Republican candidates
vow to do exactly this. With the stroke of a pen and the wave of a hand, it will be a breeze.
On point two: ditto. Aided and abetted by Hillary Clinton, Obama has made a complete hash of things abroad. Here the list of Republican
grievances is especially long. Thanks to Obama, Russia threatens Europe; North Korea is misbehaving; China is flexing its military
muscles; ISIS is on the march; Iran has a clear path to acquiring nuclear weapons; and perhaps most distressingly of all, Benjamin
Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is unhappy with U.S. policy.
Here, too, the Republican candidates see eye-to-eye and have solutions readily at hand. In one way or another, all of those solutions
relate to military power. Trump, Cruz, and Rubio are unabashed militarists. (So, too, is Hillary Clinton, but that's an issue deserving
an essay of its own). Their gripe with Obama is that he never put American military might fully to work, a defect they vow to amend.
A Republican commander-in-chief, be it Trump, Cruz, or Rubio, won't take any guff from Moscow or Pyongyang or Beijing or Tehran.
He will eradicate "radical Islamic terrorism," put the mullahs back in their box, torture a bunch of terrorists in the bargain, and
give Bibi whatever he wants.
In addition to offering Obama a sort of backhanded tribute-so much damage wrought by just one man in so little time-the Republican
critique reinforces reigning theories of presidential omnipotence. Just as an incompetent or ill-motivated chief executive can screw
everything up, so, too, can a bold and skillful one set things right.
♦♦♦
The ratio between promises made and promises fulfilled by every president in recent memory-Obama included-should have demolished
such theories long ago. But no such luck. Fantasies of a great president saving the day still persist, something that Trump, Cruz,
and Rubio have all made the centerpiece of their campaigns. Elect me, each asserts. I alone can save the Republic.
Here, however, Trump may enjoy an edge over his competitors, including Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. With Americans assigning
to their presidents the attributes of demigods-each and every one
memorialized before death with a
library-shrine -who better to fill the role than an egomaniacal tycoon who already acts the part? The times call for strong leadership.
Who better to provide it than a wheeler-dealer unbothered by the rules that constrain mere mortals?
What then lies ahead?
If Trump secures the Republican nomination, now an increasingly imaginable prospect, the party is likely to implode. Whatever
rump organization survives will have forfeited any remaining claim to represent principled conservatism.
None of this will matter to Trump, however. He is no conservative and Trump_vs_deep_state requires no party. Even if some new
institutional alternative to conventional liberalism eventually emerges, the two-party system that has long defined the landscape
of American politics will be gone for good.
Should Trump or a Trump mini-me ultimately succeed in capturing the presidency, a possibility that can no longer be dismissed
out of hand, the effects will be even more profound. In all but name, the United States will cease to be a constitutional republic.
Once President Trump inevitably declares that he alone expresses the popular will, Americans will find that they have traded the
rule of law for a version of caudillismo . Trump's Washington could come to resemble Buenos Aires in the days of Juan Perón,
with Melania a suitably glamorous stand-in for Evita, and plebiscites suitably glamorous stand-ins for elections.
That a considerable number of Americans appear to welcome this prospect may seem inexplicable. Yet reason enough exists for their
disenchantment. American democracy has been decaying for decades. The people know that they are no longer truly sovereign. They know
that the apparatus of power, both public and private, does not promote the common good, itself a concept that has become obsolete.
They have had their fill of irresponsibility, lack of accountability, incompetence, and the bad times that increasingly seem to go
with them.
So in disturbingly large numbers they have turned to Trump to strip bare the body politic, willing to take a chance that he will
come up with something that, if not better, will at least be more entertaining. As Argentines and others who have trusted their fate
to demagogues have discovered, such expectations are doomed to disappointment.
In the meantime, just imagine how the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, no doubt taller than all the others put together,
might one day glitter and glisten - perhaps with a casino attached.
The United States should threaten Russia with military force in order to contain the Kremlin's growing
power on the international stage, a top candidate to become Donald Trump's Secretary of State has
said.
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York Mayor
who is believed to be the front runner to head Mr Trump's
State Department, made the comments at a Washington event sponsored by the
Wall Street Journal
.
In
quotes | The Trump - Putin relationship
Putin on Trump:
"He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about
that He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that
he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia.
How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it." -
December 2015
Trump on Putin:
"It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a
man so highly respected within his own country and beyond." -
December 2015
"I think I would just get along very well with Putin. I just
think so. People say what do you mean? I just think we would." -
July 2015
"I have no relationship with [Putin] other than he called me a
genius. He said Donald Trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and
he's going to be the leader of the world or something. He said some good stuff about me I
think I'd have a good relationship with Putin, who knows." -
February 2016
"I have nothing to do with Putin, I have never spoken to him, I
don't know anything about him, other than he will respect me." -
July 2016
"I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there's nothing I can
think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to how they are right now
so that we can go and knock out Isis together with other people. Wouldn't it be nice if we
actually got along?" -
July 2016
"The man has very strong control over a country. It's a very
different system and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly, in that system, he's
been a leader." -
September 2016
"Well I think when [Putin] called me brilliant, I'll take the
compliment, okay?" -
September 2016
Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy,
presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul
set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off
the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign
policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about
"being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East.
Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also
comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by
looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview
reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are
getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good
sign."
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors
in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and
war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that
"builds up the war fever" can
by Tyler Durden
Thu, 02/28/2019 - 13:25 762 SHARES
CNN has been accused of ambushing Bernie Sanders and tricking viewers by passing off
Democratic political operatives as everyday people during a Monday evening town hall as part of
his campaign for the 2020 election. Internet sleuths looked into the backgrounds of those
asking Sanders various questions - most of which could be considered fair game to ask a
presidential candidate, only to find that there was more than meets the eye as noted by
Paste Magazine .
For example, Sanders was asked a tough question about allegations of sexual harassment on
his 2016 campaign by "American University Student" Shadi Nasab. What CNN didn't mention is that
she's also an intern for a large D.C. lobbying firm, Cassidy & Associates.
Another question came from Tara Ebersole, a humble " Former Biology Professor " according to
CNN. She's also the chair of the Baltimore County Democratic Party according to her LinkedIn page . What's
more, Ebersole's husband is a Maryland state delegate, and was on Hillary Clinton's
leadership council in 2016.
Abena McAllister was labeled by CNN as a " Mother of Two ," but failed to mention that she's
also the Charles County Democratic Central Committee Chair .
" Maryland Voter " Michelle Gregory is yet another 'everyday person' who turns out to be
politically active as the chair of the Lower Shore Progressive Caucus .
There are several more examples - as nearly everyone who asked Bernie a question is linked
to some type of Democratic activism.
One explanation for why so many political operatives asked Bernie question might be that
political activists are more likely to choose to participate in a Bernie Sanders town hall.
That said, CNN made it appear as though these were 'everyday voters' - not people people
involved in politics themselves .
As Paste 's Jacob Weindling reports, most of the questions weren't unfair.
I watched the entire town hall last night, and none of the questions asked by these people
resonated as unfair to me. There were a couple asked by other people that were based on wrong
assumptions (like the myth that Bernie's only support comes from young white dudes), but it's
hard to blame individuals for coming to wrong conclusions like that when the Democratic
Party's infrastructure has invested so much time and energy gaslighting the public into
thinking that way.
...
But back to my main point: really the only problem in all this is that because CNN did not
disclose many of these questioners' ties to politics, one cannot help wonder why. The famed
Bobby Knight quote of "stupid loses more games than smart wins" is Occam's Razor here, as
Wolf Blitzer isn't exactly universally respected and
we have documented CNN's struggles with the truth before , but the nefarious angle is the
elephant in that Washington D.C. room. -
Paste Magazine
As Weindling notes - "being politically-involved doesn't disqualify these folks from asking
questions, and it doesn't automatically make their motivations disingenuous," however " had CNN
been more accurate in describing the questioners, I wouldn't be writing this column ."
The best CNN sandbagging ever was GHW Bush having Larry King give him a call from a
'concerned listener in the audience' who turned out to be George Stephanopoulis right out of
Clinton's war room.What a sham!
He would have won, which is why they sandbagged him.
The Money Power Monopolists wanted Trump.
THEY DO NOT WANT SANDERS.
Can you figure out why?
THEY HAVE ZERO INTENTION OF GIVING FREE CHIT TO THE FREE CHIT ARMY, OTHER THAN THE HOPE OF
FREE CHIT THAT NEVER, EVER, EVER COMES.
Hellary, on the other hand, is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT.
Why? She can get almost all the black vote after using al Qaeda to overthrow an African
country and set up public primarily black slave auctions that even sell black children!
Care enough to look it up!
If you don't care, well, WHEN THEY DO IT TO YOU AND YOURS, YOU WILL HAVE A BIG LESSON TO
LEARN FROM THE EXPERIENCE.
No, Democratic party is composed primarily of mindless, programmed nitwits.
The Money Power Monopolist financiers of DNC, inc DON'T WANT BERNIE.
THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF DEPLOYING FREE CHIT TO THE MASSES.
NONE.
Your next President almost certain has a first letter of "H."
Who else can use al Qaeda to overthrow an African country, set up a debt-based money
central bank to enslave the Libyans, set up a milieu where black people are sold as slaves in
public auctions, AND STILL GET THE MAJORITY SUPPORT OF THE AVERAGE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MINDLESS
MUPPET?
Bernie must be going senile; he's forgotten he was not only bought off, but sodomized in
the process by his fellow Dems, while betraying all those young people who were thinking he'd
bring them solid golden unicorn turds to pay off their school loans with, and now he thinks
he's his own man, again. Few things worse than a whore with dementia.
He was elected using Israel lobby money, so now he heed to pay them off.
Notable quotes:
"... B..b..but his campaign promises .. the upcoming election .. his noninterventionist principles .. MAGA! The cynics were right. Pro-Trump dreamers (including the pro-Russian/anti-US contingent at MoA) were wrong. Another misleading narrative bites the dust. Another populist outsider is revealed to be a faux populist bullshitter. ..."
"... For anyone paying attention, this kind of thinking (that Trump is a hero that is undermined by the Deep State) is not dumb, it is suspect. We saw the same rear-action BS from Obamabots who sought to excuse every betrayal of the faux populist hero. Faux populists like Trump, Obama, Sanders, Macron, Guaido, etc. are members of the establishment (which the Deep State works for) that pretend to be on the side of ordinary people. ..."
B..b..but his campaign promises .. the upcoming election .. his noninterventionist principles .. MAGA! The cynics were
right. Pro-Trump dreamers (including the pro-Russian/anti-US contingent at MoA) were wrong. Another misleading narrative bites
the dust. Another populist outsider is revealed to be a faux populist bullshitter.
For anyone paying attention, this kind of thinking (that Trump is a hero that is undermined by the Deep State) is
not dumb, it is suspect. We saw the same rear-action BS from Obamabots who sought to excuse every betrayal of the faux populist
hero. Faux populists like Trump, Obama, Sanders, Macron, Guaido, etc. are members of the establishment (which the Deep
State works for) that pretend to be on the side of ordinary people.
"... Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all the major media. ..."
"... I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him and destroyed his country ..."
"... There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect folks to fall for it. ..."
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.
It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
This is a great
article which effectively exposes Sanders as being fatally compromised by his role as
Clinton lackey after the evidence emerged that the party engaged in fraud securing the
predicted result. I also fully endorse Hooch's response to the commentary. Great job on both
counts.
"... This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as Chomsky explained, new dealism. ..."
"... As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4 yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up. ..."
@Bern I think that
Sanders is able to change half of the USA. He is likely to do something about inequality,
unemployment, health care, but he will not touch the MIC.
The US is a rich country, and if the US wants stay rich it has to do something about this
third world-isation of the USA that is in play since the 1990s (outsourcing of jobs, leaving
the home population with less and less means to buy stuff US corporations produce abroad).
This is where Sanders will come to help: he will help US citizens, by helping corporations to
be able to sell their stuff to US citizens. Sanders calls that socialism, but it is, as
Chomsky explained, new dealism.
Socialism would be if Sanders promoted that workers would
take over the corporations, or would allow to re-open factories, warehouses, and farmland
where the workers were in control, not the bosses. Sanders is not promoting any of that.
Sanders may be a Roosevelt, but he is not an Upton Sinclair (who nearly became governor of
California in the 1930s by running a truly socialist platform). And, as said, he will
certainly not touch the MIC.
IMO he is the lesser evil of candidates who run for the 2020 US elections, but to consider
him a socialist, as Sanders calls himself, will lead to disappointment.
Here is Michael Parenti talking about his former compatriot:
As of 3 min ago, https://berniesanders.com/ was just a splash screen. He had 4
yrs to update his website. He should not run. Tulsi Gabbard went to the mat for him in 2016, he
should have sat this one out and endorsed her. Bernie is a typical narcissistic baby boomer who
believes only he can save the world he has spent his life F-ing up.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
@redmudhooch "See how
the faithful city has become a prostitute! She once was full of justice; righteousness used
to dwell in her -- but now murderers!"
(Isaiah 1:21-23)
Bernie is not a magic socialist. He is a fraud: he was cheated out of nomination, and then
supported the cheater. Shame on him! He will never get my vote, period.
I honestly think that had the media and the deep state treated Trump fairly, they would have still have some credibility
now. But the blatant attempt to derail his candidacy only egged on his supporters. Then, the concerted attempts to nullify the
election results convinced people all over the political spectrum that our "democracy" is only a "simulation of democracy" as
Hopkins points out.
Don't the people pulling the strings behind the media understand what they have done? They have convinced a large part of the
nation that everything that they were taught from childhood is a fraud.
Civilizations are only held together by the "glue" of shared beliefs. The deep-state-media-complex has just applied a solvent
to the very glue that holds the entire culture together.
This is going to make the next couple of years very interesting.
Oh great, Bernie -- another Sunday Socialist. The road to Hell is trodden bare by his
type, downhill all the way. Bernie's assigned role is to "suck up all the oxygen". Provide
the necessary razzle-dazzle for the war democrats, police state liberals and austerity
progressives to suck up the attention and energy of the disaffected.
That's what they get paid to do. This layer of burn-outs, has beens and traitors. The
ever-odious staffers, full-timers, consultants, aides, advisors, policy wonks, publicity
hounds. Ever advancing themselves as spokespeople for all the causes. Always ready to turn
viciously on any regular people who have the impertinence to say otherwise. Generals without
an army.
Always anything but class with the Bernie boosters. Furiously beating their drums for
feminism, gay whatever, racism, the environment. But never for mobilization of the working
class. Never for fighting against real capitalism. The Bernie Sunday Socialists live
comfortably, haven't walked a picket line in ages, buy sweat shop labour designer clothes and
are as tough as jello.
Life has a way of paying you out. And the future for the Bernie boosters and those dumb
enough to buy their bilge is -- the Ukraine.
While the Bernie crowd serve as their apologists the class elites grind on. They have no
limit and the Bernie bunch will swallow anything so long as they keep their place and
privileges as police for the working poor. But, at some point, Ukrainization hits the
tipping point. As it is heading for in Brazil, Italy, Spain, France, Mexico. When the shit
hits the fan, the Bernie boosters will be on the wrong side of the barricades.
Bernie is no socialist, neither are any Democrats, just controlled puppets to keep the
American people docile, keep up the illusion that things will actually get better one day. He
may be an FDR capitalist, giving you just enough socialism to keep the capitalist system
afloat, keeping the pitchforks and torches at bay.
Bernie is a pro-war imperialist, just look at his tweets about Maduro recently, or his
views on Palestine-Israel. He may be the best "candidate" in 2020, but he is far from a
socialist. Same deal with Tulsi, if you are pro-Israel, you are a pro-war imperialist
period.
Notice she always makes a point to say "regime change wars" but what about drones? What
about covert CIA-mercenary assassinations? What about the war OF terror? She has no problem
with these types of war apparently. Colonialism and imperialism (theft of other people's and
nation's resources) are not true socialist policies. Capitalism by definition is stealing the
surplus value of the labor of other people – it cannot lead anywhere but to where we
are today.
Socialism is government by the working-class. There is not the slightest hint of the
working-class ruling over society anywhere in the world, certainly not in a dictatorship such
as America. Capitalists own all the means of production, all levers of government, and all
the major media.
There is now no Left left in America, although plenty people here now think "left" means
identity stuff. It does not. Left is giving priority to the welfare if the working class
majority and protecting them from predatory capitalists. Race, gender and deviancies did not
define the authentic socialist agenda.
I've given up the illusion that we'll ever vote our way out of this madness, look at Narco
Rubio's tweet yesterday using snuff photos of Gaddafi after the gangsters in DC murdered him
and destroyed his country, turning it back centuries, using them as a threat to Maduro. You
don't vote that kind of Mob out, we have the mafia now in charge of our country, the most
powerful military in the world is run by satanic mobsters, and we're foolish enough to think
voting is going to make this go away? Criminals and gangsters don't stop until they're either
in prison or dead. They don't go away or give up power because you ask them to, which is all
voting is, asking them nicely. Good luck with that!
I wish it wasn't true. I wish we could vote Bernie or Tulsi in and things change for the
better, but from what I've seen the past 30 years, it ain't happening. Their silence on 9-11
truth, knowing full well they know better is pretty telling.It doesn't take an Einstein to
see those buildings were blown up with explosives, if they're not willing to call that out,
what makes you think they're willing to do what needs to be done once in office? Sadly I'm
afraid either collapse, armed revolt, or China or Russia invading and/or nuking us is the
only way out of this evil system.
There are limits, after all, to people's gullibility. It's not like you can just run the
same con, with the same fake message and the same fake messiah, over and over, and expect
folks to fall for it.
What's wrong with Tulsi's fundraisers? They are not PAC money and $125/plate is not that
expensive. Tulsi has a huge disadvantage, because she isn't getting any coverage. Tulsi's
dinners are not sponsored by Corporate money.
Warren said to Cenk Uygur(in a NEW interview!) that her refusal of corporate donations
only extends to the primaries. She said [we] need corporate donations- or as she calls them-
"everything in our arsenal to beat Trump". Still want to lump her in with Bernie?
Never Completely Trust anyone, so thoroughly research everyone before supporting anyone on
anything to be fully aware of who benefits and how, since you may or may not benefit at all
11:16
hours Pacific Standard Time on Tuesday, 26 February 2019
So here it is, the announcement we've been waiting for all aboard for another cruise on the
new and improved U.S.S. Magic Socialist with your captain Bernie Sanders at the helm! If you're
not familiar with this extraordinary vessel, it's like the luxury liner in The Magic Christian , except
catering to credulous American socialists instead of the British filthy rich. Tickets start at
just $27 dollars so hurry, because they're going fast!
That's right, folks, Bernie is back, and this time it's not just a sadistic prank where he
gets you all fired up about his fake "revolution" for fifteen months, gets cheated out of the
nomination, then backs whichever corporate-bought candidate the Democratic Party orders you to
vote for.
No, this time the Bernster really means it! This time, when the DNC rigs the primaries to
hand the nomination to Harris, or Biden, or some billionaire android like Michael Bloomberg,
Bernie is not going to break your heart by refusing to run as an independent candidate,
unbeholden to the corporations and oligarchs that own both political parties, or otherwise make
you feel like a sucker for buying his "revolution" schtick. He's not going to fold like a fifty
dollar suit and start parroting whatever propaganda the corporate media will be prodigiously
spewing to convince you the Russians and Nazis are coming unless you vote for the empire's
pre-anointed puppet!
Bernie would never dream of doing that or at least he'd never dream of doing that twice.
The DNC takes Deep State to a whole new level. They have this thing called "Superdelegates",
which has veto power over the little people.
The SJWs and Bernie bots may be too dumb to know who their real daddies are, but the
Superdelegates know exactly whose ring they need to kiss to regain power: the same globalist
capitalist Davos scums who now have Trump exactly where they want him, between their legs
sucking up while busy implementing their agendas of endless wars and endless immigration.
The Superdelegates will never let things get too far with the socialists, they're good for
entertainment, to give off the pretense of a real race. I'm betting my money on Kirsten
Gillibrand -- Dems know if there's a woman who could beat Trump, she needs to be a blonde.
Uncle Joe has too many skeletons in his closet. It's just a matter of time before the
cockroaches come out of the woodwork and #MeToo him into the orbits.
Interview is about forthcoming book "Peak
Trump" In "Peak Trump", Stockman goes after all the sacred cows: Military spending, entitlement spending, MAGA, Trump's tax cut,
the intelligence budget, and the Wall. Trump is a symptom of the problem. He wanted to drain the swamp but failed to do so. He never
really had a good chance of doing that, but he failed to make the most of the chance he had. We are where we are because of decades
of Congressional and monetary mismanagement
All in the name of empire... the Deep state in non-particular and Trump proved to be a "naked king"
At 15:49 min Ron Paul asks the question about Tulsi... She positioned herself as noninterventionists and has similar foreign policy
as Ron Paul used to have. Stockman answer was very interesting and informative.. MSM journalists are essentially federal contractor,
lobbyists of MIC.
He also mentioned that Trump falls from the bait. And the appointment of Elliot Abrams was real betrayal of his voters.
Notable quotes:
"... He was smart enough to understand that the commonplace observation codified as the Laffer Curve, while true, didn't mean that DC could just go on an endless spending spree and expect increased tax revenues to exceed the avarice of politicians, though. ..."
"... No, I don't think Stockman's rhetoric was a lie. He did end up getting shoved out of the Reagan regime, after all, precisely because he resisted giving every cabinet secretary all the money they wanted and, as you say, insisted that the tax cuts needed to be accompanied by spending cuts. ..."
"... But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy in the direction of central planning . Its premise is that instead of production being driven by diffuse demand, money should be concentrated in the hands of a few who "know better" what should be produced. ..."
"... And in practice, the "entrepreneurs" intended to benefit were the businesses who already had the clout to make themselves part of the political class, not the guy in his garage designing a better mousetrap. ..."
"... The Laffer Curve is an interesting but much over-used (and badly used) observation: There is a tax revenue curve with a top to it. That is, as you raise taxes, revenues go up ... until the taxation gets onerous enough that additional earnings beyond bare subsistence strike people as not worth the input, beyond which point tax INcreases produce revenue DEcreases. ..."
David Stockman was one of my conservative heroes during the Reagan years. He was the one person in the Administration who seemed
to have an honest understanding of economics. It's nice to see that his experiences with the reality of the DC swamp have made
him go all the way to describing himself as a libertarian, rather than a conservative.
He could have sold out, given up any modicum of principle, and simply become a multi-millionaire Republican Party establishment
hack.
I would venture to say he and I have some policy differences, but it's always nice to see when someone embraces their best,
rather than their worst, instincts.
My recollection of Stockman's economics from those years (based on e.g. The Triumph of Politics) was that he was all-in on
"supply side" economics, which is twaddle. He was smart enough to understand that the commonplace observation codified as
the Laffer Curve, while true, didn't mean that DC could just go on an endless spending spree and expect increased tax revenues
to exceed the avarice of politicians, though.
Yes, supply side is bogus, but my observations were that Stockman was quite critical of the spending increases that the Administration
put forth. He approved of the so called tax-cuts, but he did so with the understanding that there would be spending cuts along
with them.
My own recollections (I was alive back then, but not as politically conscious as I am now) were that Stockman was not endorsing
the supply side theory so much as his own idea that cuts in government spending were necessary, and that tax cuts would put pressure
on Congress and the administration to cut spending. The irony is that, for whatever reason, tax revenues overall increased by
60% in Reagan's two terms, yet spending increased almost 100%. This certainly disproves the idea that there was ever a revenue
problem, and that it has always been a spending problem.
In any event, Stockman was just about the only person with an official capacity in DC, who actually worked toward spending
cuts. Unless you are saying that his rhetoric was a lie, and he was just like all the others. If that is the case then, of course,
you could always be right.
No, I don't think Stockman's rhetoric was a lie. He did end up getting shoved out of the Reagan regime, after all, precisely
because he resisted giving every cabinet secretary all the money they wanted and, as you say, insisted that the tax cuts needed
to be accompanied by spending cuts.
But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy in the direction of central planning .
Its premise is that instead of production being driven by diffuse demand, money should be concentrated in the hands of a few who
"know better" what should be produced.
True, the central planning class in question was, broadly and not very honestly defined, "entrepreneurs" rather than government
bureaucrats, but the principle was the same. And in practice, the "entrepreneurs" intended to benefit were the businesses
who already had the clout to make themselves part of the political class, not the guy in his garage designing a better mousetrap.
"But supply-side economics is, perversely, a departure from sound economic policy"
Perhaps the most damning thing about it was that the stated goal was to increase the federal government's revenue. What person
in their right mind would wish to give even more money and power to the federal government?
The Laffer Curve is an interesting but much over-used (and badly used) observation: There is a tax revenue curve with a
top to it. That is, as you raise taxes, revenues go up ... until the taxation gets onerous enough that additional earnings beyond
bare subsistence strike people as not worth the input, beyond which point tax INcreases produce revenue DEcreases.
She folded under pressure, but what would you expect her to do. Being branded as an "Assad stooge", even if wrong, is a death sentence
for the campaign. This is was nasty and effective trick to keep her "in place". And it worked.
Off course, Megan McCain behaved like an angry alcoholic, but that does not change the situation much: all them were neoliberal/neocon
warmongers.
Notable quotes:
"... You know for a FACT that # Assad isn't a brutal dictator and that he never used chemical weapons against his people. You even went to Syria. Yet you're willing to lie just to please a bullying McCain of all people. What a shame. ..."
"... Melissa, when you come up with a reasonable alternative to al nusra, al qaeda and isis to govern the country and unite the syrian people, and have a game plan to impose it, please let us know. ..."
"... Well you have a big problem on your hands @ MeghanMcCain because your dads "moderate rebels" beheaded 2 of our family members in # Syria Not President Assad He has protected our family in the Christian Valley of Syria and we went to over 50 Reporters "experts" who refused to talk ..."
You know for a FACT that #Assad isn't a
brutal dictator and that he never used chemical weapons against his people. You even went to Syria. Yet you're willing to lie just
to please a bullying McCain of all people. What a shame.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard says "there's no disputing the fact" that Bashar Al-Assad is a "brutal dictator" who "has used chemical weapons"
against his people, but adds that amid the US's "regime-change war," the "lives of the Syrian people have not been improved"
http:// abcn.ws/2Ne74r9
NativeSF @dypraxia Replying to @melmel24 @TheView
Melissa, when you come up with a reasonable alternative to al nusra, al qaeda and isis to govern the country and unite the
syrian people, and have a game plan to impose it, please let us know.
Well you have a big problem on your hands @MeghanMcCain
because your dads "moderate rebels" beheaded 2 of our family members in
#Syria Not President Assad He has protected
our family in the Christian Valley of Syria and we went to over 50 Reporters "experts" who refused to talk
Bernie Sanders @SenSanders
The people of Venezuela are enduring a serious humanitarian crisis. The Maduro
government must put the needs of its people first, allow humanitarian aid into the
country, and refrain from violence against protesters.
12:45 PM - 23 Feb 2019
Good speeches on Venezuela on the following link:
The World Today With Tariq Ali - No War on Venezuela
Tariq spoke at a public meeting in London, where many attended to express their solidarity
with the people of Venezuela, and to reject the coup attempt by the United States and their
allies.
what connects libya. Syria, Iran, N.korea and Venezuela, it is not oil. It is the fact that
they did not or do not owe the IMF a penny, or a cent or even a thin dime. Economic slavery
Bernie, are you f-ing kidding me! if you buy the Trump, Bolton, Abrams, Rubio line,
"humanitarian intervention" and collude in the destruction of Venezuela, you cannot be
credible candidate for President of the USA. Or, maybe you can, maybe you're the perfect
stooge for the 1 %.
What does Bernie's tweet say about who he is? What does Bernie's tweet say about his
participation in the 2016 election? and the 2020 election?
Early in the race (April 2015), Black Agenda Report called Bernie a 'sheepdog' for
Hillary:
Vermont senator and ostensible socialist Bernie Sanders is playing the sheepdog
candidate for Hillary Clinton this year. Bernie's job is to warm up the crowd for Hillary,
herding activist energies and the disaffected left back into the Democratic fold one more
time. Bernie aims to tie up activist energies and resources till the summer of 2016 when
the only remaining choice will be the usual lesser of two evils.
During the election, Bernie told us that he was a friend of Hillary's for twenty-five
years. He claimed to be an independent but he was close to most of the Democratic leadership:
Schumer, Hillary, Obama. Obama campaigned for him. Schumer refused to allow funding of
Democratic candidates that might oppose him.
Bernie refused to attack his friend Hillary on character issues. He pulled punches like
not refuting her claim to have never changed her vote for money by citing the
well-known and irrefutable example of Hillary's having done so on the bankruptcy bill
(Elizabeth Warren proved that Hillary had changed her position for money from the Credit
Card industry) . And he refused offers to lead a progressive Movement that was separate
from the Democratic Party after the DNC colluded with Hillary and Hillary brought Debra
Wasserman Shultz into her election and picked Kaine for VP over Bernie.
Bernie has entered the 2020 race knowing that he can't win given that many progressives
were disillusion by his failings in 2016. He's just a spoiler now to ensure that a Centrist
or another progressive stooge gets the Democratic nomination.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
It seems clear at this point that there was far more 'meddling' in the 2016 Presidential
race by CIA/MI6, the Israel lobby, and the three stooges that participated (Bernie, Hillary,
Trump) than by Russia.
On February 18th, Gallup bannered "Record High Name Government as Most Important
Problem" ... More than a third of Americans think that "The government/Poor leadership" is
the "Top Problem" in America. That's almost twice the percentage who listed the
second-from-top option, "Immigration," ...
The term the academics actually used was "inverted totalitarianism" .
The plutocracy has great influence (via money) but not control. They exert that influence
via political donations, lobbyists, cut-outs, etc. However, when a small group of political
and intel agency leaders recognize a danger to USA/plutocrat interests - like the
Russia-China alliance - they can collectively act like a dictator. This is what I contend has
actually occurred, and why a nationalist (Trump) was selected as nominal leader and
spokesperson.
At the 20 - 26 second mark, the Venezuelan or south american version of the white helmets
can be seen.
Coalition Aid and Freedom. Also a number of white teeshirts with black writing appear to be
another unit.
At the 35 second mark, one of the injured from the Columbian side of the
barricade is filmed. Lots of people with cameras filming her, but not one helps her.
I guess she is just one of the suckers destined to become US cannon fodder.
Peter AU 1 , Feb 23, 2019 10:12:15 PM |
linkben , Feb 23, 2019 10:27:48 PM |
link
"Home> Newsroom> Press Releases> Press Release
Sanders Statement on Venezuela
Thursday, January 24, 2019
WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement
Thursday on the political situation in Venezuela:
"The Maduro government in Venezuela has been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan
civil society, violated the constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was
re-elected last year in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further, the
economy is a disaster and millions are migrating.
"The United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination
for the Venezuelan people. We must condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and
the suppression of dissent. However, we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the
business of regime change or supporting coups – as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil,
and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately
intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again."
Earlier, I was wondering if the current bullshit was just the opening ceremony
for the beginning of Syria style unconventional warfare, or Iraq shock and awe
style conventional war.
Judging by what is coming out in the last few hours, conventional war it is.
Conventional as in open in your face US military attack.
Marco Rubio
Verified account
@marcorubio
47m47 minutes ago
More Marco Rubio Retweeted Juan Guaidó
After discussions tonight with several regional leaders it is now clear that the grave
crimes
committed today by the Maduro regime have opened the door to various potential
multilateral
actions not on the table just 24 hours ago
Secretary Pompeo
Verified account
@SecPompeo
2h2 hours ago
More
The U.S. will take action against those who oppose the peaceful restoration
of democracy in #Venezuela. Now is the time to act in support of the needs of
the desperate Venezuelan people. We stand in solidarity with those continuing
their struggle for freedom.
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido said on Saturday that
President Nicolas Maduro's use of troops to violently block the entry of humanitarian
aid meant he would propose to the international community that all options remain
open to oust Maduro.
Sounds like the screech of the harpies more than actual war plans.
I have a different take. This was all they could do. It was just a propaganda move. And
the bolt is now shot.
They will follow with the only weapons they have: (a) sanctions of course and (b)
exhausting every color-revolution ploy in the playbook with the affluent and the oligarchs,
combined with limited paramilitary actions, very limited because it involves the invasion of
a country with closed borders that expects incursions and where foreign nationals arrested
and killed - be they Colombians, Brazilians or foreign mercenaries - will be very
embarrassing for the source nation or nations. Both actions could drag on for years,
ultimately wearing out the US far more than the Venezuelans.
I'm no military expert but cruise missiles or air bombing seem impractical to me.
Venezuela has Russian defense systems. The Pentagon will rattle sabers but it will not risk
something like a plane or a ship, because this would escalate the military imperatives for
the US beyond where the US actually wants to go. The US only wants to win. It absolutely
doesn't want to fight to do it.
The risk-aversion of the US (to put it politely) is huge, much, much greater - in my
estimation - than is commonly perceived. Remember, these are totally corrupt institutions
that we're talking about here. No backbone.
So they made a bit of theater, enough to fill the Wurlitzer for weeks, and preach to their
propagandized populace. But then there's the real situation on the ground. What exactly are
they going to do with that situation? They have zero legitimacy, and the UN is watching. Does
the Pentagon really want to risk a hardware or personnel loss sufficient for even the US
population to agree to sending real boots on the ground? Without air cover? A real act of
war, until the first ship is sunk? And then no moral high ground whatsoever, and the UN
nations one by one turning away, just like the EU members not applauding Pence? Does Trump
really want to go into an election with a new Vietnam on his hands? Do they really think they
can convince the people of the US to put up with that?
Perhaps they can. But either way, those are the stakes. There are no smaller stakes.
There's no easy win here. Either they go all-in, as if they had gumption, and stay in, as if
they had will, or they screech and screech and stay out. Because they know they can't win.
Not easy, not hard. No win here for the US. And they will throw away their entire presence in
Latin America, while accelerating the rotting of the political corpse back home.
Hard to tell but at least for now I agree with Grieved Feb 23, 2019 11:21:37 PM | 86 although
Peter AU 1 | Feb 23, 2019 10:40:41 PM | 83 and others make valid points: this could actually
be all the US is able to do (and essentially nothing but misdirection) or otherwise it will
require "everything" and spell the end of the US. Another possibility mentioned at the end of
this post.
Karlof1 wrote yet another interesting post in the "Trump Likes Beautiful Border Walls"
thread about (at the very least previous or recent) US access to Colombian air bases and also
a link to Google maps of seven such. According to Wikipedia it looks like the Colombian air
force has more bases but the US might not be present at all (or any, it might only be
temporary access/assured use) and so far I've only looked at one particular one (where they
most likely aren't, but Russia and China would know for sure). This is only meant as
reference, it is not necessarily factual or up to date.
I think Karof1 linked to the Google maps in this thread as well, I hate Google but it is
worth a look at that base (I could zoom all the way down to 5 meters scale indicator but I
doubt that's actual resolution, it got very grainy) if only to see a place on Earth with an
incredible amount of rivers ...everywhere! And laugh a little about it if you can :D
(and I might be wrong but if anything the satellite picture looks like it was taken during
the dry season since it's only verdant along the river edges lol).
There's no shortage of things to think about. Most here are sure to know this but I will
hastily mention all the trouble Colombia has had and link to a Wikipedia summary, it might be
an okay summary or maybe not but it ought to be okay as a reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombian_conflict
the US might be pushing their luck attempting to stay relevant or to have any influence,
everything might actually be about Colombia (and Brazil or even Latin America in general)
rather than Venezuela.
Bernie was a sheepdog. He has no real intention to fight for the presidency in 2016, and he gave up very despicably to Hillary
during the National convention.
At his age he is not a presidential candidate in 2020 (he was born in 1941). He just again play the role of sheep dog,
possibly helping to defeat Tulsi Gabbard. As The Atlantic
pointed out:" Sanders will hurt contenders whose support overlaps with his, reducing the pool of voters available for those who
are targeting the same groups most drawn to him, particularly young people, the most liberal activists, and independents who
participate in Democratic primaries. "
Sanders's entry could also influence his competitors' assessment of the earliest primary states, by causing other candidates
to view the New Hampshire contest as a regional showdown between him and Warren
Notable quotes:
"... "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." – Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013 ..."
"... Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been the cherry on top. ..."
Bernie Sanders's quest for the Democratic presidential nomination was one of the biggest
surprises of the 2016 campaign, surpassed only by the election's
ultimate winner . The rumpled septuagenarian socialist senator from the tiny state of
Vermont, who had never even run for office as a Democrat before, went from decades of laboring
in obscurity to competing with Hillary Clinton on something approaching even terms. On Tuesday
he announced he wants to try again, this time in a race with no obvious frontrunner.
The closest parallel to Sanders's success was probably Ron Paul: elderly, ideological
veteran lawmakers who were beloved by younger voters inside the major political party to which
they were intermittently attached (Paul was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president,
Sanders technically won all his elections as an independent or third-party candidate) when they
sought its presidential nomination late in their careers. Despite their vast differences on
economics, both men also wanted an end to perpetual war in the Middle East.
Yet Sanders thrived in a two-way race and came closer than Paul to the nomination, even if
he never quite threatened to pull off a Barack Obama-style upset against Clinton. With the
GOP's small government wing in
decline , Sanders also appears for now to have had more of a transformative effect on the
Democratic Party.
"Socialism" is no longer an epithet in American politics and Sanders proved there was
valuable ground to the left of Obama.
Can Sanders do it again? To get a sense of how the Bernie revolution might eat its own,
let's reflect on why he fell short the first time. Sanders is an old-school leftist who
believes in the centrality of class, not race.
Hailing from one of the whitest states in the country, he never made inroads in the
communities of color that have become such a large part of the Democratic primary electorate --
and the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support
open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a Koch brothers
proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It would make everybody
in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think
there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's website then ran a piece with
a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
This left-wing economic nationalism might make Sanders attractive to the white working-class
voters who cast the decisive ballots for Donald Trump in 2016. So too would the fact that while
Sanders is reliably liberal on social issues, including the obligatory support for abortion on
demand, he is clearly not animated by them. The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and
Wisconsin are economically liberal but socially conservative.
What might be assets in the general election against Trump are huge liabilities in the
Democratic primaries, however. In an American progressivism increasingly defined by
intersectionality and identity politics, even a socialist who
honeymooned in the Soviet Union is something of a relic. Centrists and liberals alike
lobbed accusations of sexism against the "Bernie bros" supporting Sanders.
Now these Sanders critics will have liberal women -- in some cases, women of color -- to
choose from in the primaries. Even outside presidential politics, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
offers the same democratic socialism in a more attractive, internet-savvy, diverse, and woke
package. In the primaries, Sanders will have to share the left lane with others. Elizabeth
Warren can compete with him on economics, Tulsi Gabbard for antiwar street cred. Nearly all the
contenders now support "Medicare for All," with many signing up for the $42 trillion Green New
Deal.
If Democrats decide they want an aging white male for old times sake, Joe Biden could do the
trick. His eight years as vice president under Obama revived his political fortunes, as Trump
says in less flattering
terms . A crowded group of progressives could give an establishment icon who starts with
high name recognition a path to the nomination. And Biden could also vie with Trump for
blue-collar white voters.
Of course, Biden would be making much of that appeal on the basis of personality. Trump and
Sanders rail against bad trade deals and the Iraq war. Biden has an even longer record of
supporting such policies than Clinton did. Some of the other Sanders alternatives'
progressivism is of more recent vintage (Kamala Harris) and perhaps of questionable sincerity
(Cory Booker). Bernie is a true believer.
But the modern Democratic Party is like a parade marching leftward so rapidly that it is
hard for anyone, even Bernie Sanders, to keep up for long.
Interesting take on Bernie here,
yet, at the same time, I'm thinkin': The bad jokes continue on the American people, which is, for example, the two names toward
the end of this article.
Booker and Harris? These two intellectually hollow politicians are quite different from
Bernie.
They are opportunists using the labels 'liberal' or simply 'Democrats' to run for office.
And, cynically using the label of being a 'minority.' Come on now!
The joke I refer to is that these two, unlike Bernie don't give a rat's butt about anyone,
ii's all self serving bull.
The difference with Bernie? He, Bernie, is sincere and really cares for people, he has heart.
Now, would some of you care to read old articles, some in the San Francisco newspapers from
the bad old days when mayor Willie Brown was there and how he, married, was having ah,
regular 'get togethers' with Kamala Harris and how he got her high paid positions with
commissions and then helped her become Att. General. And, so they used the exact opposite of
what I and my generation (teens) in the mid-late 60's were told, which was: judge everyone by
THEIR character (as MLK also said). It doesn't matter whether you are of this or that, you
know, race, national origin and so on.
So Kamala Harris was using her ah, whatever to get ego
positions and money. These are facts and I'm being kind here. There's more, Brown himself
said, in recent interviews that he had the ah, affair(we know what that means and it's not
for discussions on Plato and Calvin, ha) with her. So, this clown Booker is running cause
he's black and that's it and Harris is using that too and that she's a female??
More jokes
from jokers on the American people. Again, a betrayal of myself and my fellow liberals from
the 60's and 70's. Run, brother Bernie run! At least you're real and not sleazy, can you all
dig what I'm sayin'?
If memory serves, significant numbers of black and Hispanic voters do not support open
borders either. Bernie should learn from his 2016 mistakes, and go for the jugular against
ex-prosecutor Harris and longtime foe of teachers and water carrier for the charter school
industry Booker. He might also note Gillibrand's flip flop on guns, if he hasn't done the
same.
He also needs to call out the Democratic establishment for supporting Medicare for All
in words, while undercutting it in deed.
And he must learn not to be so solicitous of
corporate Democrats, be they corrupt war criminals like Clinton (he should have kept his
mouth shut about the e-mails) or bait-and-switch types like Andrew Cuomo, who is pulling on a
state level with "free college" and an "increased" minimum wage exactly what Pelosi is doing
at the federal level with Medicare for All. Oh, and talk more about jobs for all, a shortened
workweek, restoring voting rights and the Voting Rights Act, and breaking up and controlling
the banks and near monopolies instead of wonking out about Big Money in politics (nowhere
near as visceral as closing down polling places and purging voter rolls, although
gerrymandering might be turning into a rare winning "wonk" issue).
Respect the voters, Bernie, lay out your records vs. your opponents in targeted
advertising, but treat your opponents as most of them deserve.
Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win.
Re: Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to support open borders in a 2015 interview with
liberal pundit Ezra Klein.
This is lazy writing. Words have meaning and there's no support for "open borders" among
the Democrats either– which would mean tearing down all our border controls so that
travel into the US from either Mexico or Canada would be as unhindered, on our side, as
travel between Michigan and Ohio.
Re: The key swing voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin are economically liberal
but socially conservative.
It would be better stated that they are socially moderate: generally in favor of abortion
rights (with limitations) and at peace with SSM, but not on board with the more extreme forms
of feminism or gay rights advocacy. The days of true social conservatism as the default
working class position are long gone. Mostly these people just want to be left alone–
by both SJWs of the Left and Bible thumping preachers of the Right. In that regard Donald
Trump seemed like a safe vote for them.
As someone who voted for Ron Paul 2008-12, , Bernie in the primaries and then for Trump
(reluctantly) in the general election, I will share what I see in Bernie: Honesty. Unbought.
Unbossed. No taint of scandal, lifelong devotion to his beliefs, went to jail over housing
desegregation, itinerate ne'er-d0-well supporting himself with home-made educational films
for schools and carpentry gigs, a gadfly who won his first election by 10 votes in a four-way
race, etc. , in other words, he's real. I don't share his views on social issues, but Trump's
judicial picks make it a lot easier to contemplate a Bernie Presidency, as the Senate and
courts would check and balance his more lefty impulses.
He's about as un-bought as any
politician in America, and having not been one of the cool kids means he's not beholden to
them.
Teamed with another outsider like Tulsi, Bernie would have a very good chance of
winning, and he's quite possibly do as much good, on balance, as anyone could hope for.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders." –
Hillary Clinton to investors in a paid speech given to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013
Rep. Jackie Speier: "I have said publically before that if what we're doing is build a
useless wall for a couple of years that we can then tear down, I'm willing to pay that price
to make sure these DACA kids can stay in the country."
zagonostra: "Wow, not one word on the corruption and collusion between HRC and DNC as
evidenced in Podesta emails and Donna Brazile's book."
Had primary voters known everything that was going on, including rigging of the primaries
and laundering of money from state and local committees, and Bernie had actually hammered
Clinton for those things like any normal candidate would, he'd have won the primary and might
very well be President today. Her compromising of national security via email would've been
the cherry on top.
Sorry, that was a very cheap shot to snidely refer to Socialist Bernie's Honeymoon in the
Soviet Union. He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont at the time and he officially visited the
town's sister city in Russia with his new bride. Did he have fun while he was there, God
forbid? Probably, as the video link clearly shows. Was he there to report to his Kremlin
masters?
Obviously not, since he has never been suspected of spying or of being a Russian stooge.
TAC in general -- but Pat Buchannan and Rod Dreher in particular -- continues to exaggerate
the portion of Democrats who are on the extreme far-left, and thus more "radical" than
Bernie. Clinton hangers-on and hardcore DNC insiders aside, most Democrats can easily square
their ideals and beliefs with Bernie's and have stronger incentives to do so than they did in
2016. Beyond the Democrats, those who saw him as too extreme in 2016 must re-calibrate and
consider him as a viable alternative to the fiasco of Trump. However, it's difficult to
imagine the extreme MAGA club defecting to Sanders, given how deeply they've entrenched
themselves in Trump's fakery and lies.
Re: Kent, "Then we will have a great national debate over what's more important: a wall to
keep out the Mexicans, or affordable healthcare."
Related to "affordable" healthcare, the Democrat Medicare for All proposal is a naive and
stupid illusion. The U.S. health care system based on the current fee-for-service model
cannot be reformed by moving the "who pays" food around the plate.
U.S. health care per capita costs of over $10,000 a year are 45% higher than German per
capita costs. The ONLY genuine reform would provide a significant reduction in the per cost
of health care to approach than of other advanced nations with some universal health care
model.
The ONLY way Medicare for All could work would be for the government to force massive fee
cram-downs on the health care Crony Cartels. Big Doctor, Big Hospital, Big Pharma, Big
Insurance would all have to be lined up for Big Haircuts.
Only nobody in Washington has the guts to do that. Or has the guts to propose a truly
transformational change in the health care model paradigm, e.g., a variation of the German
model.
The sad thing is that so many Americans are played for chumps by politicians spouting
their simplistic solutions that make no more sense than the obviously wired-for-failure
Obamacare.
Stick a fork in America with Dems running the show too – Because it's still
cooked.
All this concern-trolling from the Right and Center is really amusing.
Polls indicate that the actual voters want what Bernie is selling. Given the chance, he
will crush Trump, defeating ugly and vulgar cruelty with love and kindness.
"the crucial reason Obama prevailed where Sanders' fellow Vermonter Howard Dean did not"
Beyond all the bad faith toothless crushing of sour grapes in the article, this is an
interesting line.
Dean ran on an anti-war platform – against the Bush Doctrine – at a time when
no other Democratic "leader" dared, and Barbara Lee's resolution to disavow the doctrine of
preventive war got cobwebbed in the biparty Congress. His position – which contrasts
well with his pitiful shilling for MEK these days – challenged the blobbed US biparty
foreign policy "consensus" in much the same manner Primary Trump did, and the media and party
backstablishment rallied to derail Dean ASAP.
Obama had the foresight to speak out against the Iraq war without having to deliver a
Senate vote, and he postured as comprehensively dishonest as an anti-war candidate as Trump
did, and then implemented US impunitivism just as Trump does.
The difference was 4 years, from 2004 to 2008. The People, in their finite wisdom, saw fit
to elect a Supreme Court-selected GWB with popular majority, approving of illegal aggressive
war (as well as Congress' unconstitutional authorizations for that crime).
Incidentally, Barbara Lee refrained from re-introducing the disavowal of preventive war
during the Obama years. Presumably the party might have not actually voted for it as long as
they had that uncomfortable majority.
Since 2008, the anti-war "movement" has veritably sublimated, and Obama's continuation of
expansion of Bush's illegal wars has not been challenged and is – Syria, Yemen –
rarely mentioned by those who criticize Trump for delivering Bush 5th term. In this respect,
2012 and 2016 were as different from 2008 as 2008 was from 2004 – and frankly, Obama's
re-election in 2012 had the same "follow the leader" partisan stain that Bush's election in
2004 had: letters of indulgence to Presidents who had proven themselves liars and
criminals.
If there is one valid criticism of Sanders, it is that he has not committed in 2016 or
since to a full, open break with the blob and the foreign policy consensus, and he has not
taken a clear stand against illegal war, wasteful debt-backed military spending, and US
impunitivism.
No candidate for 2020 has committed to repealing the AUMF:
Nice guy, Bernie, though wooly-headed. I would like to think, however, that he truly believes
in what he is saying. Sometimes, however, I wonder if what he says is for public consumption
only and not reflective of what he really believes in–namely, garden variety Old School
Liberalism. If he had been a True Believer and given the way they cooked the books, he would
have flipped the bird to Madame and her DNC flunkies and run third-party (wouldn't THAT have
been fun!). In the end, however he copped out, which makes one wonder where he really stands.
If Sanders is denied the nomination of his party again–a distinct possibility as
suggested by Mr. Antle–let's see if he"bolts" and mounts a third-party candidacy. If he
does, he would be demonstrating the courage of his convictions–a rare commodity among
politicians.
If he doesn't and cops out yet again, falling meekly in lockstep behind the Democrat
nominee, then it says here that Bernie Sanders is just another phony politician.
"When we talk about the word 'socialism,' I think what it really means is just democratic
participation in our economic dignity and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is
about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic
and social wellness, at the end of the day."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
"They call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Before the George Soros clones start the Revolution, they need to understand who owns most of
the guns and ammunition in this country and knows how to use them. If you ass wipes want to
dance, then start the music or shut the Hell up.
"Nah. Ideology is meaningless. It's all about GANG POWER. Bernie is not authorized by the
Clinton Mob, so he can't win. Kamala is employed by the Clinton Mob, so she will win."
Little known political trivia: in the 2008 primaries, there was a challenger to Clinton,
named Barrack Obama. He was stomped out of the race so fast that most people don't even
remember him.
I am not a fan of Trump, and believe the country would be better off with new leadership. But
the liberal-left wing of the Democratic Party -- well, is it a wing or the party proper,
that's the question -- is seriously delusional to think Bernie, Harris, Warren, Booker and
the rest could carry more than 5 states. My guess is that only Sherrod Brown of Ohio could
pull off a victory, if he has the chops to handle whatever slurs and nicknames Trump will
have for him. Maybe the Democrats should draft Michael Dukakis. He crushed Biden.
The problem for the Republicans is that we can't deny that the economy favors the wealthy,
not because they are creative, or because they are building factories, and providing jobs but
because they are able to borrow money at zero percent interest in order to keep the Wall
Street casinos going. Trillions of dollars have been transferred from savings and pension
plans to the wealthy in the form of bailouts and quantitative easing. And now the Fed has
decided to not unload its balance sheet which means the debt has been monetized. Soon there
will be lowering of interest rates and more quantitative easing. In short, we have a managed
economy that favors the wealthy. Capitalism is dead. Transferring money to the wealthy while
everyone else must bear the burden of austerity cannot, and should not last. The people will
not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves.
"The people will not continue to accept it. The wealthy brought it upon themselves."
Great! So what can the people do? Those wealthy have the ability to send unemployment
skyrocketing. They have the backing of both parties. Those people were progressive before
anything we have today. Those wealthy do not play by the same rules others do. You can blame
Republicans all you want, but many Dems are just as guilty and many Dem voters will feel the
pain. too.
Sanders was pilloried for his refusal to
support open borders in a 2015 interview with liberal pundit Ezra Klein. "No, that's a
Koch brothers proposal," Sanders replied, later calling it "right-wing." He added, "It
would make everybody in America poorer -- you're doing away with the concept of a nation
state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that." Klein's
website then ran a piece with a headline claiming "Bernie
Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly -- and wrongheaded."
You can't say it any clearer than that. Tulsi will get her chance to shine and break from
the pack in the first debate. She will stand out in stark contrast against the other war
party candidates in both parties. I am looking for Tulsi to come out of the debates as a
clear anti-war alternative while the others split the pro-war vote.
Unlike Trump you don't have to read between the lines to cherry pick anti war nuggets
while ignoring the other 90% of what Gabbard says. Nor do you need to ignore her vids about
"pussy grabbing" or her draft dodging or tabloid scandals and self-centered get rich schemes.
Tulsi is an Iraq War combat zone veteran with a genuine commitment to public service with
crossover appeal to red and blue voters. She would beat Trump head to head.
Trump barely beat Hillary despite Hillary's warmongering , poor judgment and scandalous
foundation. Tulsi has none of Hillary's baggage and would demolish Trump on national TV.
Would you rather your kids grew up to be like Tulsi or like Trump?
I hope Sanders understands that Gabbard will be a much more powerful candidate than he
could ever be, especially since he will be 79 before the 2020 election, he can't connect with
Black voters and has no military service.
Sanders should throw his support to Gabbard early and become her adviser or running mate.
Sanders' support could help Tulsi get off to a strong start in New Hampshire. Here's
hoping.
It's official today, Bernie is running. Even if he wasn't, he doesn't possess the backbone
to support a candidate this dangerous to the DNC. He didn't even have the backbone to stand
up for his own voters when Hillary mugged the vote. The man is on the record as a
Russia-bating, Hugo-bashing, drone-strike-socialist. He's an albatross around the left's
neck. Nobody needs another FDR. Nobody but the Military Industrial Complex that is. People
like Bernie only give such institutions a much needed "compassionate" makeover.
Bernie can shit in his hat. There is only one Democrat left committed to McGovern-style
anti-imperialism and that's Tulsi Gabbard . I left that party of dickless hypocrites
years ago and I have zero intention of ever returning but you can consider this an
endorsement. If you're gonna vote in 2020, vote for Tulsi. We gotta put an end to this
bomb-dropping shitshow we call a super-power. This is a start.
"... So, you can actually help to get her in the Debates by going to her Campaign Page and making a contribution, and encouraging others to do the same. It's the total number of contributions that matters, not the total amount, so anything will help toward the goal. ..."
"... Let's get Tulsi Gabbard on the stage for the first Democratic Primary Debate in June! Donate $5 today at www.tulsi2020.com to help Tulsi get her message out to America! ..."
"... Again, you're a young Hawaiian female. In a field of more than a dozen candidates, you have to quickly establish yourself as "top tier". Barring an endorsement from Bernie Sanders, the only way to do that is to look, speak, and act top tier. ..."
"... Like Ron Paul, Gabbard says things that desperately need saying but that establishment politicians rarely say. She not only says them. She makes them the centerpiece of her campaign, so I support her speaking tour rather than the campaign per se. ..."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard released this 30-second video in her campaign for
the White House. It is one of the most clear and unequivocal statements I have ever heard
from a presidential candidate:
Please note that this is not an endorsement or statement of support. Antiwar.com is a
nonprofit organization and does not endorse or urge support for any candidates. We do,
however, provide news and commentary on campaigns.
Just because the talk gets tougher doesn't mean the policy will change. Especially from
the top down. We can hope, but if she's at all sincere I doubt she'll ever get close to the
debates since it would be an indictment upon the elite who stack the slate we vote from.
I hope she keeps saying what she's saying but it's abundantly clear to me the five eyes
countries are already beyond the point of no return as far as their sh*tty global debt
peonage and slavery utopia dream goes.......
Without mass civil disobedience this gal will either fade away or get JFK'd.
The rules say that they have to let her in the first Debate if she raises donations from
at least 65,000 people by then. She has to have raised these contributions from at least 20
States, with at least 200 contributors coming from an individual State in order for that
State to count toward the 20 State total.
So, you can actually help to get her in the Debates
by going to her Campaign Page and making a contribution, and encouraging others to do the
same. It's the total number of contributions that matters, not the total amount, so anything
will help toward the goal.
There is also a polling threshold in order to qualify for the
Debates, but you only have to meet one or the other. The polling threshold is too easy for
the Establishment to manipulate and rig. The donation threshold can't be faked, and is the
safer path toward getting her on that Stage.
https://www.tulsi2020.com/s...
I don't give money to politicians. That's how we got to this point remember ? All you're doing is paying consultants who used to work for the Clinton Mafia anyway.
Your comment is paradoxical. You either have hope for recovery or you believe all hope is
lost. You can't claim both.
I don't worry about the debates as each four years that pass reduces the hold the TV debates
have on Joe America and pumps up the internet which the Commission on Presidential Debates
has no control.
Thank you for your passionate comment.
I have no hope the current system will recover. I have hope something new will rise out of
the ashes of the old. The enemy is this stupid idea of there being an "elite" class among
us.
Interesting assertion you have there. I'd be interested if you know of any articles or
books that elaborate on your no elite class among us concept. Thank you for your reply.
Dave chimes in with his usual cynicism and the well worn " only massive civil disobedience
will work" trope. Read John McCarthy below for a solid and effective thing to do for Tulsi -
not that Dave seems to want to help in any way.
Is he cynical or lazy - and those are not mutually exclusive?
I'd say it's the more naive among us that believe that political stump speeches actually
have to mean something that are the lazy ones.
How come voting hasn't changed policy goals so far Cratylus ?
If people like you would pull your head out of your arses and quit supporting the two
funding arms of the war party we would be less likely to get "hope and change" over and over
again.
Here's a clue for you..... Politicians don't always mean what they say in stump
speeches......
Here's another clue for you..... You live in a plutocracy, please take note of this and
quit pretending you have representative government or anything close to a democracy.
FYI for those that don't have their dictionary handy.
The definition of a plutocracy is a political system where the wealthy govern. When the
richest people have all of the power in a society and make all of the political decisions,
this is an example of a plutocracy. YourDictionary definition and usage example.
"The definition of a plutocracy is a political system where the wealthy govern."
You repeat yourself. All existing States are governed by the (relatively) wealthy. It
cannot be otherwise. Once the State has been granted the legal authority to plunder, it is
only a matter of time before the wealthy become the biggest purchasers of the plundering
service.
That just means the state isn't the enemy, the "elite" are. Or in other words, the concept
of their being an elite. The state is just another benign entity like a religion that in
reality is the control mechanism of the so called elite.
Yes, the state is just another benign entity that murdered somewhere in the neighborhood
of 300 million people in the 20th century, excluding war deaths and incidental rather than
intentional killings.
If Trump can win, anything is possible. We're looking at a whole new ballgame here. I
generally prefer general strikes and direct action myself but if there's a ballot box just
lying there, I'm gonna pick it up and throw it through the nearest government window. Why the
f**k not? The brick and the ballot box, that's my motto. Put that shit on a T-shirt and sell
it.
For anyone to actually get elected President and THEN make major policy changes that
GREATLY benefit the American people, as USG policies should, would take a full-scale
revolution against the ruling classes! That is the REALITY of the USA today. All talk about
"freedom and democracy" and nothing but policies that suffocate these two things all over the
globe AND at home! A candidate can have 70% of the vote and STILL be prisoner to the Deep
State in some way.
Even if I didn't vote for her in the general election, I am certainly going to contribute,
as she will probably be the only major party candidate who is remotely antiwar. If she can
get her ideas some exposure, you are correct, she would mop the floor with Trump. My only
concern would be her coziness with Israel, but, perhaps, she will rethink those ties to be
consistent with her overall antiwar message.
Borg, I agree that Gabbard needs to articulate a clearer understanding of Israel and its
lobby in US wars. But she is the only candidate who would never put Israel's interest ahead
of the interests of the American people.
In less than 20 years Gabbard has grown from a homophobic Hawaiian surfer girl to the
youngest woman legislator in American history to a veteran twice deployed in an Iraq war zone
to a resolute critic of the eternal wars who condemned Obama and Trump alike for their neocon
foreign policies. She is still growing. I hope she comes to a deeper understanding of the
Zionist influence on US policy as well as a deeper appreciation of the foreign policy goals
of the Iranian regime. I am optimistic because her past record shows a capacity for change, a
commitment to honesty and the ability to respond effectively and courageously to diverse
challenges. If given the chance Tulsi would resolutely fight against the war mongers in both
parties.
We need Tulsi on that debate stage! She is the only candidate speaking about the issues of
war and peace. Once she gets the exposure, people will like her and her platform. Then she
has a chance to get to the White House.
We can help her!
Let's get Tulsi Gabbard on the stage for the first Democratic Primary Debate in June!
Donate $5 today at
www.tulsi2020.com to help Tulsi get her message out to America!
We need 65,000 supporters across the country to donate so we can meet the DNC's fundraising
threshold requirement to qualify Tulsi for the debate stage.
- Lose the lei. It's distracting and it subconsciously broadcasts that you're an
"other".
- You're a 37-year-old woman from a tiny state. People need to get to know you. Start with
a photo/video montage showing military career, family, speaking in the House, etc. while you
do a voiceover. Then switch to headshot video of you speaking directly to the viewer.
- Instead of attacking "warmongers in their ivory towers", connect with viewers by
explaining that you're a combat veteran who shares their war-weariness. Leave in the stuff
about the monetary and human costs of the wars.
- The "speech" setting for the ad doesn't work: if you're speaking to a crowd, where's the
applause? And the constant looking left and right (to, presumably, imaginary people) makes
you look nervous.
Again, you're a young Hawaiian female. In a field of more than a dozen candidates, you
have to quickly establish yourself as "top tier". Barring an endorsement from Bernie Sanders,
the only way to do that is to look, speak, and act top tier.
People were clapping, but the event was outdoors, and the clips don't feature applause
lines. The entire speech is online if you want to hear it.
Sanders doesn't excite me, and I don't think he'll fare as well in a crowded field, but
I'll be happy with Gabbard as his running mate. She's not remotely like Trump, but because
corporate media paint her this way, they'll help her draw votes from Trump.
I don't vote as a rule, and I don't support political candidates because I expect them to
win. Like Ron Paul, Gabbard says things that desperately need saying but that establishment
politicians rarely say. She not only says them. She makes them the centerpiece of her
campaign, so I support her speaking tour rather than the campaign per se.
The lei and aloha talk also seem overdone to me, but these superficial appeals don't
affect me one way or the other, and for all I know, they're effective for people who are
moved by them.
I think if Tulsi became President, we would know soon whether or not the Trump apologists
are full of crap that Trump is simply "playing 3D Chess" and doing everything in his power
for peace. Tulsi appears to be the real thing, and, if she actually followed through, we
would put an end to this talk of Trump - Peace - MAGA. Of course, there is always the slight
chance, no matter how small, that the Deep State actually does possess mind control weapons
which can morph any pro-peace President into another Trump, but I'd like to think it is not
that late yet.
I would be interested in a few reference links. If this is true, it would complicate
things, but, people, even politicians, can learn and change for the better. If I can be
redeemed after some of the lame headed things I've said and done, anyone can.
"... Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it. ..."
"... The shekel counting big snout alligators? They're particularly nasty. ..."
"... Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor "When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein." ..."
"... Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION ..."
"... Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's, it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence". ..."
So Trump appoints the prosecutor who slapped Epstein on the wrist for a cabinet position. This is so obvious as Trump was part
of the Lolita Express as was lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz who has suddenly flipped to Trump's most ardent supporter as well
as the usual group of pervs like Clinton and Spacey (who cares I guess).
Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it.
Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor
"When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And
then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw
a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein."
Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL
AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION
Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with
liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's,
it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence".
Must be some really compromising video footage with some very powerful people on it to get that kind of deal. Day of the rope
for that **** and all who let him walk. No exceptions.
I had to search this up to believe what you said. Holy ****... the rabbit hole is deeper than most realize:
" Instead of being sent to state prison, Epstein was housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. And rather
than having him sit in a cell most of the day, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office allowed Epstein work release privileges,
which enabled him to leave the jail six days a week, for 12 hours a day, to go to a comfortable office that Epstein had set up
in West Palm Beach. This was granted despite explicit sheriff's department rules stating that sex offenders don't qualify for
work release ."
Note how they spent hours to placate and kowtow to the pedophile while dumping on the victims. That is because the government
is loaded with dog **** like the half monkey Epstein and his fellow tribe members. The only justice left to Americans will come
from the streets. I am completely against torture and war, yet this piece of scum should be waterboarded for names. They need
to clear out those members of government who have been compromised by the activities of the tribe.
The websites contain not only virus, malware, spyware whatever. .. (depends on your PC protection)
It is a ripoff . You never get paid a cent. But if one is gullible and naive enough to give away to shady strangers personal
data as address, birth date, social security number, credit card number, bank account etc., they empty your account , and they
do Identity theft.
p.e. They ask for an initial payment for training, or they sell you a starter kit etc., so they get your data. Or they promise
you to pay salary in advance, before they ever saw you. Sometimes they have "real" job interviews with a "recruiter" by Skype
or Smartphones facial, no skills required, with faked websites of real companies, faked or personal email addresses.
Every last pedophile is dead meat just like Judaica is dead meat which promoted it. No, you cannot touch a kid any longer,
ignorant arrogant sick followers of the Talmud and Kabbalah, for the Talmud and Kabbalah will be burned out of every last Synagogue
on the planet just as the entire religion will be burned down to the ground. Including many dumb parts of the Bible. Take for
example that sick *** stupid mother ******* event where some guy holds a knife up to his son because God told him to. You ignorant
arrogant assholes. God never said any such thing, and God sure as hell never said you were chosen! Well, I take that back. You
see, God told me that you are actually especially chosen for the *** kicking of a millenia.
This is the manner that the scum in the so called "Justice Department" works to protect pedophiles. If it wasn't for an intense
amount of corruption, Epstein would have been prosecuted by the full extent of the law. Instead, sneaky deals by the scum bags
that "prosecuted" this fraud of a case ended up with a plea agreement which "punished" this slimy creep with a measly 13 month
sentence.
To add insult to injury to the victims, the civil case is dragged on for 11 years.
This is the same type of "justice" that is in place that has protected the Catholic clergy pedophiles, which for the most part,
never saw the inside of a court room for their unspeakable crimes.
Why are pedophiles seemingly protected in this society? Is it because pedophilia is rampant among so many that are in powerful
positions? I think we all know the answer to that one.
And then there are all Epstein's friends, who enjoyed themselves with little girls on that benighted island: hearsay includes
both the Clintons among them, and the Queen of England's second son, prince someone or the other. I assume that what they did
on that island was felonious. Need to go after them.
And then there's ACOSTA - our current Federal Secretary of Labor. TRUMP NEEDS TO FIRE HIM, perhaps to prosecute him.
Shhhh, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Orange Jesus is their messiah. He can do no wrong. He was misquoted
when he said he'd bang his daughter, ignore those creepy photos too.
Facts? Oh you mean like the Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislane Maxwell connection? Yeah. Wait, they obviously never met
right? "He's a lot of fun to be with," "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on
the younger side."
This ****** is toast. If you don't get that, you're just not ready for what's happening, and it's OK. The adults have stepped
in, and are cleaning house. The streets will be paved with the carcases of these pedophiles, satanists, and assorted scumbags.
Some will be from the dregs of society, others from the highest echelons, but none will escape.
[So it has been spoken, so it shall be done... (Yul Brenner as Pharoah - from The Ten Commandments)]
I figure God helps those that help themselves,there is an afterlife though,the trick is being in this world but not of it.I
have a roof over my head,a full belly,an income and good family and friends hell thats better than 70 per cent on this planet
so I tend not to be much of a God botherer.
I must apologize, it seems his pimpette (?) named Ghislaine was there, representing Prince Andrew, who also seems to like them
young, ... not sure if thats why Fergie left him... its complicated...
As far as the Clinton Foundation paying for the 3 million dollar wedding, well that's murky too
Far more important in the here and now is Bernie Sanders refused to go with the Dims and back fat Mike's 'Guido' in Venezuela.
The head of the Clinton Foundation , a Congresswoman from Florida and ex Bill Clinton Secretary of something, loudly condemned
Bernie and said he will NEVER be the Dems candidate for President.
"Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived
from 2 main sources – money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and
blood.
"Never go outside the expertise of your people." the result is confusion, fear, and
retreat.
"Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Here you want to cause
confusion, fear, and retreat.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." You can kill them with this, for they
can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon ." It is almost impossible to counterattack
ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.
"A good tactic is one your people enjoy." If your people are not having a ball doing it,
there is something very wrong with the tactic.
"A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Man can sustain militant interest in
any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like
going to church on Sunday mornings. New issues and crises are always developing, and one's
reaction becomes, "Well, my heart bleeds for those people and I'm all for the boycott, but
after all there are other important things in life" -- and there it goes.
"Keep the pressure on. Never let up." [use] different tactics and actions, and utilize
all events of the period for your purpose.
" The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "
"The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a
constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the
reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign. It should
be remembered not only that the action is in the reaction but that action is itself the
consequence of reaction and of reaction to the reaction, ad infinitum. The pressure produces
the reaction, and constant pressure sustains action.
"If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside
[positive] " this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative. We have
already seen the conversion of the negative into the positive, in Mahatma Gandhi's
development of the tactic of passive resistance.
"The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." You cannot risk being
trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right -- we
don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."
"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." the opposition must be
singled out as the target and "frozen." in a complex, interrelated, urban society, it becomes
increasingly difficult to single out who is to blame for any particular evil. There is a
constant passing of the buck. Obviously there is no point to tactics unless one has a target
upon which to center the attacks If an organization permits responsibility to be diffused and
distributed in a number of areas, attack becomes impossible.
So the next time you see a political movement or campaign in action, compare their tactics
to the list above and you'll know how you are being manipulated!
"I think there are serious questions about the recent election. There are many people who
feel it was a fraudulent election, and I think the United States has got to work with the
international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in
Venezuela,"
which we know is yet another BigLie. So, as with Syria, he's really no different on
Venezuela. What a weak, disappointing old turd. No one should be surprised.
What a weak, disappointing old turd. No one should be surprised.
________________________________________________
As the saying goes, "should" is a bold word. You're probably aware that the Sandernistas,
true to the "battered partner syndrome" nature of progressive-liberals, are ecstatic at
Bernie's announcement that he's "running" again in 2020. I probably don't need to explain
that I put "running" in quotes because Team Sanders' 2016 campaign was either an outright
fraud, or an effective fraud steeped in political duplicity and doublethink.
Here's the end of a comment I posted in 2017 to an article touting Sanders as the obvious
choice to head a new "People's Party"; it's become relevant again:
________________________________________________
In all this, those who wish, hope, or expect Bernie to get a second wind of sorts remind
me of the legend of "El Cid": per Wikipedia,
... After his demise, but still during the siege of Valencia, legend holds that
Jimena ordered that the corpse of El Cid be fitted with his armor and set atop his horse
Babieca, to bolster the morale of his troops. In several variations of the story, the dead
Rodrigo [El Cid] and his knights win a thundering charge against Valencia's besiegers,
resulting in a war-is-lost-but-battle-is-won catharsis for generations of Christian
Spaniards to follow.
karlof1@29, indeed I agree with you on Sanders. I was very hopeful reading the headline at
rt.com that Sanders had refused to acknowledge Guiado - well, that was a disingenuous
headline to say the least - I didn't see any refusal in that first question which was whether
Maduro was the legitimate president. Bernie hummed and hawed on that one for sure. The
'international community', whatever that is, has no business deciding anything!
I was earlier grateful to NZ for at least saying they would not sponsor any claimant to
power when asked about the pretender, as that sort of thing wasn't their way. But Bernie is
in our government and what he said there stinks.
Sanders on Venezuela: "I think there are serious questions about the recent election. There
are many people who feel it was a fraudulent election, and I think the United States has got
to work with the international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election
in Venezuela". Sad to see him telling half truths again and coming in on the wrong side of
history. I wish he, or any of these regime change propagandists would mention some actual
details about what "the serious questions about the recent election " are. The opposition
boycotted and the US declared it a fraud before it even happened. Venezuela's election system
is among the safest in the world, utilizing a finger print and ID technology. The election
was observed by election monitoring groups and no serious problems were reported, so please
Bernie what are the serious questions?
Bernie needs to partner with Tulsi and have her craft
his foreign policy statements to reflect a move towards peace.
re Bernie
I saved this zerohedge comment from a while back because it was so through.
Enjoy.
Tomsk on July 26, 2018 · at 12:08 pm EST/EDT
It is amazing how many people actually believe that Bernie Saunders is some kind of decent
guy posing an "alternative" to the other 2 contenders when his sole purpose was to round up
"dissenters" and funnel them into the Hillary camp.
As Alexander Azadgan points out –
1. He voted in favor of use of force (euphemism for bombing) 12 sovereign nations that never
represented a threat to the U.S.:
1) Afghanistan.
2) Lebanon.
3) Libya.
4) Palestine.
5) Somalia
6) Syria.
7) Yemen.
8) Yugoslavia
9) Haiti
10) Liberia
11) Zaire (Congo)
12) Sudan
2. He has accepted campaign money from Defense contractor Raytheon, a defense contractor, he
continues his undying support of the $1.5 trillion F-35 industry and said that predator
drones "have done some very good things". Sanders has always voted in favor of awarding more
corporate welfare for the military industrial complex – and even if he says he's
against a particular war he ends up voting in favor of funding it.
3. He routinely backs appropriations for imperial wars, the corporate scam of Obamacare,
wholesale surveillance and bloated defense budgets. He loves to bluster about corporate
welfare and big banks but he voted for funding the Commodity Futures "Modernization" Act
which deregulated commercial banks and created an "unregulated market in derivatives and
swaps" which was the major contributor to the 2007 economic crisis.
4. Regardless of calling himself an "independent", Sanders is a member of the Democratic
caucus and votes 98% of the time with the Democrats and votes in the exact same way as war
criminal Hillary Clinton 93% of the time. Sanders campaigned for Bill Clinton in the 1992
presidential race and again in 1996 -- after Clinton had rammed through the North American
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), vastly expanded the system of mass incarceration and destroyed
welfare.
5. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic Party plays when there's no White House Democrat
running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the
left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination.
Sheepdogs are herders, . charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic
fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic Party, either staying
home. In 2004 he called on Ralph Nader to abandon his presidential campaign.
The Democratic Party has played this "sheep dog" card at least 7-8 times in the past
utilizing collaborators such as Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988,
Jerry Brown in 1992, Al Sharpton in 2000, Howard Dean in 2004, Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and in
2016 was Bernie Sanders' turn.
6. Regardless of calling himself a "socialist" he labeled the late Hugo Chávez,
architect of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela responsible for lifting millions of lives
out of poverty "a dead communist dictator." Then he saddled up for a photo op with Evo
Morales at the Vatican and also voted to extradite former Black Panther member, Assata
Shakur.
7. He refers to ISIS' godfather and warmonger extraordinaire John McCain as "my friend and a
very, very decent person."
8. He routinely parrots the DNC lines: "the Russians hacked our elections" despite there is
no evidence of such hacking, but lowered his head and tucked tail when the DNC actually
rigged the primary elections against him, proving he is more loyal to the Democratic (war)
Party than to the millions of people who supported him and donated to his fraudulent
campaign.
9. He expressed staunch support for the aid of violently right-wing separatist forces such as
the self-styled Kosovo Liberation Army, whose members were trained as Mujahideen, during
Clinton's 100-day bombing of Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999. He has an extensive record of
supporting jihadist proxies for the overthrow of sovereign governments in Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan, Libya and Syria.
10. He supported Bill Clinton's sanctions against Iraq, sanctions that prohibited medicines
for infants and children more than 500,000 innocents killed for no other reason than that
they were Iraqi.
11. He said yes in a voice vote to the Clinton-era crime Bill, the Violent Crime Control
& Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which expanded the death penalty to cover 60 offenses. So
he is obviously pro-death penalty.
12. In the 2016 elections, he betrayed millions of people that believed in him when after
making the central point of his campaign the fight against Wall Street he instructed his
followers to vote for Wall Street's candidate, war criminal/corporate criminal Hillary
Clinton.
https://imperianews.com/usa-news-analysis/liberalisms-hypocrisy-a-case-study-of-the-american-senator-bernie-sanders-and-the-ones-to-follow/
Reply
Good quote selection of Sanders quote: '....United States has got to work with the
international community to make sure that there is a free and fair election in
Venezuela,"
Exemplary sample of meaningless weasel words. What 'international community' has the US
engaged with which it hasn't dominated or hand-picked to serve as it's privately-owned posse?
His position offers no vision or cause other than a calibrated stunt to serve private
objectives. He's hugging the middle ground as a hedge.
Venezuela already has anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems that can reach well outside its
borders...
In my opinion any such Venezuelan systems would be smoking rubble immediately after a US
attack.
Billionaire Bernie is just another fake...
My search indicated Bernie Sanders has a net worth of $2 million dollars at the
most. It's true the guy is far too old to be in the White House. I think he would have to
pledge "1 Term" AND have a Vice President who was acceptable to most of the nation. Somebody
like Tulsi Gabbard. Sanders is at least as bad as Obama, Hillary, and Trump on matters
concerning the American Empire and the apartheid Jewish state. There is reason to believe he
would be at least a "B-" on domestic issues.
Washington Post has no journalists at all...
Instinctively I want to agree, but most likely they have some fine people there.
Only that small group doesn't dare do anything except to toe the Bezos/apartheid Jewish state
line.
There's no hyperinflation when it comes to oil and gold which are the de facto
international currencies of Venezuela...
Again, my own lookup suggests the current price of gasoline in Venezuela is
about 15 cents per gallon. But as a medium of exchange that's useless, for everybody can buy
it at the same price. If I'm hungry I want food, not gasoline. Gold? Anybody who has any in a
hyperinflation is probably holding it very close. Regarding Venezuela's money problems, it
wouldn't surprise me at all if some of those US military airplanes aren't carrying a few
extra tons of Venezuelan currency each trip - to help that hyperinflation along.
With Trump incoherence, impulsivity and appointment of Pompeo and Bolton it is really unclear who are the good guys and and who
are bad guys.
Color revolution against Trump failed and that's a good sign, the sign of healthy political system. But it might well
be that "The moor has done his duty, the moor can go"
Trump already undermined the credibility of neoliberal MSM and we should be glad to him for that. He also withdrawing troops from
Syria (which were in the country illegally) but only after bombing Assad air forces half-dozen times on false premises.
Looks like he reached some progress in talks with China and Chine will buy more agricultural production from the USA. But
the question to him is: if China already has the capacity to produce all those goods, how he think manufacturing will return to the
USA.
He still is warmongering about Iran. And he initiated the regime change in Venezuela.
On domestic front he positioned himself as a clear neoliberal and bully -- king of "national neoliberalism" instead of national
socialism of the past (what is funny is that many point of NSDAP program of 1920 are now far left to the Democratic Party platform,
to say nothing about Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune ..."
The bad guys wear black hats. We're programmed to see things in black or white, right or wrong, good or evil. From what we are
shown in movies and books from an early age, there is a protagonist and an antagonist.
Clever writers make it a little more complex, with the Boo Radleys and Snapes who are thought to be villains but turn out to be
heroes. But generally, the characters fit largely into extremes: good guys or bad guys with little overlap: Harry Potter versus Voldemort.
But it's those characters on the edge who people can't get enough of. Like Walter White, the cancer patient who starts producing
meth to leave some money behind for his family in the TV show Breaking Bad .
And that's probably because its an often unspoken truth that life is mostly gray, and not so black and white.
But the binary two choice meme has a function. It makes things a hell of a lot easier. And it prevents us from being crippled
by indecision and inaction.
Of course, this is also easily exploited by bad guys
When I hear that the FBI considered attempting to oust Trump from the oval office, I am tempted to think, hey, Trump must not
be such a bad guy.
According to a new book by former deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, top FBI brass discussed using the 25th amendment to remove
Trump, even though as the Wall Street Journal explains:
A President exercises his constitutional prerogative to fire the FBI director, and Mr. Comey's associates immediately talked
about deposing him in what would amount to a coup?
The 25th Amendment was passed after JFK's assassination to allow for a transfer of power when a President is "unable" to discharge
his duties. It is intended to be used only after demonstrated evidence of impairment that is witnessed by those closest to the
Commander in Chief. It doesn't exist to settle political differences, or to let scheming bureaucrats imagine they are saving the
country from someone they fear is a Manchurian candidate. The constitutional process for that is impeachment.
So if the
horribly corrupt FBI doesn't like Trump, he must have something to offer. But this is only true in the binary world or pure good
and evil. In the real world, evil often opposes evil, because they are different factions fighting for the same territory.
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but
that it is magnetic to the corruptible." -Frank Herbert, Author of Dune
We usually end up supporting who we see as the lesser of two evils.
That's sort of like Walter White. He starts off as a timid science geek and devoted father and husband. He is attracted to the
drug industry for apparently noble purposes. And he ends up poisoning a child, causing another child to be murdered, ordering an
innocent assistant killed, and causing the death of his brother-in-law. Ultimately, Walter White admits he didn't become a massive
meth producer for his family. He did it for the thrill, the glory, the power that came with it . We live in a world of Walter Whites,
not Voldemorts.
J.K. Rowling made Voldemort pure evil. But to her credit, she demonstrated how easy it was for him to seize the reigns of power
at the Ministry of Magic, and how all the bureaucrats and ministers simply started serving a new master. Some even rejoiced in their
new authority, relishing the newfound power.
When it comes to Trump versus the FBI, the Wall Street Journal editorial laments, "This is all corrosive to public trust in American
democracy."
So what do we do about it?
Rejoice!
The less trust we put in the political system, the better. All we can do is separate ourselves to the best of our abilities from
far off bureaucrats and politicians.
Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard was greeted with a "warm aloha" on the The View
Wednesday morning. But things didn't stay sunny for long.
As the
2020 Democratic presidential candidate began to lay out how her time serving in Iraq has
influenced her non-interventionist foreign policy position, Meghan McCain was just itching to
push back. "Can I interrupt you?" she asked.
After thanking Gabbard for her service, McCain told her, "When I hear the name Tulsi
Gabbard, I think of Assad apologist. I think of someone who comes back to the United States and
is spouting propaganda from Syria." The co-host was referring to a controversial trip Gabbard
made to Syria two years ago. While there, she met
with President Bashar al-Assad and defended him upon her return. More recently, she told
MSNBC's Morning Joe , "Assad is not the enemy of the United States because Syria does
not pose a direct threat to the United States."
"You have said that the Syrian president, Assad, is not the enemy of the United States,"
McCain continued, "yet he's used chemical weapons against his own people 300 times." When she
says that "regime change" would be hurtful to that country but "gassing children isn't more
hurtful, it's hard for me to understand where you would come from a humanitarian standpoint if
you were to become president."
In response, Gabbard accused McCain of "putting words in [her] mouth," but she did not alter
her fundamental stance. Asked to clarify her position, she said, "An enemy of the United States
is someone who threatens our safety and our security."
"There is no disputing the fact that Bashar al-Assad and Syria is a brutal dictator,"
Gabbard added. "There's no disputing the fact that he has used chemical weapons and other
weapons against his people. There are other terrorist groups in Syria who have used similar
chemical weapons and other weapons of terror against the people of Syria."
I think that Bernie Sanders was the best hope that US had in the last 50 years. And they
killed that hope by stealing his nomination and highly probable presidency from him. I don't
care what the orange clown says about "US will never be a socialist country". One other
individual of his ethnic background once prognosticated a 1000 year Reich – and we all
know how that turned out.
I don't know what Bernie views on immigration are, but on social and economic issues
– he is bang on. And I just heard on the news that Bernie new campaign for 2020, has
broken all previous records – raising 6 million $ in the first 24 hours.
All that nonsensical talk about empire is just a product of idle (and deranged) minds of
individuals who have achieved personal wealth and success based on rules of questionable
fairness, and now have nothing better to do than play some retarded game of world domination
– which doesn't benefit the average American at all. It's just a way for the
degenerates to achieve "immortality" and get into the history books – where they don't
belong – certainly not based on their abilities.
"Yeah right. Sanders is just another scammer, like Trump and all the rest of them:"
Yes of course they're all scammers, but there's a reason they picked the orange clown
scammer rather than the Sanders scammer or the Clinton scammer. And I think that reason is
because orange clown is actually the most evil of the three; evil enough to risk planetary
extinction in pursuit of world domination and control, whereas Sanders probably isn't.
So in a sense Sanders probably is "the best hope that the U.S. had in the last 50
years."
Tulsi vs. the war propaganda machine of the US government and MIC. It was tough, but she made it (neocons are
just MIC prostitutes; they have zero independent in their views). I wish we have several anti-war candidates for
president, but we have only one and she has all my support.
This idea of ruling the world after the collapse of the USSR the neolib/neocon elite in Washington pushed
for the last 30 years proves to be a disaster for the country. See
Neocon foreign policy is a
disaster for the USA
I hope that all those despicable warmongers (which happen to be women) are chronic alcoholics because that's the only reliable method to
survive when you have no self-esteem and just parrot view of people who pay you money. That's just a different type of
prostitution...
Judging from her appearance, Megan McCain might have problem with substance abuse, though.
Notable quotes:
"... Meghan's father proudly advocated for the regime change wars in Iraq and Libya, both of which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and gave rise to ISIS, which is still wreaking havoc in the Middle East today. He also advocated for the arming and funding of "moderate" rebels (a.k.a. terrorists) in Syria in an attempt to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... Wow didn't expect this candidate to tell the truth about America's intervention in the World. So refreshing ! I understand now why Meghan doesn't like her. ..."
McCain is such an angry interviewer... always thinking about her next attacking retort
without actually listening to the answer of a level-headed, thoughtful guest.
It's not Meghan's tough questions, because tough questions are much appreciated, its the
condescension and the juvenile behaviour. Its cringey, sooo cringey.
She made Meghan look so ignorant which she is. They say if you argue with a fool
from a distance no one knows who the fool is we know who the fool is this debate the
undisputed queen of ignorance Meghan McCain.
Meghan's father proudly advocated for the regime change wars in Iraq and Libya, both of
which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and gave rise to ISIS, which
is still wreaking havoc in the Middle East today. He also advocated for the arming and
funding of "moderate" rebels (a.k.a. terrorists) in Syria in an attempt to overthrow
Assad.
Wow didn't expect this candidate to tell the truth about America's intervention in the
World. So refreshing ! I understand now why Meghan doesn't like her.
When CIA does not want that FBI does not prosecute somebody they usually have their way.
Robert Mueller is not only about Trump, he is also about scrubbing all the crimes committed by Clintons and Obama. That's
a lot of crimes.
Notable quotes:
"... I think ultimately, the coverup of Clinton's emails was not to protect Clinton but to protect Obama, as he had communicated with her on the server ..."
The FBI's top lawyer, General Counsel James Baker, initially thought that Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for transmitting
classified information over her insecure, private email server, according to transcripts from a 2018 closed-door Congressional testimony
reviewed by
The Hill 's John Solomon.
While being questioned by Rep. John Radcliffe (R-TX), Baker was clear that he thought Clinton should face criminal charges.
"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations
of law - various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?" asked Ratcliffe, a former federal
prosecutor.
After a brief pause to consult with his attorney, Baker responded: "Yes."
Baker later explained how he arrived at his conclusion, and how he was "persuaded" to change his mind.
"So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,"
said Baker. "And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was
not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law). "
Baker says he was persuaded to change his mind "pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until
the end. "
Recall that in December, 2017 we learned that James Comey's original exoneration letter was drafted in a way that would have required
criminal charges - changing Clinton's conduct from the legally significant "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" - which is
not a legal term of art. This language - along with
several other incriminating components was altered by former FBI counterintelligence agent and attorney, Peter Strzok.
Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: "My original belief after - well, after having conducted
the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials - I thought that it was alarming,
appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn't be charged. "
His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the
Department of Justice, a decision the department's inspector general (IG)
later concluded was misguided
and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts
that finding but took the actions he did because he thought "they were in the country's best interest." -
The Hill
Baker noted that had he been more convinced that there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, "I would have argued
that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view."
Comey made this announcement before election day 2016. We knew this excuse was obstruction of justice.
They wanted to see if the public would stand for it, which they did. Most democrats are fine with a seditious, treasonous felon
being president.
A lot of Republicans are cool with it too, so long as they get their brand in there for Federal Pork.
Navy62802 28 minutes ago
I think ultimately, the coverup of Clinton's emails was not to protect Clinton but to protect Obama, as he had
communicated with her on the server (even using an alias email, himself) even though he claimed to have learned of the
server when everyone else did ... an obvious lie. So in order to avoid being a co-conspirator with someone violating the
Espionage Act, Baker was "persuaded" not to charge Clinton.
Tulsi is the person who can heal our deeply wounded national psyche due to the idiocy and
ignorance of the Trump Regime. I have the same feeling watching her that I did when I saw
Obama at the 2004 convention, only Tulsi is a progressive where I sadly learned Obama was way
too corporate. I need to live to see Tulsi Gabbard in the White House. It's the same God, the
Force in everything, and nobody should be forced away from their beliefs or non belief. It's
Time To Show People That NOBODY IS NOBODY!
Tulsi Gabbard, one of the very few good politicians. Too much focus on Left and Right
views. It's time for Right and Wrong to come to the fore. Tulsi will try to clean up the mess
that her predecessors have created. Stop the bullshit deep state wars. Sons and daughters
being sacrificed for gas and oil profits. The benefits then ironically never come
I so want to support Tulsi. Shall we ever get a progressive enough candidate to get a real
investigation on the events of 9/11...to determine why the dust of those buildings had
military grade nano thermite, in which all the evidence suggests an intentional demolition of
those towers, and when, oh when will we get a candidate that unequivocally works for all
money out of campaigns and publicly funded elections like our Canadian neighbors.
This is my prediction - Tulsi Gabbard in 2020 election is like what Trump was in 2016
Election. Eventually, Tulsi is going to strike a chord with American people and almost all
Democrats and Independents are going to vote her and few from Trump base is also going to
vote her and eventually elect her as President in 2020 election. This is too early to make
such prediction but I think majority of Americans are very fair minded people and will do the
justice to her by electing her as President.
Liz Warren is talking about what Bernie talked about in '16. I'm concerned that she has
progressive rhetoric but centrist instincts. Her voting record isn't as progressive as I
believe is necessary. She needs to be able to withstand scrutiny if she hopes to attract
progressive voters. Rhetoric and platitudes aren't enough... #LeadersNeedToLeadByExample
I don't think I'm alone in finding a big difference that was not mentioned in the video.
While I greatly appreciate Elizabeth Warren, and those clips you showed from earlier today
were very encouraging, there is just a quality Bernie and Tulsi share that is very rare among
politicians. Something about the way they speak, their past actions, and ways they don't
speak, just hit home really hard a believability that they are extremely genuine and from the
heart. I see some of this from EW, but, Bernie and Tulsi are just incredibly impressive in
regard to this quality... it doesn't feel like supporting a politician, it feels like
supporting a kind of way of being and appreciation for what we all are so many of us try to
make our way of life. fwiw, I think it's also a big part of AOC's appeal.
Elizabeth Warren is a cautious, cowardish (her behaviour during 2016 was disgusting), but pretty energetic careerist. Her views will
quickly change under pressure, so good talking points will never translated into real policies.
The fact the wealthy control the USA is not news. This is the fact of life and always be. the
question is how to reach optimal middle point when interest of the bottom 80% standard of living
do not deteriorate.
Probably close to Barack Obama who also utters all right things during election complain and then blatantly betrayed his
voters.
She clearly is the top anti-corruption candidate and will expose the level of corruption in
Washington. So she is preferable to Kamala Harris and other establishment candidates.
The fight between organized and rich few and unorganized and poor many became hotter right
now. But what is the power base of anti-neoliberal movement. That can be only trade unions, which
were decimated. So the first step might be to restore the power of unions.
Notable quotes:
"... Elizabeth Warren is a progressive with no backbone who supports the military industrial complex ..."
"... Warren missed her moment when she failed us in 2016. She'd be VP today, and thinking about running in 2024. She shied away and instead, we have Trump ..."
Elizabeth Warren is weak. She did not have the courage to stand up to the Clinton machine
in 2016 when she could have made a difference by standing up against corruption. Now she is
waffling on what it means when she says she supports Medicare for All, as now she is open to
tweaking the Republican "Affordable" Care Act. She won't fight for us. We need real fighters.
We need Bernie and Tulsi.
I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Elizabeth Warren but in the last few years
she's shown that she's not as reliable as i thought she was. She's way to soft when it comes
to calling out the corruption in the dem party. She's also shown she's more willing to bend
to the will of the Dem establishment and that is not the kind of President we need right now.
I'll be posting a video on her campaign soon & unfortunately I'll have to tear into her a
lot more than you did in this video
Elizabeth Warren is a progressive with no backbone who supports the military industrial
complex. She will lose to Trump if she gets the nominee. Tulsi is a real progressive with
balls. #Tulsi2020
Warren missed her moment when she failed us in 2016. She'd be VP today, and thinking about
running in 2024. She shied away and instead, we have Trump.
I don't think she has the ability
to motivate she could have had back then. I don't think she has the savvy to beat Trump. We
need Tulsi or Bernie, the rest would lose in the general.
tomjulio2002, 1 week ago
Sorry but there is no comparison between Warren and Sanders.
Warren is either at best a coward (see primary 2016) or at worst a con (at lot of words but no action when it matters). So
not much will change with her, except that Trump would be gone. Then we will get a worse than Trump next time around when
people get even more disappointed and desperate.
For Sanders, you know for sure that he means what he says and that he intends to try.
The question is whether he will have the courage to go for it when the going gets tough. Or will he buckle like he did at
the 2016 convention thinking best to get half a loaf than risking to get nothing.
With Sanders, there is at least a chance (albeit a slim one in my opinion) of big changes happening on the issues like
Medicare for all, Green New Deal, Free public college...
For me, Warren is a no go.
Also Gabbard is clearly a fighter but I am still hazy on some of her positions. But I will take her before I even take
another look at Warren (if somehow Warren becomes the nominee).
Tulsi Gabbard is courageous and stands up against her own party regardless of the
political cost. Elizabeth Warren is a coward; she never stands up against her party; she only
fights the easy fights (GOP,Trump). Elizabeth Warren was a college professor she knows the
words the young kids want to listen and she says them often. Mark my words 'Elizabeth Warren
in 2020 will be the Walter Mondale of 1984'
Tulsi Gabbard. She supports Medicare for all and Elizabeth Warren does not. She's also
really pushing the fake Russia story all over MSNBC. Tulsi was the only one who didn't
endorse Hillary.
Liz voted to get rid of Habeas Corpus and we're going to put her up for president now?
Bernie and Liz will certainly maintain the Democratic Party line on the Middle East.
Mike don't be naive. The Democratic Party has learned NOTHING! They'd definitely cheat a
true progressive in 2020. Have you seen ANY changes? Do you hear what their lawyers say about
cheating Sanders on the record?
I'd take Tulsi Gabbard over Elizabeth Warren. Warren showed her true colors. Always too
little too late and she doesn't do it by mistake. Gabbard just does the right thing because
it's right. I don't think Warren could beat Trump. He can poke way too many holes in her.
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that
directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with
Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at
home.
Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life
giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I
was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and
civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except
it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back
them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base
levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced
through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an
oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about.
US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.
Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's
too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant
face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in
comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to
an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about
a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee
that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer
too.
"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the
history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the
future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit
about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies.
They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out
about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the
Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but
we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.
Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow
Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues
Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who
resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will
disregard.Thank you for you're support.
The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie
Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and
triple....DEMEXIT
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not
the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government
be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the
reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love
money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news
media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news
media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new
medias.
Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one
responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime
change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes
vote.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He
was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He
threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was
being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders'
kind).
Kinky, 2 months ago
Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how
being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure,
for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our
country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?
Jimmy, the whole Tulsi interview was a clinic on real journalism. It's efforts from TJDS
like this that make me wish I had more $ to give to the show than I do. Thank you for the
great work! And, while I was already a big supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, the way she spoke
honestly & addressed some tough questions & uncomfortable truths about the party
(& capitalism- that's what buying off pols is, an aspect of capitalism) just sent her
credibility sky high with me. Thank you Tulsi, & thank you Jimmy & the crew at TJDS.
Well done!
This entire interview, was nothing short of brilliant. Tulsi is the real deal. When Jimmy
mentions her & Bernie start a new party, her face said it all. She seemed genuinely
flattered and became very humble. Wish there was a "Tulsi Gabbard" in all 50 states. She
gives hope to people. Peace. And, thank you.
I hate to say it, but I remember another progressive politician who said all the right
things, at the right time: Barack Obama. I drank up that kool aid by the gallon, and voted
for him twice. Will Gabbard emerge from her first briefing as POTUS as a Stepford Wife of the
MIC, as Obama did? Will it be "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" yet again? By 2013,
specifically after Ukraine and vilification of Snowden (not to mention Libya, Syria,
Iraq/ISIS, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, etc) I vowed to never vote for a Democrat again, after
pulling the lever for dems my entire life. I would vote for Gabbard as an independent in a
hot second, but unfortunately have no hope for her or her seemingly progressive agenda if she
stays tied to the corrupt and warmongering DNC.
"... Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her ..."
"... Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn. ..."
"... The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you should all agree with Gabbard here. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard has recently launched a new attack on New World Order agents and ethnic
cleansers in the Middle East, and one can see why they would be upset with her. She said:
" We must stand up
against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up
new wars to wage, new places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and
hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy, our security, and destroying our
middle class."
It is too early to formulate a complete opinion on Gabbard, but she has said the right thing
so far. In fact, her record is better than numerous presidents, both past and present.
As we have documented in the past, Gabbard is an Iraq war veteran, and she knew what
happened to her fellow soldiers who died for Israel, the Neocon war machine, and the military
industrial complex. She also seems to be aware that the war in Iraq alone will cost American
taxpayers at least six trillion dollars.
[1] She is almost certainly aware of the fact that at least "360,000 Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans may have suffered brain injuries."
[2]
Gabbard is smart enough to realize that the Neocon path leads to death, chaos, and
destruction. She knows that virtually nothing good has come out of the Israeli narrative in the
Middle East -- a narrative which has brought America on the brink of collapse in the Middle
East. Therefore, she is asking for a U-turn.
The first step for change, she says, is to "stand up against powerful politicians from both
parties" who take their orders from the Neocons and war machine. These people don't care about
you, me, the average American, the people in the Middle East, or the American economy for that
matter. They only care about fulfilling a diabolical ideology in the Middle East and much of
the world. These people ought to stop once and for all. Regardless of your political views, you
should all agree with Gabbard here.
[1] Ernesto Londono, "Study: Iraq, Afghan war costs to top $4 trillion," Washington
Post , March 28, 2013; Bob Dreyfuss, The $6 Trillion Wars," The Nation , March 29,
2013; "Iraq War Cost U.S. More Than $2 Trillion, Could Grow to $6 Trillion, Says Watson
Institute Study," Huffington Post , May 14, 2013; Mark Thompson, "The $5 Trillion War
on Terror," Time , June 29, 2011; "Iraq war cost: $6 trillion. What else could have
been done?," LA Times , March 18, 2013.
[2] "360,000 veterans may have brain injuries," USA Today , March 5, 2009.
"We must stand up against powerful politicians from both parties who sit in their ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage, new
places for people to die, wasting trillions of our taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives and undermining our economy,
our security, and destroying our middle class."
"... US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class ..."
...Charles Schumer is a JEW NATIONALIST who uses his power and the
power of the Israel Lobby to get American soldiers to fight wars on behalf of Israel in the
Middle East and West Asia.
US soldiers are butchered, maimed and horribly wounded fighting wars on behalf of Israel and
Charles Schumer will start screaming about so-called "anti-Semitism" if anyone questions the
foreign policy choices of the American Empire's ruling class.
Wow, I absolutely love every point she made, what a breath of fresh air. Our less popular presidents that have lost their second
term elections have lost them because.. their opponent was a breath of fresh air. She's going to win by an embarrassing margin,
wish her the best!
"... Trump ought to know that accusations of anti-Semitism are absolutely, total hogwash. ..."
"... Trump is a recipient of the 'The Tree of Life Award' "the highest humanitarian award the Jewish National Fund* presents to one individual or family each year in appreciation of their outstanding community involvement, their dedication to the cause of American-Israeli friendship, and their devotion to peace and the security of human life". ..."
"President Trump continued to condemn the Saturday shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh that killed at least
11 people.
"The hearts of all Americans are filled with grief following the monstrous killing of Jewish Americans at the Tree of
Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pa., you've all seen it, you've been watching it, it's horrible," he said at a rally in Murphysboro,
Ill.
"This evil anti-Semitic attack is an attack on all of us, it is an assault on humanity. It will require all of us working
together to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world. This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst," Trump
added. "The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue It must be
confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head."
Through the centuries, the Jews have endured terrible persecution And those seeking their destruction, we will seek their destruction.
And when you have crimes like this, whether it's this one or another one on another group, we have to bring back the death penalty,"
he said. [the audience exploded in wild ovations].
Trump is a recipient of the 'The Tree of Life Award' "the highest humanitarian award the Jewish National Fund* presents to
one individual or family each year in appreciation of their outstanding community involvement, their dedication to the cause of
American-Israeli friendship, and their devotion to peace and the security of human life".
*The Jewish National Fund (Hebrew: קֶרֶן קַיֶּימֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, Keren Kayemet LeYisrael, previously הפונד הלאומי,
Ha Fund HaLeumi) was founded in 1901 to buy and develop land in Ottoman Palestine (later the British Mandate for Palestine, and
subsequently Israel and the Palestinian territories) for Jewish settlement.
"... I'm not against capitalism per se but unfettered free market capitalism is a disaster for everyone except the very few. The moves we've been making in that direction on both sides of the Atlantic over the past decades can clearly be shown to have concentrated wealth in the hands of the fewer and fewer. This is not a good thing. ..."
"... But there is an opportunity for Democrats. Trump has made a serious mess by being divisive and a liar. ..."
"... Would there be any practical difference on issues between Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton? She reminds me of Hillary a lot more than more than Warren does. ..."
"... Warren's entire campaign will probably contain fewer P.R. fuckups than Trump does in any single week. I think people will get over her Native American mistake. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks truly unregulated Capitalism won't fuck the public, needs to go back to history class. It's been experimented with just like Communism has. ..."
"... I disagree. This gave us the industrial revolution and the gilded age. It didn't give us the middle class. The unions did that and we wouldn't have needed the "new deal" if is wasn't for Wilson. Wilson gave us the great depression. ..."
"... The reason I think of myself as a capitalist is because I want the means of production to stay with the private sector. Wilson gave monetary control to the private sector. I think fiscal and monetary control should have remained in the public sector. ..."
"... The Democrats push policies that also are bad policy. Affirmative action fundamentally is based on racism. It has not lead to a colorblind society and it serves as a convenient way to ignore problems rather than deal with them. Obamacare pushed expensive health care programs on people without cost controls. Democrats need to focus on infrastructure. ..."
"... I'm a self proclaimed capitalist. I just don't think deregulation will lead to anywhere other than where Marx said it would ..."
"... I do think Trump will be defeated in 2020. There are some serious, solid Democratic candidates on offer, and I think one of them will get the nomination ..."
"... Average white Americans support the GOP because the average white American fears facing minorities as a minority themselves, because they know how they've treated others. ..."
"... In has final state of the union address, Obama told the people that they get the government they deserve. I'm not really an Obama fan because a neoliberal is just a neocon wearing a blue blazer, but Obama was right and I gave him a lot more respect after he said it. ..."
"... I think the opioid crisis is caused by economic woes of the guy who can't get a living wage job. That problem isn't going away despite how well Trump says things are going (#2). Trickle down econ has never worked for the little guy and if the democrats nominate the right person, Trump will lose. ..."
I'm glad to take this opportunity to side with Wes here. I'm not against capitalism per se but unfettered free market capitalism
is a disaster for everyone except the very few. The moves we've been making in that direction on both sides of the Atlantic over
the past decades can clearly be shown to have concentrated wealth in the hands of the fewer and fewer. This is not a good thing.
But there is an opportunity for Democrats. Trump has made a serious mess by being divisive and a liar. Trump is
a would be dictator. It is unlikely Trump will get reelected since a lot of people see him for the psychopath that he is. But
he may get reelected if Democrats select a tone deaf person like Elizabeth Warren to lead them. She falsely claimed to be an
Indian. She reminds me of Hillary Clinton.
Democrats need someone who does not have faults similar to Trump. Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, or someone else may be the
best choice. Democrats need to recognize how much of a disaster Hillary Clinton was for them.
Would there be any practical difference on issues between Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton? She reminds me of Hillary
a lot more than more than Warren does.
Warren's entire campaign will probably contain fewer P.R. fuckups than Trump does in any single week. I think people will
get over her Native American mistake.
I know Trump has a nickname for Warren. He's gonna come up with nicknames for anyone he runs against. If that is a deal-breaker
then Trump will be running unopposed.
Anyone who thinks truly unregulated Capitalism won't fuck the public, needs to go back to history class. It's been experimented
with just like Communism has.
It failed for the same reason that Communism did -- you cannot make a few minor tweaks to human nature so the system works
better. You have to work with human nature exactly the way it really is.
Free market capitalism is a very simple concept: voluntary transactions among free people. This is what lifted the masses
out of poverty, created the middle class
I disagree. This gave us the industrial revolution and the gilded age. It didn't give us the middle class. The unions did
that and we wouldn't have needed the "new deal" if is wasn't for Wilson. Wilson gave us the great depression.
The reason I think of myself as a capitalist is because I want the means of production to stay with the private sector.
Wilson gave monetary control to the private sector. I think fiscal and monetary control should have remained in the public sector.
Your idea of capitalism will wind up with all the money in the hands of a few (no middle class) because people can make more
money without competition that with it. Deregulation leads to collision and the formation of cartels. The real hero was Teddy
Roosevelt (not FDR). He was the trust buster. When two competitors form a trust, that isn't capitalism by the free market. Instead
that is two capitalists trying to corner the market. That is a monopoly and together those two start to lock the small business
man out of the market. It kills the middle class.
The reality is political parties don't do a good job governing. Trump is a train wreck. But there are a lot of Republicans who
hate immigrants and black people. And that is his base. It is not just Republicans who push bad policy.
The Democrats push policies that also are bad policy. Affirmative action fundamentally is based on racism. It has not lead
to a colorblind society and it serves as a convenient way to ignore problems rather than deal with them. Obamacare pushed expensive
health care programs on people without cost controls. Democrats need to focus on infrastructure.
But there is an opportunity for Democrats. Trump has made a serious mess by being divisive and a liar. Trump is a would be
dictator. It is unlikely Trump will get reelected since a lot of people see him for the psychopath that he is. But he may get
reelected if Democrats select a tone deaf person like Elizabeth Warren to lead them. She falsely claimed to be an Indian. She
reminds me of Hillary Clinton.
Democrats need someone who does not have faults similar to Trump. Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, or someone else may be the
best choice. Democrats need to recognize how much of a disaster Hillary Clinton was for them.
California has always been a leader among the States. Whether that continues remains to be seen. I hope it does.
The US may look weak right now to other countries. But I think that is a wrong conclusion. Our economy is strong despite poor
political leadership over the last fifty years. Trump is an aberration. I don't see China overtaking the US. In particular, Xi
Jinping will be dictator for life and he makes bad decisions. He likely will strike an alliance with Russia and find out too late
that he made a mistake. Putin seeks to turn China into a colony. Democracy may not be pretty, but it auto-corrects itself over
time.
However "capitalism" isn't capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.
No, that is known as progressivism. Free market capitalism is a very simple concept: voluntary transactions among free people
.
This is what lifted the masses out of poverty, created the middle class, and has not existed in the "free world" since Wilson
saddled us with the income tax and the central bank (a.k.a the Federal Reserve) and FDR sealed the deal by imposing his fascist,
disastrous New Deal.
You are no more a capitalist than I am an Etruscan. You are a big-government statist that likes just enough "free enterprise"
to support the ruling class who will pass on some of their loot to whomever you think deserves it. You don't realize that "regulation"
is a ruse to protect large business interests from competition while providing the appearance of accountability.
In other words, you are a progressive, just like most of the U.S. population, be they the left-wing Dems or so-called right-wing
GOP.
Together, they have utterly corrupted and bankrupted the nation, just as leftists do everywhere and always when they seize
control of a nation.
Given that socialists of one flavor or another slaughtered " https://fee.org/articles/death-by-government/?gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xnneMhaqvHwARaE8iFvo3WVN265UO8PYklsV_XOTpjoRd78M97ulYRoC7fQQAvD_BwE">slaughtered
close to 170 million souls in the last century, I'm not sure "tribal" is the proper term.
To this day, one can walk the streets of major western cities and see ignorant barbarian leftists (or do I repeat myself)
glorifying their favorite mass-murderers such as Lenin, Mao and Che on T-Shirts and windows.
And now, of course, in Congress, where borderline morons like AOC want to accomplish a "massive transformation of our society"
via a "special panel" of commissars to dictate all aspects of the energy economy.
One can only speculate if during her Boston University education she was ever exposed to the terms "Bolshevik", "USSR",
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat", "Purge", "Holodomor", and, particularly apropos, "Politburo" and "Cultural Revolution".
If she was, any lesson to be learned was clearly lost in the vacuous fog wafting about between her ears.
You can call the rejection and demonization of these wannabe totalitarian monsters, along with the "community organizers"
and "educators" that taught them to be useful idiots "tribalism" if you like.
Those of us who actually know something of history and reality will just keep calling it "saving civilization
So I guess you hate the 1940s-70s America the.
Getting the extreme private profits out of healthcare?
Getting education costs back under control?
Taxing the very (not mildly) rich?
This proposed "transformation of society" is not to a new form, it's to undo the right-wing transformation since Reagan.
We already tried it your way. We've done it for 40 years. Every time we got the opposite effect of what was promised, we tried
doubling down harder on it. It just kept getting WORSE. It's time for the right wing to admit it that it has been a total trainwreck.
If this was your idea of a good plan then your judgment is flawed.
Great. we can have a rational conversation if you like
As for moving elsewhere, why should we?
You shouldn't. if you love the constitution then stay and fight for her. Your posts were sounding like you were trying to get
around her. Seemed like it would just be easier to move away. We need help. Rational people can help. Patriotic Americans will
help
I call it tribalism when one wishes to see things as either supply-side econ or socialism. I'm a self proclaimed capitalist.
I just don't think deregulation will lead to anywhere other than where Marx said it would.
Socialism isn't the answer per se because it doesn't work as well as capitalism. However "capitalism" isn't capitalism for
the poor and socialism for the rich. Capitalism is only self regulating when competition is preserved, so if the people at the
top believe "competition is a sin" the so called free market isn't free any more. If you can talk about that, you aren't being
tribal. If you cannot, reason isn't really a part of this. It is more about whose side you are on and less about who is trying
to look at this using reason.
Unfortunately the way the democrats silenced Omar, I'm betting they have no intention of nominating somebody that can beat
Trump.
I don't think Ilhan Omar was silenced, only (and justly) criticised for her use of anti-Semitic tropes. Criticism of the Israeli
government's actions and policies, OTOH, are fair game. And I do think Trump will be defeated in 2020. There are some serious,
solid Democratic candidates on offer, and I think one of them will get the nomination. (I'm backing
John Delaney , BTW.)
What I've been discussing is the feasibility of seceding and the reasons for it.
I would argue that it is definitely feasible. However I don't think it is plausible. There are a few different directions you
could go and I don't think you are picking the path that is:
1. most likely to succeed and
2. the least painful whether it is successful or not
Why you want to secede is well articulated even if I don't agree. If you want what you want, take the best means in order to
achieve the goal. For example, if you like authoritarianism, wouldn't it be easier to move to China rather than risk killing a
bunch of people and doing it your way? You say you like the constitution but instead of learning about who is messing with it,
you assume the people with whom you agree, don't threaten it. They do. They don't like the 2nd amendment. They don't like the
electoral college. They'd just as soon rewrite the constitution rather than read it first.
Average white Americans support the GOP because the average white American fears facing minorities as a minority themselves,
because they know how they've treated others.
You know, that "Do unto others" thing? That's what a large lot white Americans fear, and why they support the GOP. The ones
who don't tend to live in California and other West Coast states.
In has final state of the union address, Obama told the people that they get the government they deserve. I'm not really an
Obama fan because a neoliberal is just a neocon wearing a blue blazer, but Obama was right and I gave him a lot more respect after
he said it.
Some people just want to be told the truth.
Others don't even care what the truth is.
I think the opioid crisis is caused by economic woes of the guy who can't get a living wage job. That problem isn't going
away despite how well Trump says things are going (#2). Trickle down econ has never worked for the little guy and if the democrats
nominate the right person, Trump will lose.
Unfortunately the way the democrats
silenced
Omar , I'm betting they have no intention of nominating somebody that can beat Trump. Both parties are in bed with AIPAC.
That means their constituents come second and the rationally thinking person isn't inspired by the democrats.
its the media; they are brainwashing people and it is working. if there was no free internet, they'd have an excuse, but anybody
with access to the G ought to know better. The media BS doesn't stand up in the face of honest debate and hyperlinks.
this 2 hour interview sheds so much light on things
inquiring minds would like to know, imho.
Most of the rest chose to cast their lot with Trump and the Republicans, and with supply-side economics and trickle down,
with predictable and predicted results.
I'm not a supply sider, but I am a self proclaimed capitalist. I detest deregulation and I'm pro union. Trump should have been
impeached the day he went on TV and told why he fired Comey.
1. The media is broken
2. Congress is broken
It may be a better chess move to try to fix what is broken (don't expect a broken Congress to impeach Trump), instead of trying
to make an enemy of the most powerful military on earth by trying to leave the union. You don't have the legal right nor the military
means to pull that off.
Tulsi Gabbard's platform
is closely aligned with Senator Bernie Sanders' platform – the platform supported by millions and millions of American working class
during his 2016 presidential campaign.
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and
the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
Okay, in theory, a third option is possible (never say never!) but I see that as highly unlikely: Tulsi Gabbard follows in the
footsteps of Trump and gets elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House
she does what Trump failed to do and appeals directly to the people of the USA to back her in a ruthless campaign to "drain the swamp"
(meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially, when he came to power,
by the way. Frankly, for all her very real qualities she does not strike me as a "US Putin" nor does she have the kind of institutional
and popular backing Putin had. So while I will never say never, I am not holding my breath on this one
Finally, if Gabbard truly is "for real" then the Deep State will probably "Kennedy" her and blame Russia or Iran for it.
Still, while we try to understand what, if anything, Tulsi Gabbard could do for the world, she does do good posting messages like
this one:
I don't know about you, but I am rather impressed!
At the very least, she does what "Occupy Wall Street" did with its "1%" which was factually wrong. The actual percentage is much
lower but politically very effective. In this case, Gabbard speaks of both parties being alike and she popularizes concepts like
" warmongers in ivory towers thinking up new wars to wage and new places for people to die ". This is all very good and useful
for the cause of peace and anti-imperialism because when crimethink concepts become mainstream, then the mainstream is collapsing
!
The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't give a
damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans"
or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they
really care about.
Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are hell bent on power, empire and war. They
also will stop at nothing to prevent the USA from (finally!) becoming a "normal" country and they couldn't care less about the fate
of the people of the USA. All they want is for us all to become their serfs.
All of this is hardly big news. But this hysterical reaction to Gabbard's candidacy is a very powerful and useful proof of the
fact that the USA is a foreign-occupied country with no real sovereignty or democracy. As for the US media, it would make folks like
Suslov or Goebbels green with envy. Be it
the ongoing US aggression
against Venezuela or the reaction to the Tulsi Gabbard phenomenon, the diagnostics concur and we can use the typical medical
euphemism and say with confidence: "the prognosis is poor".
In fact, one of two things are most likely to happen next:
– Tulsi Gabbard remains true to her ideals and views and she gets no money for her campaign
– Tulsi Gabbard caves in to the Neocons and the Deep State and she become another Obama/Trump
I think it is unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard caves in so soon. The way she has started her campaign, she is certainly aware that
she has cut off herself from the normal donors of Democrats, and the way she talks shows that she is not afraid of alienating
them even more because she won't get money from them, anyway. The plan is to do the same like Bernie Sanders 2016 and raise small
donations. Many Democratic candidates now say they don't take PAC money, but there are different ways of getting money from big
donors – Tulsi Gabbard is probably one of those who are more serious about avoiding reliance on big donors. It could work. In
2016, during the primaries, Hillary Clinton regularly had to interrupt her campaign in order to attend dinners with superrich
donors, while Bernie Sanders asked people to donate as a part of his campaign on social media, and Sanders regularly outraised
Clinton. Of course, 2016, we just saw that for the primaries, but it might also work for the general election (and numbers are
not everything, Hillary Clinton spent far more than Donald Trump and still lost, so even if small donations would lead to a somewhat
lower sum, she could still win with a popular message). And not only could it work, I think it would be the only way for Tulsi
Gabbard to succeed because she has probably already been too outspoken about some things to ever gain back the trust of the neocons
and their allies in the media and the billionaire donor class.
Of course, if Tulsi Gabbard advances in the primaries, she will be attacked most viciously in the media. I am not so sure what
the effect will be. On one hand, Trump's victory in the primaries and the general election showed that being hated by mainstream
media does not have to be an obstacle that cannot be surmounted, and as long as there are so many primary candidates, such vicious
attacks can also make her seem more interesting to some people. On the other hand, her main hurdle are probably the Democratic
primaries, and, according to polls, Democrats have lost trust in the mainstream media to a lesser degree than the general public.
But then again, vilifying her too much in the liberal media (as it has already started) is also a certain risk for them because
it could become too obvious to see that the decisive feature that leads to such attacks is that someone is not seen as reliably
pro-neocon, and that could also lead to doubts about the media in leftists who readily accepted the attacks on Trump because they
hated him for other reasons. Therefore, I think the main hope of the establishment is that Tulsi Gabbard can be treated as a „minor
candidate" and won't get far, in case she becomes a serious contender for the nomination, they are in trouble.
If Tulsi Gabbard wins the nomination, we can almost be certain that the pro-neocon establishment will a) see a re-election
of Trump as the lesser evil and b) they will support a pro-establishment third party candidate (already last time, Michael Bloomberg
threatened to run if the two major candidates are Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, now Howard Schultz seems to have positioned
himself that way, though I think he is too ridiculous and ineffective and will be replaced by someone else if the establishment
needs a third party candidate because they lose the Democratic primaries). Such a third party candidate probably increases the
chances of Trump's re-election (probably a desired side-effect, many of these liberal oligarchs probably prefer Trump to Gabbard
and Sanders by far, but it would be difficult for them to support Trump in public, supporting a third party candidate is much
easier), but a populist campaign against both Trump and that third party candidate as representatives of a corrupt billionaire
class might well be successful.
Then, if Tulsi Gabbard is elected, she certainly runs the risk of ending like JFK, but the fact that so many people now already
talk and write about this risk might also protect her to some degree – the danger is so obvious that many people won't believe
theories about a lonewolf terrorist easily (and blaming Russia and Iran after Tulsi Gabbard had been vilified as an Assadist and
Russian trolls' favorite candidate would also be difficult, if for some reasons relations with Saudi Arabia are not seen as so
important any more, the more realistic option of blaming Saudi terrorists may be chosen). Another option would be to impeach her,
though that could also be a big risk for the establishment, and depending on who would be her VP, it would not be enough. Of course,
there could be bipartisan agreement about blocking all of her initiatives.
Even if she is extremely smart and tough, alone against the united forces of the deep state, establishment media and the bipartisan
war party, Tusli Gabbard probably could not achieve very much – of course, she would still be commander in chief and probably
could prevent new wars, and she could open some people's eyes about who really holds power, but she could hardly achieve very
much. The question is whether she still might get some institutional support like Putin when he became president. I think that
is not so unlikely because there are indications that the deep state is internally divided (one small example is that the communications
of Lisa Page and Peter Strzok were published) and that the neocons' grip on power is far from total. Therefore, it does not seem
impossible that with a combination of support in the general public (and she certainly has the potential of becoming very popular)
and the support of parts of the deep state that have not been subdued by the neocons, she might be successful – it would be a
very harsh power struggle.
As far as caving in to Israel is concerned, Tulsi Gabbard has never been too critical of Israel – there was some relatively
mild criticism of attacks on Gaza (in a way that is fairly common among progressives), but in general, she has not been too critical
of Israel and has also had some friendly contacts with the pro-Israel lobby. So, while she is very strong and consistent in rejecting
neocons and their regime change wars, as far as Israel and Palestinians' rights are concerned, people should probably not expect
too much from her. But if she is serious about fighting the neocons and limiting the power of the military-industrial complex
and still could win an election, that would already be a big achievement.
After witnessing the temper tirades and the teeth gnashing of the deep states media minions after the anti-war-lite Donald Trump
got elected, I'm guessing Tulsi Gabbard is in for one of two things:
1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
I don't think American Democracy(AKA Empire) is in any mood for another spoiler
By the way, check out how Rep. Ilhan Omar grills that sorry SOB Abrams here:
http://thesaker.is/rep-ilhan-omar-vs-elliott-abrams/
. This young lady clearly has more courage and integrity that all her colleagues taken together!
This is one of the few things I agree with Ilhan Omar about. Abrams is a felonious, warmongering prick.
She is very photogenic. So is Kamala Harris.
Projecting an anti-war position against promoting the bonafides of her army service will be quite the balancing act of cognitive
dissonance, but opposite the hyper-masculine affect a candidate like Trump or Hillary must emote to neutralize an absence of military
experience in their résumé.
Then there's that first husband and her family's political machine.
But damn, Tulsi and Kamala photograph impeccably well from every angle.
What are the chances outside of India that three potential presidential candidates of the female persuasion all share a common
ethnic background, Nimrata Haley, Tulsi and Kamala? No coincidence there.
Finding all this information below takes less time than burning a cigarette.
United Christians for Israel, founded and led by pastor John Hagee, have millions of members and call themselves "the largest
pro-Israel charity in the United States." The organization was an important factor in the decision of US President Donald Trump
in 2017 to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to transfer the US embassy there.
Gabbard sponsored the resolution of the Congress criticizing Amnesty International for revealing Israeli atrocities against
civilians in his blitzkrieg in Gaza in 2014. The resolution stated that Israel "focuses on terrorist targets" and "goes to extraordinary
efforts to attack only terrorist actors". https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/22/gaza-and-the-bi-partisan-war-on-human-rights/
Zionism and Islamophobia Gabbard have gained recognition and support from all kinds of unpalatable characters – like right-wing
billionaire and Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who loudly declared that "all Muslims are terrorists".
In addition to Israel's loyal defender, Gabbard has also proved to be a credible servant of Adelson's business interests. Introduced
regulations against online gambling to protect the casino's empire from competition on the Internet. Adelson thanked her, giving
her the Champion of Freedom award. http://time.com/3695948/sheldon-adelson-online-gambling/
Her prejudices against Islam directly stem from her Hindu fundamentalism. Gabbard became one of the main American political
supporters of Narendra Modi, the leader of the Hindu sectarian party Bharatiya Janata (BJP) and the current Prime Minister of
India.
Being the main minister of the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi helped spark a pogrom against Muslims, in which they killed
2,000 people and displaced over 200,000 people in the ethnic cleansing campaign. Since his victory in the 2014 elections, Modi
has been a decidedly pro-Israeli Indian politician and has strong relations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
At the invitation of Modi, Gabbard traveled through India for three weeks during which various Hindu fundamentalists greeted
her as their American master. In probably the worst part of the tour, the India Foundation, a formation tuned to the Hindu fascist
group Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), hosted Gabbard to discuss the future of Indian-American relations. After the reactionary
lovefest, the Indian newspaper Telegraph called it "the American Sangha mascot" https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/sangh-finds-a-mascot-in-american-tulsi/cid/1579985
After returning to the USA, Gabbard defended Modi against any criticism. She was one of the few democrats who spoke against
the federal government's decision to refuse a Modi visa in 2014 because of his abolition of religious freedom
As with other leading liberal democrats, Gabbard's alleged progressive values do not extend to the Palestinian struggle for
freedom. While she may support the resistance of Indian Native at Standing Rock, she will not support the indigenous people of
Palestine and her struggle for self-determination against Israeli colonialism. http://socialistworker.org/2014/08/13/liberal-champions-of-apartheid
Yawn. Tulsi, Bernie, Corbyn – doesn't matter. The ruling elites have the power to co-opt, demonize or kill them. And, that regime
is desperate enough to do this.
We are all waiting for the tectonic impact of some external shocks. Because the system is fragile, over-ripe. Collapse of debt
bubbles, an infectious disease epidemic, a rogue general fires off some nukes. Whatever. Just passes the Global Tipping Point,
then, everything disintegrates. The centre cannot hold. And at that point the tensions release and people go nuts. The regime
divides against itself; the roof falls in. The whole world is waiting, expecting this to happen in some way or form.
Go and max out your credit card, get hard stuff, don't pay, stop buying anything. A few millions doing that. Empty your bank
account. Stop paying your mortgage and car loan. Make them chase you. Work to precipitate the Big One. Help tear the fabric beyond
its tensile strength. Do your bit.
Don't expect to see Tulsi on your side of the barricades.
@Rich1234
Nimrata Randhawa Haley is of Punjabi Sikh ancestry on both sides, genetically closer to southern Europeans than to most Indians.
Kamala Harris is descended from South Indian brahmins on her mother's side. You can't get more Aryan than that – look up the
word. And she is Jamaican on her father's side. I haven't seen a picture of him but I imagine he's about as black as fellow Jamaican
Colin Powell. An octoroon to use that old-fashioned term. But Negro blood was considered so polluting that just a smidgeon put
you with the lower race. It's still working like that, but in victim politics less is more.
Tulsi Gabbard had a WASP mother who became a member of Swami Bhaktivedanta's Krishna devotees. Her father was Polynesian. There's
no genes from India. It's a mistake to think of her religion as Hindu, but it's her mistake as well as that of many Indians. Hinduism
is not *a* religion because Hinduism is the liberating realization that the idea of *a* religion is very shallow. It is a pleasure
to see Tulsi, in videos, going about her devotions.
.. "drain the swamp" (meaning showing the door to the Neocons and their Deep State). This is what Putin did, at least partially,
when he came to power, by the way.
a good article, overall.
Especially:
USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism and war; folks who
don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside the USA
and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Apparently, US public figures like Gabbard and Trump still don't understand the simple fact that NO amount of grovelling
will EVER appease the Neocons or the Ziolobby
the so-called "liberals" don't give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities,
don't give a damn about "thanking our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what
they do care about is power, Empire and war. That they really care about.
It's interesting to see the prompt [13] Democrat party oppo based on the "right-wing Indian agent" smear. It's exactly analogous
to Democrat/CIA attack on "Russian puppet" Trump, when Democrats had absolutely nothing to offer in lieu of a famous loathsome
TV asshole they hand-picked to beat like a drum and then lost to.
If it were the case that Tulsi were an Indian fifth-column traitor, like Rubio is a Israeli fifth-column traitor, So what?
Objective indicators of world-standard state responsibilities show that the state of India is more developed, more legitimate,
and more entitled to responsible sovereignty than the US government. India exceeds US performance on most of the top-level human
rights indicators.
You can see for yourself, in whatever level of detail you desire, with NGO input exhaustively compiled by elected independent
international experts acting in their personal capacity.
Tulsi's exposure to superior Indian human-rights compliance is likely to build her capacity in terms of Responsibility to Protect
Pillar 2. She will have a better understanding of rights and rule of law than provincial goober candidates with no international
exposure. That will necessarily influence her evolving stance on systematic and widespread Israeli extermination of Palestinian
indigenous peoples.
I have never voted for a Democrat. I plan to vote for Gabbard. I have contributed to her campaign. I cringe at her progressive
agenda, but I fully support her positions on non-intervention.
@der einzige
Hope is such a frail and tenuous emotion.
That said, l'm investing some of my dwindling reserves of hope in Tulsi. Your comments are very considered, and l share your concerns
for peace with the current play of Theo-politics. Modi is an unapologetic Hindu chauvinist who has successfully incited brutal
communalism for electoral gain. But my personal loathing of him has ameliorated over time (I shock myself!) because he has steered
a pretty independent course for India, maintaining friendly relations with China for example,despite U.S. pressure to use India
as a wedge. His Hinduva ideology appears to be a domestic political tool. This is a cunning but pragmatic approach and is distinct
from a religious ideology with global ambitions. The latter is the province of Zionism which is not really a religion but has
(other) religious affiliations or "allies",including Hinduism but most importantly Christian zionism (or evangelicism or dispensationalism
et al). It seems to me that a lot of what Trump is doing re. "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is to appease the Christian
Zionists who comprise a large chunk of his support base, and not American Jewry.(They are democrats as a foregone conclusion).There
is great irony in this if you follow the fantastical narrative of the Christian evangelical apocalypse.
Political ambitions are the scourge of religion.I attend an Anglican Church,very traditional, because my preferred form of worship
is hymn singing-the sung mass for Eucharist.I do this in contradistinction(!) to evangelicism. Unfortunately Islam too undergone
a political makeover in recent history which has led to un utter corruption of prophet Mohammad's words.It's apogee is Wahhabism,
a fad made manifest through money and power and war. Shia is also Islam, but not according to Wahhabis,who do not even relate
to Shia as "self-hating Moslems."And do not imagine that the Moslem brotherhood is any better for all the acceptable styling.
Sunnism needs to detach itself from ideology.God is in the poetry and not the small print.
Thanks for your patience with my digression. The Saker suggests we examine the Tulsi phenomenon as a diagnostic tool.
This may be useful. But Tulsi as a Hindi wooden horse?
She cannot be anti war without being anti Israel. Her candidacy is going nowhere.
It would be nice to have an anti war voice in the debates but Gabbard will be adrift in a sea of idiots. How many candidates
will there be for the Democratic nomination? Twenty? Eighty? All of them competing for who hates whitey the most. Featuring as
a side show Biden and Bernie expressing their shame at their skin color.
If Gabbard wants to be heard she should switch parties and primary Trump. Let him defend his Israel first foreign policy.
She is the only prominent politician in the commander-in-chief discussion who has served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is there a poll
on her standing with the military demographic? An argument can be made that her credibility on fighting more war or fighting less
war is an order of magnitude higher than a dozen Trumps, Clintons, et al all put together.
She has seen firsthand the pointlessness of the waste of blood and treasure. How can you root against Gabbard? She is near
the only elected official to get any positive press at anitwar.com.
I have a somewhat contrary analysis although admittedly, it's not based on much.
Tulsi's speech patterns closely resemble Hillary Clinton's. I put this down to various leadership classes they attended which
likely have a common source. I think we are seeing a divergence of opinion in the Deep State with some wanting Globalism, while
others are unwilling to accept the destruction of the United States as a price for Globalism. Call them the Fortress America
wing of the Deep State. They want to rebuild America and preserve its wealth and autonomy while moving toward a world government.
In other words, Tulsi could emerge as the candidate of the MAGA section of the Deep State.
As for Trump, he is waist deep in the Swamp fighting for his life against pretty much everybody. If Omar had her way he would
be impeached. Trump's support among Republicans is the only thing keeping from being impeached. His partisan attacks are probably
designed to signal his willingness to lead the fight for Republicans, hoping they will defend him in return.
You make such a convincing case that you've painted yourself into a corner. Your point is that the Ziocons or whatever you call
them are so bent on war and empire that they'll destroy anyone who tries to get in their way.
To be credible, because your claim is so extreme, you'd need to explain the abnormal psychology that drives this will to domination.
Can you do that? If not, your article -- and a number of your others -- come off as routine Jew- and liberal-bashing. The bashing
may or may not be deserved depending on your point of view. But that would be all it is: standard prejudice and bigotry in what
you seem to take as a good cause.
We see from where we've been. I supported Ron Paul. He was ignored, and then cheated.
Voting for Washington wannabes is like watching just the "good programs" on TV, or patronizing the non-disgusting movies that
manage to emerge from Hollywood. Those doing so endorse and prop up the tottering, rotten Establishment.
Another very important thing Tulsi is doing is being a completely different person from Trump but hammering home the same Trump
campaign message against the war-lusting elites.
If it wasn't for her, the media and elite mafia could marginalize this entire argument. They'll never let the population vote
on these points because then, the jig will be up.
A media blackout of Tulsi will only work if people continue to get their information from the boob tube and newspapers. Why is
anyone still expecting to get the truth from the MSM? Anyone with half a brain and an internet connection should be able to follow
her. Tell all of your grandparents, uncles, and other old fogies to throw away CNN, NYT, Fox, WaPo, NBC, etc. and find the truth
online.
@jacques
sheete The Anti-federalist's never had a chance, nor would Aloha Tulsi. The Boston tea party itself was a false flag attempting
to pass blame on to the Indians. How typically American. Lexington was caused by the that same Sam Adams and his free masons from
the green dragon, who were firing at both the British and the Militia's, just like they did in Maidan 5 years ago. The US revolution
in 1776 was just another Masonic color revolution on behalf of the Rothschild's. These are the same guys who killed Kennedy and
pulled off 9/11. Now they have Trump 100% corralled and black balled, and he is one of them anyway.
That was when Wonder Woman Tulsi came surfin' into the Washington swamp, all ready to drain it.
True – "The most important achievement of Tulsi Gabbard, at least so far, has been to prove that the so-called "liberals" don't
give a damn about race, don't give a damn about gender, don't give a damn about minorities, don't give a damn about "thanking
our veterans" or anything else. They don't even care about Israel all that much. But what they do care about is power, Empire
and war. That they really care about. Tulsi Gabbard is the living proof that the US Democrats and other pretend "liberals" are
hell bent on power, empire and war."
The average Liberal voter thinks that Conservatives love Empire while Liberals oppose empires. Likewise, the average Middle
American Republican voter thinks America is anything but the new British Empire and that America is always fighting against those
bad empires and so must be very active globally to do good and prevent even worse bad.
True – "As for the US media, it would make folks like Suslov or Goebbels green with envy."
The Anglo-Zionist Empire: the inherent fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism that was not stopped dead in its tracks.
It will get worse before it can get better. It cannot be corrected without a rejection of WASP culture, which is replaced with
an authentically Christian culture.
Tulsi Gabbard presents bill to stop Trump from pulling out of INF treaty
Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard has introduced a bill to Congress which would prevent President Donald Trump
from withdrawing the US from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).
Speaking at a press conference on Friday morning, Gabbard said that Trump's decision to pull out of the 1988 treaty was
"reckless," was "exacerbating a new Cold War" with Russia, and could spark another arms race.
"Walking away from this agreement doesn't solve our problems, it makes them worse. It doesn't bring us closer to peace,
it moves us closer to war," she said.
I am hoping that Gabbard is the next president because it would mean Hindus beat Jews to the White House, and if she serves a
full term she will be the first nonprotestant* president to serve a full term, take that Catholics. She will be sworn in with
her hand on the Bhagavad Gita, bah ha hah ha. The Evangelicals will go berserk (I hope). She declared herself Hindu as a teen,
was she baptized?
* Jimmy Carter was 'born again' so he might be the first non main line Protestant or even nonProtestant.
@JL
I think both the anti-war Left and anti-war Right are sizeable and growing. Speaking of the Dissident Right, which I am more in
tune with, we just need a courageous leader to rally around. Right now the Dissident Right is more reliably anti-war than any
other faction.
But, really, the dissident right is not doctrinaire right at all as they are against Big Business and reject Libertarianism.
Tulsi probably doesn't even want the open support of the dissident right (very few are racist white supremacists, although the
media has tarred us all with that brush)...
@Biff1) The 2012 Ron Paul treatment – total media blackout
Or
2) A media Blitzkrieg that will depend on outright lies to discredit her – in which case she might as well bring a hat and a broom
to most debates.
But what about social media? The MSM mostly ignored Bernie Sanders but he got a huge boost.
I think the real problem with Tulsi is she comes across as too calm for politics. She's not low-energy like Jeb, but she lacks
fire.
Also, I'm not sure most progs would be interested in her anti-war platform. They liked Bernie because his message was mostly
domestic: Free Stuff!
Americans are anti-war only when too many Americans are getting killed overseas. In the Obama yrs, the US perfected a new way
of Open Borders War where US uses proxies to destroy other nations. So, most Americans don't care.
@Robert
Bruce It's the same 'bait and switch' strategy, that occurs every 4 years. Why change a strategy when the old one works so
well? To date, Trump holds the record for fooling the largest number of people, with anti-war candidate, John Kerry coming in
a distant 2nd.
I suppose there is also a fourth option: Tulsi Gabbard keeps her no-war stance, and follows in the footsteps of Trump and gets
elected in spite of a massive media hate-campaign against her and once she makes it to the White House she does what Trump did
and caves.
A very interesting interview. You need to listed to it in full to appreciates. Probably best interviewer so far interviewed
Tulsi, and Tulsi is really impressive. Cool, definitely high intellect, deep understanding of current US problems
Notable quotes:
"... I'm not a Democrat. I would vote for this person. Just saying. Elizabeth Warren didn't even support Bernie while Tulsi resigned to support Bernie ..."
"... Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over ..."
"... If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks! ..."
"... Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth. Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll never go out of style. ..."
"... Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala ..."
I'm a libertarian and love hearing Tulsi!! She's the antithesis of Hillary. Only dem I would support in 2020. Agree 100% with
her foreign policy views.
Combat vet, Currently serving in the Guard, rank of Major. Intellectually gifted. Well prepared. Emotionally stable. Able to change
her ideas as life goes on, taking each issue as it comes. Vs a bunch of 70 year old maniacs who have never told the truth, never
served, and have made deal with the devil to get where they are. Game over
B. Greene, 1 week ago
If the establishment weren't smearing her, I wouldn't trust her. They are, which means that she'll fight for working
people, and against the neoconservative chickenhawks!
Howard Sexton, 2 months ago
Damn! I am republican but she has my vote 🗳! I have never heard a politician talk this long without blaming the opposing
party. Just impressed
Zwart Poezeke, 1 week ago
Man she's smart, critical and actually comes off as honest. She really would be an inspiring leader. Guys I'm from Belgium,
so I can't vote, but do me a favor and vote for her
a_g60, 2 weeks ago
Tulsi Gabbard is the ultimate woman. That's why the DNC is colluding against her.
she's articulate and highly educated
she's extremely attractive
she was a combat medic
she's young
she has a great family
she gets all the attention of men
she's presidential
This is what a candidate looks like. Take notes!
Matthew Mauldon, 1 month ago
She is amazing and I would vote for her as president. It is very disturbing how she sheds light on how Saudi Arabia uses
our us military and how Saudi Arabia murdered many innocents and we said nothing and continue to support them. Also the level
of corruption of our politicians and how they mis use our troops without a care in the world. We need to wake up folks this is
not right
The Scapegoat Mechanism, 1 month ago
Obama was the thesis. Trump was the antithesis. Gabbard will be the synthesis.
Chris Jones, 5 months ago
I absolutely adore this woman. She gave up her Vice chair position in the DNC when she saw they were stealing the
nomination from Bernie. That's integrity.
Paul Peart-Smith, 1 week ago
Tulsi is the General Smedley Butler of today, someone who knows how war works and is brave enough to tell the truth.
Please read his short book "War Is A Racket". Even though it was written in the 30's, as long as things are this way, it'll
never go out of style.
algo, 5 days ago
See Joe, this woman has INTEGRITY, unlike that zionist warmongering shill Bari Weiss regurgitating her fed opinions which
she didn't even know the meaning of!
savita purohit, 2 months ago
this is what 1st female president of US should be like, not Clinton or that virtue signaling Warren, not Nikki either
Ryan Hamilton, 1 day ago (edited)
I'm a conservative, Republican, combat vet. I would follow her into combat. I would vote for her because she's a
pragmatist, puts America first, is skeptical of US foreign policy, and stands up for the little guy. There is some remarkable
overlap between the anti establishment populist left and anti establishment populist right.
Loro sono umano, 2 days ago
Don't forget to change party to Democrat to vote her in the primaries if you're Green, libertarian, independent, or
conservative, even if its temporary. Let's put our egos aside and work together as citizens! Tell your friends to do the
same to overthrow corporate establishment Kamala. Dont let the establishment get their way
Chico Christe Pace, 1 week ago
damn, I never thot there is an American politician who thinks this way. she sees the whole picture and made sense to it.
this lady is kick ass! :) you guys shd keep voting for her :) put her on the top seat, she can be the real hope for the US of
A :)
bestrainingtechnique, 4 months ago
So let me get this straight I don't know much about this woman, but from what I've seen in this interview she seems to be
very intelligent, rational, experienced, has military experience, extremely well spoken, and doesn't trust the mainstream
media and realizes that there are elements of our government that are basically unhinged and looking for war?? And is there
anyone on earth that wouldn't vote for her as president??? Would we really rather have an orange face reality star buffoon or
a war mongering lunatic who has no real experience except being married to a former president?
I really hope she runs as an independent, I think she would win in a landslide, since I think it is the perfect time in our
country where I think a non-Republican or Democrat can definitely win! The two party system needs to go!
Skemoo, 1 week ago
I came back after MSM and Jews started smearing her including Sam Harris. I cant sense any form of malevolence or evil in
her words or body language.. she seems like a sweet empathetic lady.
Im fuking angry that these ppl are smearing her. Im not an american but you ppl better wake the fuk up and vote her into
office i think she is fit to be the first female president. Hope Rogan doesnt do 180 and betray her . im surprized Sam harris
hates her.
David Paley, 1 week ago
If they can keep everyone in need of working 3 jobs just to make ends meet, and make healthcare too expensive to afford
proper care, the people will always be too busy, tired, and worn-out, to actively participate in the electoral process; the
only thing that might change things for the better. The elites know exactly what they're doing, so now they see this woman as
an existential threat, and the smear campaigns have already begun. I hope the sensible people in your country can support her
as much as she is trying to support you. Good luck in 2020, both to Tulsi, and America.
Every soldier knows this simple fact: If you don't know your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him. Tulsi
Gabbard Simple , Soldier , Enemy "'Knives are out': Hawaii Dem faces backlash for taking on Obama over 'Islamist' extremism".
Interview with Malia Zimmerman, www.foxnews.com. February 28, 2015.
Through my time in the military and my deployments, I have recognized the importance of having a Commander in Chief who will
not only go after those who threaten the safety and security of the American people, but who will also exercise good judgment
and foresight in stopping these failed interventionist wars of regime change that have cost our country so much in human lives,
untold suffering, and trillions of dollars. Source:
www.glamour.com
>The cost of war impacts all of us - both in the human cost and the cost that's being felt frankly in places like Flint, Michigan,
where families and children are devastated and destroyed by completely failed infrastructure because of lack of investment. Source:
www.glamour.com
Students are suffering under incredibly high tuitions and high student loan interest rates. They graduate from school, and
they're having a very difficult time finding a job. They don't feel as though there are honest leaders who are listening to them,
and who will be a part of the solution. Source:
www.glamour.com
It makes no sense for us to consider going back there and getting involved in what truly is a religious civil war. What real
difference would it make on the ground? And secondly, is it in the best interests of the United States to do that? I would say
that those questions are not being answered in a compelling way that would cause me to support that.
"Gabbard: Back to Iraq 'makes no
sense'" by Jonathan Topaz, www.politico.com. June 13, 2014.
Hawaii is a special place because we have a very diverse population there, who are very respectful and tolerant of those who
have differing opinions and different views.
A military mindset is objectively analyzing a planned course of action and anticipating the likely consequences before you
take that action. Source:
www.glamour.com
It's easy to say, let's go in and get the bad guys. But you have a divided country of Sunnis and Shias. The United States goes
and takes action there on behalf of the Iraqi government. You've got Iran coming in and saying we're going to stand with Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, so now we're aligning ourselves with Iran, and if we do air strikes, becoming de facto air force
for them. "The Lead with Jake Tapper", www.cnn.com.
June 12, 2014.
I'm not a political pundit, and I don't follow these things probably as closely as others, but there are polls that have shown
that Senator Bernie Sanders can beat Donald Trump and, I believe, some of the other Republican candidates as well. Source:
www.glamour.com
As a soldier, I've served with the most brave people in an institution that's built on integrity, honor, and duty. This is
why I'm working very hard to support Senator Bernie Sanders - not only to get through the Democratic primary, but also to win
the presidency. He is the only candidate on both sides who understands the cost of war, who has that foresight to keep our country
safe, and who will make sure that our military power is not being when and where it shouldn't be. Source:
www.glamour.com
I volunteered to deploy to Iraq. I was one of the few soldiers who were not on the mandatory deployment roster - close to 3,000
Hawaii soldiers were.
Hopefully the presence in Congress of an American who happens to be Hindu will increase America's understanding of India as
well as India's understanding of America.
"... Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department, and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it. ..."
"... In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip, outraging the Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to outlaw US weapons sales to terrorists. ..."
"... It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with on foreign policy issues. ..."
"... So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke. Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. ..."
Due to her antiwar stance in Syria, Gabbard was at one point rumored to be a potential candidate to head Trump's State Department,
and even met with the president-elect at Trump Tower in November 2016, but nothing came of it.
In January 2017, she traveled to Syria on a fact-finding trip,
outraging the
Washington establishment. She has also proposed a bill to
outlaw US weapons
sales to terrorists.
Gabbard first sparked rumors of a 2020 run
in December , when she toured Iowa and New
Hampshire, the first two states to host nationwide party primary elections.
Inspired by the party's strong showing in the November midterms, a number of Democrats are eager to challenge Trump in the 2020
presidential election.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) announced on New Year's Eve that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee.
Julian Castro, former Housing and Urban Development secretary in the Obama administration, has also toured Iowa and is expected to
announce his candidacy this weekend.
It is unclear whether Gabbard will get much traction among the establishment Democrats, who she has frequently disagreed with
on foreign policy issues.
Ostensibly, Tulsi Gabbard checks all the correct "diversity boxes" that Democrats claim they want: young, female, minority.
But weirdly, she won't benefit from satisfying these (fake) criteria, because she's hated for unrelated political reasons. So
that should be fun.
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist politician, but it takes skill
to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie Assad apologist.
Say what you want about Tulsi Gabbard (I have my own criticisms) but this is probably an accurate prediction of how opposition
to her campaign from other Democrats will play out https://t.co/xEhdD1ZmyN
So many entrenched bipartisan interests fear the foreign policy debate her presence on the campaign trail will provoke.
Look for more obsessive attacks in Omidyar's the Interventionist, republished in his local Hawaii paper. Also, not sure what
this means for a Bernie run. https://t.co/RD7pCRRkTW
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist
politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie
Assad apologist.
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will
launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from
other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major
issue.
Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army
National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of
duty in 2004 and 2005.
She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website,
she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and
also its first Hindu member."
During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she
resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could
openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his
foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the
Democratic primary election.
Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she
refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of
Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war
and challenge the military industrial-complex.
Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and
Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.
"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I
felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a
chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much
suffering," Gabbard
declared .
Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to
withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has
fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.
Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not
backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation,
the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
During an
interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the
United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out
regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al
Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all
linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground
force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few
representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S.
military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as
they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders
Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018,
she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what
would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open
market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were
before."
Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to
Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress
not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or
Democrat.
She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for
Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.
Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential
for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.
Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in
Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try
to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and
and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."
"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting
between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step
in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace,"
Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is
positive."
Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does
not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats
in the establishment.
Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He
raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a
sober response to his concerns.
"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world,
both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended.
"Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."
She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a
country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop
these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying
to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing
in other countries."
Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment
media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end
there.
Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have
an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open
primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in
politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.
"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you
actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country?
That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or
win more seats in the Senate."
"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have
more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall
Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for
the people," she concluded.
She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy
Dore":
You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are
some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these
poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world.
Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example
after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war
policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever
were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.
***
Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the
DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action
committees (PACs).
The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the
defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her
anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from
the defense sector . In fact, the campaign
received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's
PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."
In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from
labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said
in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed
the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what
her view would be now, if asked about the issue.
She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is
common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.'
"strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its
violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that
condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.
Journalist Eoin Higgins
questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described
as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with
India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.
But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records
and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.
When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her
father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization,
Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy
However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that
she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful
for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal
journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.
She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor
to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement
Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and
civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to
fight for equal rights for all."
There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to
LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has
an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she
could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her
anti-imperialism.
Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is
likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in
order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive
investment in war must be severely curtailed.
Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political
party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the
country.
As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we
actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much
bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that
voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both
parties."
The problem here is the progressive votes is split between Bernie, Warren, and Tulsi. That means that all three of them
now can be eliminated be invertionaist Dems.
Notable quotes:
"... Tulsi Gabbard is scary to Republicans because a lot of us center-right folks would be tempted to support her ..."
"... Would love to see a Tulsi - Trump debate. She'd be a formidable opponent. ..."
Well, as we all saw, the putatively "liberal" legacy Ziomedia hates Tulsi Gabbard with a passion. Maybe not as much as that legacy
Ziomedia hates Trump or Putin, but still – the levels of hostility against her are truly amazing. This may seem bizarre until you
realize that, just like Donald Trump, Tulsi Gabbard has said all the right things about Israel, but that this was not nearly "enough"
to please the US Ziolobby. Check out the kind of discussions about Gabbard which can be found in the Israeli and pro-Israeli press:
This is just a small sample of what I found with a quick search. It could be summed up "Gabbard is not pro-Israel enough". But
is that really The Main Reason for such a hostility towards her? I don't think so. I believe that Gabbard's real "ultimate sin" is
that she is against foreign wars of choice. That is really her Crime Of Crimes!
The AngloZionists wanted to tear Syria apart, break it up into small pieces, most of which would be run by Takfiri crazies and
Tulsi Gabbard actually dared to go and speak to "animal Assad", the (latest) "New Hitler", who "gasses his own people". And this
is an even worse crime, if such a thing can even be imagined! She dared to disobey her AngloZionist masters.
So, apparently, opposing illegal wars and daring to disobey the Neocons are crimes of such magnitude and evil that they deserve
the hysterical Gabbard-bashing campaign which we have witnessed in recent times. And even being non-Christian, non-White, non-male
and "liberal" does not in any way compensate for the heinous nature of "crimes".
What does this tell us about the real nature of the US society?
It is also interesting to note that the most vicious (and stupid) attacks against Gabbard did not come from "conservative" media
outlets or journalists. Not at all! Most of the attacks, especially the more vicious ones, came from supposedly "liberal" sources,
which tell us that in 2019 USA "liberals" do not refer to folks with liberal ideas, but to folks who are hell-bent on imperialism
and war; folks who don't care one bit about any real "liberal" values and who use a pseudo-liberal rhetoric to advocate for war outside
the USA and for a plutocratic dictatorship inside the USA.
Weren't
superdelegates people who, in the era before cars, would represent groups who are unable to travel to the voting stations
(long distances).
The superdelegates have the "right" to change the vote because their candidate could die while the
superdelegate is traveling. or any major development.
When they return to cast the vote they have a choice.
In the 21st
century it is unacceptable to keep such traditions and policies.
Being pro-Zionism is New York way of being militarist
Notable quotes:
"... Trump just appointed John Bolton ! Trump has betrayed us ! How did they turned him ? Blah blah blah .. Forchrissake ! ..."
"... It boggles the mind that even at this stage, so many peoples are still bamboozled by this duopoly dog and pony show , aka the mukkan election ! ..."
"... Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with soap. ..."
The concerned look on everyone's face, acting like they are coming from a moral high
ground because they support war. Corporate media is garbage! They will never cover her fairly
so its up to us to do so!
Saudi Arabia offered to pay for us to take down Syria. We are aiding Al Qaeda and their
related groups, proxies for Saudi Arabia, in their war against Syria. It's about money and
oil period. The 'humanitarian crisis' has nothing to do with this war and is just as likely
to have been staged by Al Qaeda if not more likely.
Morning Joe presents the largest collective of Media Shills that think with one
Corporate brain(trust). MSNBC and CNN commits the greatest threat to the dumbing down of
America, and in the longterm, nothing impacts our American freedoms and World Peace than such
lowly, deceptive, shills. Everybody has to make a buck, but come on MSNBC; you guys could
stand some old school mothering and have those dirty little pie-holes washed out with
soap.
Neoliberal Dems -- Clinton wing of the Party (and
thedailybeast.com
is Hillary bulletin board) doe no like Tulsi. that's expected.
What what they really fear is that Tulsi can get support of considerable part of former Trump voters and repeat the
maneuver that Trump accomplished in 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria and willingness to talk to Assad. ..."
"... "There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas." ..."
"... In May 2015, the National Review implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having "endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying. ..."
"... And earlier this month, after she accused her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise ..."
When she ran for re-election in 2018, she had the backing of liberal groups
including
the AFL-CIO and Planned Parenthood, yet she was briefly considered as a potential member for
Trump's cabinet, and cheered on his diplomatic overtures to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
Since
announcing her bid for the presidency, Gabbard has faced a torrent of criticism for some of her more
eccentric politics, zeroing in on her equivocations on Assad and
her past homophobic comments
.
And, in the process, she has earned one prominent defender: Tucker Carlson.
In a Monday evening segment, featuring anti-war leftist journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Fox News host
argued that Gabbard had been unfairly maligned because of her deep skepticism about intervention in Syria
and willingness to talk to Assad.
"There's something so stealthy and feline and dishonest about the way they're attacking her," Tucker
said. "If you don't like her foreign policy views, let's just say so. But no one ever really wants to debate
what our foreign policy should be. They just attack anyone who deviates from their own dumb ideas."
Gabbard first became
an in-demand
Fox News guest in 2015 after she criticized Barack Obama's unwillingness to use the label
"radical Islamic terrorism." Her media tour explaining that position earned her positively-tilted coverage
in right-wing outlets like Breitbart and The Daily Caller -- a trend that continued when she later expressed
skepticism of Obama's Iran nuclear deal.
One person with direct knowledge told The Daily Beast that in the wake of her Obama criticism of Obama,
Gabbard became an increasingly requested guest for Fox News hosts and producers to appear on-air. They
weren't the only ones in television news who took notice: senior executives at Sinclair Broadcasting made
appeals for Gabbard to appear on their networks after she rebuked Obama.
And her emergence as a left-wing Obama critic further put Gabbard on the map in conservative media.
In May 2015, the
National Review
implored readers to "Meet the Beautiful, Tough Young Democrat
Who's Turning Heads by Challenging Obama's Foreign Policy." The conservative outlet touted Gabbard as having
"endeared herself to right-wing hawks" by challenging Obama's "rudderless" foreign policy. "I like her
thinking a lot," American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks was quoted as saying.
Gabbard has also maintained friendly relationships with high-profile, right-leaning television
personalities, including Carlson and Fox News colleague Neil Cavuto, a long-time anchor and Trump skeptic
who leans conservative on business issues.
And earlier this month, after she
accused
her fellow Democratic senators of engaging in "religious bigotry" for asking questions about a
Trump judicial nominee's faith, she received yet another round of Fox News praise. Todd Starnes, a Fox
pundit with a
long history
of anti-gay comments,
wrote in an op-ed
that he found Gabbard's comments "encouraging."
charley15z
1 month ago
The
establishment left and blue checkmarks on Twitter are gonna go after her HARD. But I will support her, purely on her
policies.
Marcy Clay
1 month ago
She would get
independents and some Republicans to cross over. She is already being attacked by the left, and right for some old remarks
that were homophobic, and for meeting with Assad. I like her better than Warren or Harris by far..
lrein077
1 month ago
I had the
opportunity to meet Tulsi in person and she was the most approachable & genuine person. Congratulations Tulsi.
Jimmy Russle
1 month ago
I'm a Trump
supporter, but she certainly has a better resume than Trump. Her most important issue is peace among nations, I'm all on
board.
27
Thank you to @RepMcGovern@repmarkpocan & @IlhanMN for cosponsoring H.R. 1249, the INF Treaty Compliance Act, to prevent
taxpayer dollars from being used for weapons that would breach the INF treaty. This is one step
Congress can & must take now toward national security and peace
The first day Tulsi arrived at her camp in Iraq, she saw a large sign at one of the gates
that read, "Is today the day?" It was a blunt reminder that today may be the day that any of
the soldiers would be called to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It caused her to
reflect on her own life and the reality that each of us could die at any moment.
While serving in a base in the Sunni Triangle at the height of the war, Tulsi had the
heart-wrenching daily responsibility of going through the list of every injury and casualty in
the entire theatre of operations, looking to see if any soldiers in her unit were on the list,
so she could ensure they received the care they needed and their families were notified.
She was hit with the enduring pain and hardship of her brothers and sisters in uniform, and
the stress and pressure on their families. She wondered if those who voted to send soldiers to
Iraq really understood why they were there -- if lawmakers and the President reflected daily on
each death, each injury, and the immeasurably high cost of war.
Having experienced first-hand the true cost of war, she made a personal vow to find a way to
ensure that our country doesn't continue repeating the mistakes of the past, sending our troops
into war without a clear mission, strategy, or purpose. In Congress
Serving over 6 years in Congress, and as a member of the Armed Services, Homeland Security,
and Foreign Affairs Committees, Tulsi has been a leading voice fighting to end regime change
wars and instead focus our military efforts on defeating the terrorist groups that attacked and
declared war on the United States. She has approached every issue through the lens of what will
best serve the American people, secure our country, and promote peace.
She is a champion for protecting our environment, ensuring clean water and air for
generations to come, investing in infrastructure and a green energy economy, healthcare for
all, civil liberties and privacy, support for small businesses, criminal justice reform,
sustainable agriculture, breaking up the big banks and she needs your help!
Regime change wars are bankrupting our country and our moral authority. We need to redirect
those resources into a renewable, sustainable economy that works for everyone and bring about
an era of peace. We must put service above self and reclaim our great democracy from the forces
of hatred and division.
This is a very important point. She can bring a large part of Trump voters (all anti-war votes and most of promiddle
class voters) and part of Sanders voters together.
Notable quotes:
"... As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha. ..."
"... I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP. ..."
As long as we're talking Hawaii, I have found my candidate for President: Tulsi Gabbard. I
guess I'm late to the party, and she sure is hated by the intelligentsia, boy do they hate
her, but she's really, really electable for President and she would, more than any other
candidate, actually start to heal this country. Aloha.
I don't believe the Democrats will nominate her. They'll use the electability canard to
dismiss her candidacy, much like how Ron Paul was treated by the GOP.
However, she seems to have an agenda I would back.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
"... Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant low level set of global conflicts is perfect. ..."
"... The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to apologize for is the lack of sales. ..."
Why Are These Professional War Peddlers Still Around? Pundits like Max Boot and Bill
Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts."
1. The goal of the neocons was to exploit 9/11 to destroy countries in the Middle East
that posed a threat to Israel. As Wesley Clarke told us a long time ago, they were going to
"do" Iraq first, and after that, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and finally Iran. Most
of this has been accomplished. We are now in the end game and Iran is in their
cross-hairs.
From the perspective of the neocons, everything has gone their way.
2. The only people who got everything thing wrong were useful idiots like Rod Dreher,
Tucker Carlson and Walter "Freedom Fries" Jones who were too dense to see what the neocons
were really up to. You did not a PhD from Harvard to see that Bush and Blair had no evidence
to back up their claims that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction or to figure out the true
intentions of the neocons.
So why are Boot and Kristol still around? Because Iran is not yet reduced to an ash-heap,
courtesy of USA!USA!USA! so they still have work to do.
Why have they paid no price? Let's all pretend like we don't know the answer to this. And
don't forget to condemn Ilhan Omar for her tweets just to be on the safe side.
It's difficult to live in a post-America America where American interests are subordinate to
Israel and AIPAC and lunatics like Bolton and Pompeo, now have replaced the president in
matters of foreign policy.
Trump has done a 180 and given in completely.
I like Tulsi Gabbard
and hope that she might have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination in spite of the
fact that she now is being attacked by members of her own party, along with the
representative from Minnesota who has the courage to talk of the power of the Israel lobby
that functions solely in the interest of Israel. It seems the Democrats are not so tolerant
of strong women after all. And its time for everyone to stop being intimidated by the charge
of anti-Semitism. When Israeli interests are not those of America and Americans.
Because DC is bought and paid for by the defense industry. Constant wars are good for the
bottom line, so winning is not the right strategy. Loosing doesn't work either. A constant
low level set of global conflicts is perfect.
The goal of any "peddler" is to move product. When perpetual war is the product, then any
rationale that leads to more sales will do. Enemies become interchangeable. The only thing to
apologize for is the lack of sales.
These two hucksters are not experts on the product itself, but rather experts at selling
the product.
Pres. Eisenhower, a genuine "authority on armed conflict", warned us of such peddlers.
Yes the neocons have a poor track record but they've succeeded at turning our republic into
an empire. The mainstream media and elites of practically all western nations are unanimously
pro-war. Neither political party has defined a comprehensive platform to rebuild our
republic.
Even you, Tucker Carlson, mock the efforts of Ilhan Omar for criticizing AIPAC and
Elliott Abrams.
I don't personally care for many of her opinions but that's not what matters:
if we elect another neocon government we won't last another generation. Like the lady asked
Ben Franklin "What kind of government have you bequeathed us?", and Franklin answered "A
republic, madam, if you can keep it."
Gabbard is going nowhere, and while it's true that the powers that be will try to bury her,
they don't need to. The simple truth is this: the American public largely doesn't care about
the wars and never has. There hasn't been an anti-war movement of any significance since Bush
left office, and that was mostly a phony anti-war movement in the first place. It was
primarily an anti-Bush movement, and the bulk of the people screaming 'no blood for oil'
would've just been screaming some other anti-Bush slogan had our current path of destruction
through the Mideast never occurred.
Yes, there has always been a small, independent-minded minority on both the right and left
who genuinely oppose American interventionism.
The vast majority of voters, though, don't care much, don't have strong opinions and will
largely just follow their leaders. Rank and file Democrats now oppose drawing down from Syria
and Afghanistan and want to 'contain' Russia.
This is solely because Trump has made noises in the opposite direction, even if he hasn't
done much of anything. And a good portion of the Republicans who say they want out of these
wars would support them if Jeb or Rubio were in the White House.
There is a fair bit more genuine antiwar sentiment on the right now than there was 15
years ago. But it's not a dominant issue for many people on the right who didn't always
oppose the wars from the get-go. And the mainstream left, again, has totally abandoned the
issue.
Only a tiny proportion of the American public considers the endless wars to be the most
important issue facing America today.
You don't win campaigns focusing on issues that are regarded as unimportant and where most
of the voters in your party oppose you on this point. There is no real antiwar movement.
Another full-scale invasion of a previously stable country would generate some serious
opposition, sure, but the current slow bleed of endless occupations and occasional
opportunistic attacks on already destabilizing regimes can continue forever with little
pushback from the public at large.
How anyone could live through the last 15 years of American politics and not realize this
is beyond me.
That one trick happens to the most important trick that America is facing.
No Art, that would be unchecked legal and illegal immigration and as far as I can tell
Tulsi Gandhi is pretty dreadful on that subject. True, the likudniks in the diaspora don't
like her because she would be bad for an expansionist Israel...
If elected Tulsi would probably become a Jew tool just like Trump has become. If not, then
they'll have another special counsel ready to take her down. That's how the (((deep state)))
operates.
Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard attacked Donald Trump for his tweet praising Saudi Arabia after
the CIA report which found the country's crown prince was behind the murder of journalist Jamal
Khashoggi.
Democratic Rep. Gabbard, a National Guard veteran who did two tours in the Middle East,
branded the president 'Saudi Arabia's b**ch' after he announced the U.S. would stand by the
nation.
'Hey @realdonaldtrump: being Saudi Arabia's bitch is not '"America First,'" Gabbard
tweeted.
"... Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War. ..."
"... Gabbard has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which many progressive Democrats boycotted. ..."
"... Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years. ..."
"... What's her angle about immigration? This: https://votesmart.org/public-statement/1197137/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-on-congress-to-pass-the-dream-act#.XGXEplUza1s Not optimistic. ..."
"... What's her angle about "outsourcing" jobs overseas? This: https://www.votetulsi.com/node/25011 Not bad, but, still .. ..."
"... Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. ..."
"... Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. ..."
"... She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. ..."
"... Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war" ? ..."
"... Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'" and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back ..."
"... Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater. Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance. ..."
"... De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What a load of crap that turned out to be ..."
"... Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following. ..."
The lineup of Democrats who have already declared themselves as candidates for their party's presidential nomination in 2020 is
remarkable, if only for the fact that so many wannabes have thrown their hats in the ring so early in the process. In terms of electability,
however, one might well call the seekers after the highest office in the land the nine dwarfs. Four of the would-be candidates –
Marianne Williamson a writer, Andrew Yang an entrepreneur, Julian Castro a former Obama official, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Congressman
John Delaney – have no national profiles at all and few among the Democratic Party rank-and-file would be able to detail who they
are, where they come from and what their positions on key issues might be.
Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has a national following but she also has considerable baggage. The recent revelation
that she
falsely described herself as "American Indian" back in 1986 for purposes of career advancement, which comes on top of similar
reports of more of the same as well as other resume-enhancements that surfaced when she first became involved in national politics,
prompted Donald Trump to refer to her as "Pocahontas." Warren, who is largely progressive on social and domestic issues, has been
confronted numerous times regarding her views on Israel/Palestine and beyond declaring that she favors a "two state solution" has
been somewhat reticent. She should be described as pro-Israel for the usual reasons and is not reliably anti-war. She comes across
as a rather more liberal version of Hillary Clinton.
And then there is New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, being touted as the "new Obama," presumably because he is both black and progressive.
His record as Mayor of Newark New Jersey, which launched his career on the national stage, has both high and low points and it has
to be questioned if America is ready for another smooth-talking black politician whose actual record of accomplishments is on the
thin side. One unfortunately recalls the devious Obama's totally bogus Nobel Peace Prize and his Tuesday morning meetings with John
Brennan to work on the list of Americans who were to be assassinated.
Booker has carefully cultivated the Jewish community in his political career, to include a close relationship with the stomach-churning
"America's Rabbi" Shmuley Boteach, but has recently become more independent of those ties, supporting the Obama deal with Iran and
voting against anti-Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) legislation in the Senate. On the negative side, the New York Times likes
Booker, which means that he will turn most other Americans off. He is also 49 years old and unmarried, which apparently bothers some
in the punditry.
California Senator Kamala Harris is a formidable entrant into the crowded field due to her resume, nominally progressive on most
issues, but with a work history that has attracted critics concerned by her hard-line law-and-order enforcement policies when she
was District Attorney General for San Francisco and Attorney General for California. She has also
spoken at AIPAC , is anti-BDS, and is considered to be reliably pro-Israel, which would rule her out for some, though she might
be appealing to middle of the road Democrats like the Clintons and Nancy Pelosi who have increasingly become war advocates. She will
have a tough time convincing the antiwar crowd that she is worth supporting and there are reports that she will likely split the
black women's vote even though she is black herself, perhaps linked to her affair with California powerbroker Willie Brown when she
was 29 and Brown was 61. Brown was married, though separated, to a black woman at the time. Harris is taking heat because she clearly
used the relationship
to advance her career
while also acquiring several patronage sinecures on state commissions that netted her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The most interesting candidate is undoubtedly Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who is a fourth term Congresswoman from Hawaii, where
she was born and raised. She is also the real deal on national security, having been-there and done-it through service as an officer
with the Hawaiian National Guard on a combat deployment in Iraq. Though in Congress full time, she still performs her Guard duty.
Tulsi's own military experience notwithstanding, she gives every indication of being honestly anti-war. In
the speech announcing her candidacy she pledged "focus
on the issue of war and peace" to "end the regime-change wars that have taken far too many lives and undermined our security by strengthening
terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda." She referred to the danger posed by blundering into a possible nuclear war and indicated her dismay
over what appears to be a re-emergence of the Cold War.
Not afraid of challenging establishment politics,
she called for an end to the "illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government," also observing that "the war to overthrow Assad
is counter-productive because it actually helps ISIS and other Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian government
of Assad and taking control of all of Syria – which will simply increase human suffering in the region, exacerbate the refugee crisis,
and pose a greater threat to the world." She then backed up her words with action by secretly arranging for a personal trip to Damascus
in 2017 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad, saying it was important to meet adversaries "if you are serious about pursuing peace."
She made her own assessment of the situation in Syria and now favors pulling US troops out of the country as well as ending American
interventions for "regime change" in the region.
In 2015, Gabbard supported President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran and more recently has criticized President Donald
Trump's withdrawal from the deal. Last May, she criticized Israel for shooting "unarmed protesters" in Gaza, but one presumes that,
like nearly all American politicians, she also has to make sure that she does not have the Israel Lobby on her back. Gabbard
has spoken at a conference of Christians United for Israel, which has defended Israel's settlement enterprise; has backed legislation
that slashes funding to the Palestinians; and has cultivated ties with Boteach as well as with major GOP donor casino magnate Sheldon
Adelson. She also attended the controversial address to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in March 2015, which
many progressive Democrats boycotted.
Nevertheless, Tulsi supported Bernie Sanders' antiwar candidacy in 2016 and appears to be completely onboard and fearless
in promoting her antiwar sentiments. Yes, Americans have heard much of the same before, but Tulsi Gabbard could well be the only
genuine antiwar candidate that might truly be electable in the past fifty years.
What Tulsi Gabbard is accomplishing might be measured by the enemies that are already gathering and are out to get her. Glenn
Greenwald at The Intercept
describes how NBC news published a
widely distributed story on February 1 st , claiming that "experts who track websites and social media linked to Russia
have seen stirrings of a possible campaign of support for Hawaii Democrat Tulsi Gabbard."
But the expert cited by NBC turned out to be a firm New Knowledge,
which was exposed by no less
than The New York Times for falsifying Russian troll accounts for the Democratic Party in the Alabama Senate race to suggest
that the Kremlin was interfering in that election. According to Greenwald, the group ultimately behind
this attack on Gabbard is The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), which sponsors a tool called
Hamilton 68 , a news "intelligence net checker" that
claims to track Russian efforts to disseminate disinformation. The ASD
website advises that "Securing Democracy is a Global Necessity."
ASD was set up in 2017 by the usual neocon crowd with funding from The Atlanticist and anti-Russian German Marshall Fund. It is
loaded with a full complement of Zionists
and interventionists/globalists, to include Michael Chertoff, Michael McFaul, Michael Morell, Kori Schake and Bill Kristol. It claims,
innocently, to be a bipartisan transatlantic national security advocacy group that seeks to identify and counter efforts by Russia
to undermine democracies in the United States and Europe but it is actually itself a major source of disinformation.
For the moment, Tulsi Gabbard seems to be the "real thing," a genuine anti-war candidate who is determined to run on that platform.
It might just resonate with the majority of American who have grown tired of perpetual warfare to "spread democracy" and other related
frauds perpetrated by the band of oligarchs and traitors that run the United States. We the people can always hope.
Just those two. We can leave the rest of "globo-homo" agenda off the table, for the moment. And, the last but not the least,
that nagging angle about automation and (paid) work in general. Let's not get too ambitious here. Those two, only, should suffice
at the moment.
I like Tulsi. but she hasn't been tested in a presidential campaign yet. At least we will have someone who could put peace on
the ballot. She should write a book pulling her policies together and use it to get some publicity.
Regularly Americans vote for the less interventionist candidate. 2008, an important reason for Obama's victory against
Hillary Clinton and John McCain was that he had been against the Iraq war. 2000, George W. Bush said he was against nation building.
Then, after they are elected, the neocons remain in power. Something similar again with Donald Trump who campaigned against stupid
wars in the Middle East and now has surrounded himself with some of the most extreme neocons.
Of course, it is impossible to predict whether it will be the same with Tulsi Gabbard, but unlike these other candidates
in the past , she puts her rejection of neocons and regime change wars so much into the center of her campaign that it should
be assumed that she is serious – otherwise it would be complete betrayal. However, if she is serious about this and is elected,
she will be fought by the deep state and its allies in the media much more harshly than Trump, who isn't even consistently anti-neocons,
just not reliably pro-neocon. What they would probably do to her would make spygate, the Russiagate conspiracy theory, and the
Muller investigation look harmless. She might end like JFK (a VP who is just as anti-neocons might increase the chances of survival).
But despite all the risks, I think it is worth trying. If the US was a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation
and the neocons had their own party, it would hardly have more than a handful of seats in Congress. Although they don't have,
a significant base of their own, neocons have remained in power for a long time, whoever was elected. At the moment, Tulsi Gabbard
is probably the best hope for ending their long reign.
She'll be sabotaged by relentless smears and other dirty tricks. Only someone bought and owned will be allowed to be a candidate
which means the MIC must continue being fed enormous amounts of money and war hysteria constantly being stoked. She won't
have a chance. Besides, the Dem party has gotten radical and out of touch with the majority of Americans so who really wants them
in? There's no cause for optimism anywhere one looks.
Has anyone discussed the possibility of Tulsi being "marketed" or long-game "branded" through intentional theatre as "anti-war"
? Greenwald himself has questionable backers and the WWF good guy/bad guy character creations (like Trump's pre-election
talking points concerning illegal wars , now stuffed down the memory holes of many), all the FAKE and distracting "fights" etc
etc
Any serious Democratic candidate, and to some extent any Republican, must fly through the flack of Deep State anti-populist
guns. I am skeptical about Gabbard because her policy views are already too good to be true. She is "cruisin' for a bruisin'"
and there is already a campaign to erase her from the debate in the manner in which Ron Paul was erased a few years back.
Gabbard is an attractive woman and on camera she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Like Trump her instinct is to meet force with counter-force rather than roll with the punches and I think that is her best chance.
In that way she calls the bluff of her opponents: Just how confident are they that in the end the public will prefer war to peace?
These points add up to a realistic chance of success but given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a
long shot.
De ja vu. I remember reading these very similar (not exactly but similar) sentiments about Barack Obama back in 2008. What
a load of crap that turned out to be, but I do understand that not all politicians are cut from the same dung heap, so it
is probably best to find out who is funding the little pricks while they are campaigning – for once they are elected, payback
is due.
In the case of Obama it was Robert Rubin( of Goldman Sachs) who bankrolled him, and of course, once elected it was bank bailout
time. Then once Ghaddaffi's gold back Dinar became a monetary powerhouse, he committed another crime for the bankers.
"Is she the real deal?"
Elect her and you'll find out, and there lies the problem – you get to find out when it's too late. On the other hand, she
could actually be honest and sincere, but that alone disqualifies her as a politician (the kind that Americans are used to anyway).
NTL, she's got people's attention and if for anything else – the people are anti-war, but the monied power brokers are definitely
not which begs the question – will democracy actually happen?
Don't know much about this lady. If she is "fair dinkum" in her anti war/anti-imperialism stance her only chance to get
into power & then get things done will be to gain a massive, committed popular following.
She will need to use tactics from both the Sanders & Trump play-books. She will need to appeal to a good number in both the
Sanders & Trump constituencies. Regardless, she will need an iron-will & tsunami of charisma .
@Biff Obama was a creation
of the Pritzker and Crowne families, although the puppet did decide he wanted to somewhat act on his own. Gabbard is certainly
taking flak from the Israel firsters, and her debating Trump on foreign policy in a US Presidential election would be a real paradigm
shift.
@renfro Where do you get
this "obsessive hatred of Muslims and Islam?"
She's been [insistent and consistent] using the term 'radical Islamic terrorists' which, unfortunately, is an accurate description
of ISIS (the bane of the ummah). OTOH, last year Tulsi was a featured speaker at a Moslem conference in NJ, and she has been outspoken
about freedom of religion and mutual respect. If you've got some evidence that she excludes Islam from that, please show it.
[Gabbard's] policy views are already too good to be true.
Not really. Too good to be true would be if she understood Putin in the context of the US and oligarch rape of Russia in the
1990's and how he has restored the Russian economy and dignity; and if she recognized (openly) the US role in the Maidan coup
and accepted the validity of the Crimean decision to return to Russia.
Unfortunately, even though she's taken a brave position on ending US regime-change war on Syria, in many other respects she
remains quite conventional. She also promotes fear of DPRK, and who knows what she thinks about China.
she comes across as aggressive and a quick-thinking, highly articulate debater.
Aggressive? Composed, confident, yes. Aggressive, no. Calm under fire is more like it. Take a look at the whole interview on
Morning Joe. She really outclasses those squirming bitches. BUT, notice her (short) responses on Putin and Assad ("adversary"
and "no"), real Judas moments. Does she believe that, or is she clinging to the Overton Window? https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/rep-gabbard-assad-is-not-an-enemy-of-the-us-1438093891865
Tulsi's presidential timber but she's wasting her life with the Democrats. Their consulting apparatchiks are going to stuff a
bunch of incoherent slogans up her butt. If she wants a real antiwar platform she should steal it wholesale from Stein and Ajamu
Baraka. Baraka built a complete and consistent law-and-order platform. He's the only real antiwar candidate in this country.
Of course the Democrat's CIA handlers will crush Tulsi if she starts to make sense, so she's going to have to take her supporters
and jump to the Greens.
She will lose, but arbitrary forcible repression of the party will discredit bullshit US electoral pageantry once and for all.
Then we move into the parallel government zone in conformity with world-standard human rights law and destroy the parasitic kleptocratic
USA.
@jack daniels You know .there
IS one thing nobody wants, really, to talk about.
.given the Deep State's stranglehold on the media she is definitely a long shot
Why, in this age, the "stronghold on the media" is so decisive? A person who gets the most of media exposure wins? That's how
it works?
Or, do anyone reading and posting here gets his/her information from the "media"? I'd say not.
Isn't the bottom, the very heart of the matter NOT a Deep State, Dem Joos, Anglo-Saxons, Masons, Illuminati and .whatever but
simple, eternal, laziness and stupidity of an average person?
Or, even worse: the real, true, needs and wants of an average person are simply "breads and circuses". Nothing more.
Combine those two and here we are.
I am aware that throws the spanner into works of those into Aryans, White supremacy, Western man and similar stuff, but, the
conclusion seems inevitable.
That's the heart of the problem "we" face at the moment. How to fix it, or even is it possible, I don't know. Have some ideas,
of course.
CIA Giraldi probably has more Cherokee DNA than Warren. Another fact he failed to provide to the Government during the security
clearance process. The troll has supported the republican establishment all his career, this distinguishes him from the trolls
that support the democratic establishment all of their careers. The fact that people can debate the relative merits of political
leaders from the dark lagoon reveals their complete lack of rational thought. No politician decides anything important.
@Anonymous No, then she is
toast in Hawaii politics, and she is probably running not because she plans on winning, but to raise her profile and perhaps open
doors for herself on the national or state level, which won't happen if you shoot yourself in the foot at the same time.
Besides, leaving aside Krishna consciousness, she is too close to Sanders to get any traction among the Republicans. I suppose
getting the bipartisan support of the Internet kook vote is something, but hard to translate into political office.
You're never going to get anything worthwhile from a Democratic politician because they're indoctrinated worse that the brightest
little Pioneer in Juche class. Take Ro Khana's meaningless pap.
What is this 'we should' crap? The law is perfectly clear. The right to self-defense is subject to necessity and proportionality
tests, and invariably subject to UN Charter Chapter 7 in its entirety. See Article 51. Instead of this 'restraint' waffle, just
say, the president must commit to faithfully execute the supreme law of the land, including UN Charter Chapter 7 and Article 2(4).
That means refrain from use or threat of force. Period.
Second, national security is not a loophole in human rights. Khana uses the legally meaningless CIA magic word 'threat.' Under
universal jurisdiction law, it is a war crime to declare abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and
actions of the nationals of the hostile party. Domestic human rights are subject to ICCPR Article 4, HRC General Comment 29, and
the Siracusa Principles. Instead of CIA's standard National Security get-out clause, state explicitly that US national security
means respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights. To enforce that, ratify the Rome Statute or GTFO.
Third, internationalism is OK as far as it goes, but Ro Khana doesn't deal with the underlying problem: CIA has infested State
with focal points and dotted-line reports, and demolished the department's capacity for pacific resolution of disputes. You have
to explicitly tie State's mission to UN Charter Chapter 6, and criminalize placement of domestic CIA agents in State.
Fourth, Congressional war-making powers are useless with Congress completely corrupted. Bring back the Ludlow Amendment, war
by public referendum only, subject to Article 51.
Tulsi is a far Left democrat. She supports raising taxes to pay for free college for people earning less than 125K and universal
health care, she actually joined protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline, has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood,
supports homosexual marriage (changed her previous position in 2012), and has an F rating from the NRA. She's a Lefty. Not for
me, anyway.
I like the one on here who says the Democrat party has "gotten radical."
I assume this is sarcasm, but there is no denying the fact that the neocons(radical whack jobs) have jumped ship from the Republicans
and attached themselves to the Democrats (although there are filtering back into the Trump administration – drunk with power they'll
suck up to anyone)
The DNC NeverTrump crowd is all but calling for a nuclear exchange with Russia because they colluded with Trump to throw the
election, and they pose a National Security threat to the United States(in their head). Hillary also went on to say that Russians
Hacking the DNC is another 9/11. The radical Antifa crowd is made up of 99.999999% of Democratic voters.
"... Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her, not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance. ..."
Establishment NeoCons and Neolibs are going to erase Tulsi's candidacy by not mentioning her,
not including her in polls, and not letting into debates. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich
received this treatment in 2008/2012 ... because of their Antiwar stance.
I get goosebumps every time I listen to this lady speak, even without the dramatic music.
Happy Valentines day to the heart of America, Tulsi Gabbard!!
I really don't think Bernie is going to run. and tulsi should announce
early on that her pick for vp is bernie. bernie for domestic solutions and tulsi for foreign
ones. That's the winning ticket.
If the dnc rigs the election again then i think the people
should conduct our own regime change here with tulsi as our commander-in-chief of the
peoples' army. this nonsense has to stop.
"... I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called) interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for the Presidency. ..."
I'm not American but after seeing how Tulsi Gabbard conducted herself in this (so called)
interview I urge ALL thinking Americans to put all of their support behind her candidacy for
the Presidency.
I am a Syrian and I appreciate everything Tulsi Gabbard is trying to do to stop regime
change. The US media is criminal and responsible for the blood shed in Syria and many other
places. Assad was never an enemy to the US or other western countries.
Gabbard is young, but her metal shows in this clip as she just smiles at the msnbc
stupidity. She doesn't even take these jokers seriously, and that is going to allow her to go
over their heads and connect directly with the public. This is actually awesome.
I am a Trump supporter on the right but truly appreciate Jimmy Dore. I am hopeful that the
left & right can unite against these pro-war establishment propagandists. Let's stop
foreign wars, neocon/neolib policies & MSM deceit ... then we can debate progressive vs
conservative issues.
Putin actually said that, other than the cold war, Russia and the U.S. have always been
allies, and that's what he wants. I have two recent videos where Putin is calling for peace
and good relations with America. Do I really need to find the links and post them here? I'm a
busy man. Let's all help Jimmy, Ron and Steph by doing some homework. Americans should stop
smearing good people and start applying some critical thinking skills. "Putin-puppets"?
What
about " military industrial complex puppets" who robotically repeat false Russian collusion
accusations in order to silence honest dissent? Talk about the pot calling the kettle
black.
Hey Jimmy, hey Jimmy! Have you seen the vid of Putin talking to the western press? I think
it was 2015 or so. He's calmly talking about NATO and weapons being put on Russia's borders
and how bad it would be if this goes ahead and Russia has to respond. He's practically
pleading with them to let the American people know this doesn't have to happen. I saw him
saying much the same thing in a Charlie Rose interview before Rose moved into the Big Bucks
on network TV. Yet as things were heating up about Russia Rose never mentioned this as he sat
at that morning show desk.
MSNBC and especially the panel of Morning Joe are some of the most shameless tools in
America. If DC is a sewer inhabited by big fat sewer rats; then Kasie (and her ilk), are the
plague-infected fleas that take their blood-meals from those rats.
This is a good reason to vote for her the only thing she represents is good and they want her gone it seems, she has the majority
of America on her mind.
I was a huge Bernie fan in the last election, but I would love it if he holds a huge press conference to announce his plans
and instead gives a HUGE endorsement to Tulsi. That would be a great way to stick it to the media and give her more coverage.
They need to make sure Tulsi won't make it to any debates, because they can't allow the discussion that would ensue about expensive,
illegal and useless military adventures that we need to stop. And in a debate, they can't simply interrupt her like they can in
an interview. That's not a discussion they can allow because people could think they might actually have a choice in the matter.
For war mongers, they sure are chicken-shits who obviously don't even have any confidence in their own arguments in favor of it.
Politics as usual. Voters always end up with two oligarch picks that have been groomed to mouth what they are told. MSM employees
are not independent thinkers either. The two party system has been around for a long time, although in reality it is one party
with a and b choices.
"... Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and her associates have been released. ..."
"... Rybicki writes: By NLT [no later than] next Monday, the Director would like to see a list of all cases charged in the last 20 years where the gravamen of the charge was mishandling classified information. It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges brought, and (4) charge of conviction. ..."
"... According to a December, 2017 letter from Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok changed the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless." ..."
"... "Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art. ..."
"... 18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law. ..."
"... And now, thanks to the Judicial Watch FOIA, we know that the FBI also went to great lengths to justify letting Clinton off the hook with a "chart" of her offenses. ..."
FOIA Docs Reveal Obama FBI Covered Up "Chart" Of Potential Hillary Clinton Crimes
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/15/2019 - 17:30 1.7K SHARES
The top brass of the Obama FBI went to great lengths to justify their decision not to
recommend charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified
information, according to Judicial Watch , which obtained evidence that the agency created a
'chart' of Clinton's offenses.
The newly obtained emails came in response to a court ordered Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request that the DOJ had previously ignored.
Three days after then-FBI Director James Comey's press conference announcing that he
would not recommend a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton, a July 8, 2016 email
chain shows that, the Special Counsel to the FBI's executive assistant director in charge
of the National Security Branch, whose name is redacted, wrote to Strzok and others that he
was producing a "chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation [of
Clinton's server], and the reasons for the recommendation not to prosecute "
[Redacted] writes : I am still working on an additional page for these TPs that consist of a
chart of the statutory violations considered during the investigation , and the reasons for the
recommendation not to prosecute, hopefully in non-lawyer friendly terms
Strzok forwards to Page,
Jonathan Moffa and others : I have redlined some points. Broadly, I have some concerns
about asking some our [sic] senior field folks to get into the business of briefing this case,
particularly when we have the D's [Comey's] statement as a kind of stand alone document. In my
opinion, there's too much nuance, detail, and potential for missteps. But I get they may likely
be asked for comment.
[Redacted] writes to Strzok, Page and others : The DD [Andrew McCabe] will need to approve
these before they are pushed out to anyone. At the end of last week, he wasn't inclined to send
them to anyone. But, it's great to have them on the shelf in case they're needed.
[Redacted] writes to Strzok and Page : I'm really not sure why they continued working on
these [talking points]. In the morning, I'll make sure Andy [McCabe] tells Mike [Kortan] to
keep these in his pocket. I guess Andy just didn't ever have a moment to turn these off with
Mike like he said he would.
Page replies : Yes, agree that this is not a good idea.
Neither these talking points nor the chart of potential violations committed by Clinton and
her associates have been released.
On May 15, 2016,
James Rybicki , former chief of staff to Comey, sends FBI General Counsel James Baker;
Bill Priestap , former assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division;
McCabe; Page; and others an
email with the subject line "Request from the Director."
Rybicki writes: By NLT [no later than] next Monday, the Director would like to see a list of
all cases charged in the last 20 years where the gravamen of the charge was mishandling
classified information. It should be in chart form with: (1) case name, (2) a short summary for content (3) charges
brought, and (4) charge of conviction.
If need be, we can get it from NSD [National Security Division] and let them know that the
Director asked for this personally.
Please let me know who can take the lead on this.
Thanks!
Jim
Page forwards to Strzok : FYSA [For your situational awareness]
Strzok replies to Page : I'll take the lead, of course – sounds like an espionage
section question Or do you think OGC [Office of the General Counsel] should?
And the more reason for us to get feedback to Rybicki, as we all identified this as an
issue/question over a week ago.
Page replies : I was going to reply to Jim [Rybicki] and tell him I can talked [sic] to you
about this already. Do you want me to?
***
Recall that the FBI agents involved made
extensive edits to former FBI Diretor James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary Clinton -
changing the language to effectively downgrade the crime of mishandling classified information
so that they could recommend no charges.
According to a December, 2017 letter from Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray, fired FBI agent Peter
Strzok changed the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross
negligence" to "extremely careless."
"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with
recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, gross negligence is " A severe degree of
negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty,
other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term
of art.
According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to
"gross negligence": "What my client did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it
was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option but to recommend
prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.
18 U.S. Code §
793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase
"gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary
had broken the law.
And now, thanks to the Judicial Watch FOIA, we know that the FBI also went to great lengths
to justify letting Clinton off the hook with a "chart" of her offenses.
The real problem here is that once faith in government is destroyed by the very agencies
we would hope to be honest to the end, the end of that government is at hand and all Hell is
about to break loose. Hold on tight to your Constitution and all the Amendments for tyranny
is at our doorsteps.
The FBI and DOJ, the NSA and CIA are infiltrated and infested with Anti-American
anti-patriots who think that their job is to protect a ideological faction supporting
globalism and neoliberalism.
These are the rotting fruits of 60 years of Socialist/Communist/Cultural Marxist
indoctrination at the level of public education and University level academia.
We have to face this now. The problem is massively bigger than McCabe or Comey or Brennan
or their low-level flunkies.
Press Release Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) joined a
coalition of over 160 lawmakers in introducing legislation that would create a national paid
family and medical leave program. The Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, known as the
FAMILY Act, would ensure that every American worker can take up to 12 weeks of paid leave for a
pregnancy or the birth or adoption of a child, to recover from a serious illness, or to care
for a seriously ill family member.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said: "Across the country, people are working hard every day, living
paycheck to paycheck, barely making enough to get by. When a crisis arises, like a parent who
falls sick, a personal health crisis, or a newborn child, the demands of balancing a job and
family needs can be too much. Without a national family leave policy, millions of Americans are
forced to make an impossible choice between their family's health, and their financial
security. Our legislation will provide the security our working families need to care for their
loved ones, without risking their ability to keep a roof over their heads and food on the
table."
Background: The FAMILY Act establishes a national family and medical leave insurance
program. Receiving paid leave benefits allows workers to take time away from their jobs to
address their most-pressing needs. Specifically, the legislation would provide eligible
employees up to 12 weeks of partial income to address:
A serious personal health condition, including pregnancy or childbirth,
A family member with a serious health condition,
A newborn, newly-adopted child, or a newly-placed foster child, or
"... So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live under. ..."
"... Notwithstanding what the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous, self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was supposed to mean, exactly). ..."
"... Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever. What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces, media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in Venezuela. ..."
"... And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. ..."
Maybe Donald Trump isn't as stupid as I thought. I'd hate to have to admit that publicly,
but it does kind of seem like he has put one over on the liberal corporate media this time.
Scanning the recent Trump-related news, I couldn't help but notice a significant decline in the
number of references to Weimar, Germany, Adolf Hitler, and "
the brink of fascism " that America has supposedly been teetering on since Hillary Clinton
lost the election.
I googled around pretty well, I think, but I couldn't find a single
editorial warning that Trump is about to summarily cancel the U.S. Constitution, dissolve
Congress, and
proclaim himself Führer . Nor did I see any mention of Auschwitz , or any other Nazi
stuff which is weird, considering that the Hitler hysteria
has been a standard feature of the official narrative we've been subjected to for the last two
years.
So how did Trump finally get the liberal corporate media to stop calling him a fascist? He
did that by acting like a fascist (i.e., like a "normal" president). Which is to say he did the
bidding of the deep state goons and corporate mandarins that manage the global capitalist
empire the smiley, happy, democracy-spreading, post-fascist version of fascism we live
under.
I'm referring, of course, to Venezuela, which is one of a handful of uncooperative countries
that are not playing ball with global capitalism and which haven't been "regime changed" yet.
Trump green-lit the attempted coup purportedly being staged by the Venezuelan "opposition," but
which is obviously a U.S. operation, or, rather, a global capitalist operation. As soon as he
did, the corporate media immediately suspended calling him a fascist, and comparing him to
Adolf Hitler, and so on, and started spewing out blatant propaganda supporting his effort to
overthrow the elected government of a sovereign country.
Overthrowing the governments of sovereign countries, destroying their economies, stealing
their gold, and otherwise bringing them into the fold of the global capitalist "international
community" is not exactly what most folks thought Trump meant by "Make America Great Again."
Many Americans have never been to Venezuela, or Syria, or anywhere else the global capitalist
empire has been ruthlessly restructuring since shortly after the end of the Cold War. They have
not been lying awake at night worrying about Venezuelan democracy, or Syrian democracy, or
Ukrainian democracy.
This is not because Americans are a heartless people, or an ignorant or a selfish people. It
is because, well, it is because they are Americans (or, rather, because they believe they are
Americans), and thus are more interested in the problems of Americans than in the problems of
people in faraway lands that have nothing whatsoever to do with America. Notwithstanding what
the corporate media will tell you, Americans elected Donald Trump, a preposterous,
self-aggrandizing ass clown, not because they were latent Nazis, or because they were
brainwashed by Russian hackers, but, primarily, because they wanted to believe that he
sincerely cared about America, and was going to try to "make it great again" (whatever that was
supposed to mean, exactly).
Unfortunately, there is no America. There is nothing to make great again. "America" is a
fiction, a fantasy, a nostalgia that hucksters like Donald Trump (and other, marginally less
buffoonish hucksters) use to sell whatever they are selling themselves, wars, cars, whatever.
What there is, in reality, instead of America, is a supranational global capitalist empire, a
decentralized, interdependent network of global corporations, financial institutions, national
governments, intelligence agencies, supranational governmental entities, military forces,
media, and so on. If that sounds far-fetched or conspiratorial, look at what is going on in
Venezuela.
The entire global capitalist empire is working in concert to force the elected president of
the country out of office. The US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Austria, Denmark,
Poland, the Netherlands, Israel, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Argentina have officially recognized
Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, in spite of the fact that no one elected
him. Only the empire's official evil enemies (i.e., Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, and other
uncooperative countries) are objecting to this "democratic" coup. The global financial system
(i.e., banks) has frozen (i.e., stolen) Venezuela's assets, and is attempting to transfer them
to Guaido so he can buy the Venezuelan military. The corporate media are hammering out the
official narrative like a Goebbelsian piano in an effort to convince the general public that
all this has something to do with democracy. You would have to be a total moron or hopelessly
brainwashed not to recognize what is happening.
What is happening has nothing to do with America the "America" that Americans believe they
live in and that many of them want to "make great again." What is happening is exactly what has
been happening around the world since the end of the Cold War, albeit most dramatically in the
Middle East. The de facto global capitalist empire is restructuring the planet with virtual
impunity. It is methodically eliminating any and all impediments to the hegemony of global
capitalism, and the privatization and commodification of everything.
Venezuela is one of these impediments. Overthrowing its government has nothing to do with
America, or the lives of actual Americans. "America" is not to going conquer Venezuela and
plant an American flag on its soil. "America" is not going to steal its oil, ship it "home,"
and parcel it out to "Americans" in their pickups in the parking lot of Walmart.
What what about those American oil corporations? They want that Venezuelan oil, don't they?
Well, sure they do, but here's the thing there are no "American" oil corporations.
Corporations, especially multi-billion dollar transnational corporations (e.g., Chevron,
ExxonMobil, et al.) have no nationalities, nor any real allegiances, other than to their major
shareholders. Chevron, for example, whose major shareholders are asset management and mutual
fund companies like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group, SSgA Funds Management, Geode Capital
Management, Wellington Management, and other transnational, multi-trillion dollar outfits. Do
you really believe that being nominally headquartered in Boston or New York makes these
companies "American," or that Deutsche Bank is a "German" bank, or that BP is a "British"
company?
And Venezuela is just the most recent blatant example of the empire in action. Ask yourself,
honestly, what have the "American" regime change ops throughout the Greater Middle East done
for any actual Americans, other than get a lot of them killed? Oh, and how about those bailouts
for all those transnational "American" investment banks? Or the billions "America" provides to
Israel? Someone please explain how enriching the shareholders of transnational corporations
like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin by selling billions in weapons to Saudi Arabian
Islamists is benefiting "the American people." How much of that Saudi money are you seeing?
And, wait, I've got another one for you. Call up your friendly 401K manager, ask how your
Pfizer shares are doing, then compare that to what you're paying some "American" insurance
corporation to not really cover you.
For the last two-hundred years or so, we have been conditioned to think of ourselves as the
citizens of a collection of sovereign nation states, as "Americans," "Germans," "Greeks," and
so on. There are no more sovereign nation states. Global capitalism has done away with them.
Which is why we are experiencing a "neo-nationalist" backlash. Trump, Brexit, the so-called
"new populism" these are the death throes of national sovereignty, like the thrashing of a
suffocating fish before you whack it and drop it in the cooler. The battle is over, but the
fish doesn't know that. It didn't even realize there was a battle until it suddenly got jerked
up out of the water.
In any event, here we are, at the advent of the global capitalist empire. We are not going
back to the 19th Century, nor even to the early 20th Century. Neither Donald Trump nor anyone
else is going to "Make America Great Again." Global capitalism will continue to remake the
world into one gigantic marketplace where we work ourselves to death at bullshit
jobs in order to buy things we don't need, accumulating debts we can never pay back, the
interest on which will further enrich the global capitalist ruling classes, who, as you may
have noticed, are preparing for the future by purchasing luxury
underground bunkers and post-apocalyptic compounds in New Zealand. That, and militarizing
the police, who they will need to maintain "public order" you know, like they are doing in
France at the moment, by
beating, blinding, and hideously maiming those Gilets Jaunes (i.e., Yellow Vest) protesters
that the corporate media are doing their best to demonize and/or render invisible.
Or, who knows, Americans (and other Western consumers) might take a page from those Yellow
Vests, set aside their political differences (or at least ignore their hatred of each other
long enough to actually try to achieve something), and focus their anger at the politicians and
corporations that actually run the empire, as opposed to, you know, illegal immigrants and
imaginary legions of Nazis and Russians. In the immortal words of General Buck Turgidson, "I'm
not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed," but, heck, it might be worth a try, especially
since, the way things are going, we are probably going end up out there anyway.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and political satirist
based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play
Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant Paperbacks. He can be reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"... "The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained. "The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise." ..."
"... Roosevelt was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats. ..."
"... The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations. ..."
"... Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America ..."
"... People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy ..."
What a Midwestern Presidential Candidate Learned From Marxist Intellectuals | The Nation
The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well
as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes."
That's what Teddy Roosevelt proposed in his agenda-setting
"New Nationalism" speech from
1910 , when he prodded the United States toward a fuller embrace of progressive reform. As a former president who was preparing
to again bid for the position, Roosevelt opened a conversation about tax policy in order to frame a broader debate about at least
some of the values that should guide American progress.
At the heart of Roosevelt's agenda was a specific form of taxation. While progressive taxation in a general sense was desirable
and necessary, Roosevelt was particularly enthusiastic about "another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective
-- a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size
of the estate."
Teddy Roosevelt, it should be noted, was a Republican who possessed considerable wealth of his own. He was a flawed figure who
let down the progressive cause at many turns and never matched the courageous domestic and foreign policy vision advanced by his
rival for leadership of the progressive movement, Wisconsin Senator Robert M. La Follette. But Roosevelt recognized that taxing inherited
wealth not merely to collect revenues but to preserve and extend democracy.
"One of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege." -- Teddy Roosevelt, 1910
"The absence of effective state, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small
class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power," he explained.
"The prime need to is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which it is not for the general welfare
that they should hold or exercise."
Roosevelt's critics may have characterized him as a radical, but he was never as radical (or as right) as La Follette. Roosevelt
was, however, conscious of the threats posed to the American experiment by the rapid consolidation wealth and power. And he knew
that progressive taxation could be used to address those threats.
Bernie Sanders knows this, as well. That's why Sanders is proposing a progressive estate tax on the fortunes of the top 0.2 percent
of Americans. The senator from Vermont's newly introduced "For the 99.8% Act" would collect $2.2 trillion from 588 billionaires.
"At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, when the three richest Americans own more wealth than 160 million Americans,
it is literally beyond belief that the Republican leadership wants to provide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to
the top 0.2 percent," argues Sanders. "Our bill does what the American people want by substantially increasing the estate tax
on the wealthiest families in this country and dramatically reducing wealth inequality. From a moral, economic, and political
perspective our nation will not thrive when so few have so much and so many have so little."
Sanders is widely expected to bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. If he does so, Sanders will not be the only
contender with a bold plan to tax the rich.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren , for instance, has a plan to levy a 2 percent tax on the assets of wealthy Americans
with more than $50 million. From those with over $1 billion, she'd demand an additional 1 percent.
The Democrats who seek to dislodge Donald Trump in 2020 will all need to make tax policy a priority. Republicans have for so long
practiced reverse Robin Hood politics -- take from the poor and give to the rich -- that the promised Democrats make will be unobtainable
without the infusion of revenues that comes from taxing the wealthy. Changing tax policy also infuses governing with democracy, as
it dials down the influence of specially interested billionaires (such as the Koch brothers) and their corporations.
What is notable about the Sanders plan is that, with his proposal to establish a 77 percent tax on the value of an estate above
$1 billion, the senator is merely seeking "a return to the top rate from 1941 through 1976."
Sanders is proposing an approach that renews American values, as notes University of California–Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel
Saez. "The estate tax was a key pillar of the progressive tax revolution that the United States ushered one century ago. It prevented
self-made wealth from turning into inherited wealth and helped make America more equal," explains Saez. "However, the estate tax
is dying of neglect, as tax avoidance schemes are multiplying and left unchallenged. As wealth concentration is surging in the United
States, it is high time to revive the estate tax, plug the loopholes, and make it more progressive. Senator Sanders' bill is a bold
and welcome leap forward in this direction."
Teddy Roosevelt understood this economic calculus, and this democratic imperative.
"In every wise struggle for human betterment one of the main objects, and often the only object, has been to achieve in large
measure equality of opportunity. In the struggle for this great end, nations rise from barbarism to civilization, and through it
people press forward from one stage of enlightenment to the next," the Republican president
explained in 1910. "One
of the chief factors in progress is the destruction of special privilege. The essence of any struggle for healthy liberty has always
been, and must always be, to take from some one man or class of men the right to enjoy power, or wealth, or position, or immunity,
which has not been earned by service to his or their fellows. That is what you fought for in the Civil War, and that is what we strive
for now."
The inimitable CN commenting system just ate my detailed reply to your question of who
else besides Gabbard has spoken up, and won't let me repost it. But the short version is that
Rep. Ilhan Omar came out with a decent statement, like
Tulsi.
Rep. Ro Khanna hedged his bets by insulting Maduro while criticizing the coup attempt.
Saint Bernie came out with something that was two-thirds State Department talking points
followed by limp disapproval of U.S. sponsored coups in general. Classic Sanders.
Saint Alexandria doesn't want to talk about it.
As far as I know, everybody else is on board the regime-change express, enjoying the bar
car.
Summary: Tulsi rocks.
KiwiAntz, February 12, 2019 at 7:04 am
Trump & his corrupt Administration with the Troika of morons such as Pompeo, Bolton & Abrams, are the most dangerous bunch
of idiots ever to be in power?
Hopelessly inept & out of his depth, Trump doesn't have a clue about Foreign Policy & his stupid Regime change
antics are going to blow up in his & his meddling Nations face!
This buffoonish Clown is really accelerating America's downfall & declining Hegemonic power & turning the World away from
the corrupt US Dollar, Petrodollar system with other Countries, actively moving away from this tyranny?
"... You can take this to the bank. Hardcore Russiagaters will never give up their belief in collusion and Russian influence in the 2016 campaign -- never. Congress and Mueller will be accused of engaging in a coverup. ..."
"... Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate the Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means. ..."
"... Russiagate has exposed the great degree of corruption within the Justice Department bureaucracy, particularly within FBI, and within the entire Democrat Party. ..."
"... Since this is obviously not going to be allowed to happen, and since these people get away with everything, expect this to never end, despite all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter if they've been exposed as CIA propagandists or Integrity Initiative stooges, the game goes on...and on.... the job security of these disgraced columnists is the greatest in the Western world. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen discusses how rational viewpoints are banned from the mainstream media, and how several features of US life today resemble some of the worst features of the Soviet system. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/12/stephen-cohen-on-war-with-russia-and-soviet-style-censorship-in-the-us/ ..."
"... The US needs an enemy, how else can they ask NATO members to cough up 2% of GDP [just for one example Germany's GDP is nearly 4 Trillion dollars [2017] for defence spending, what a crazy sum all NATO members must fork out to please the US, but then most of that money must be spent on the US MIC 'interoperability' of course. ..."
"... Another great damage of Russiagate was the instigating of a nuclear arms race directed primarily at Russia, and ideologically justified by its diabolical policies. ..."
"... Russiagate was very successful. You just have to understand the objectives. It was a great distraction. Diverting peoples attention from the continued fleecing of the "real people" which are the bottom 90% by the "Corporate People" and their Government Lackeys. ..."
"... It provided an excuse for the acting CEO (a figurehead) of the Corporate Empire to go back on many of the promises made that got him elected, and to fill the swamp with Neocon and Koch Brother creatures with the excuse the Deep State made him do it. More proof that there is no deception that is too ridiculous to be believed so long as you have enough pundits claiming it to be so ..."
"... If you've done just a cursory look into Seth Rich, you'd be very suspicious about the story of his life and death. IMO Assange/Wikilleaks were set up. And Flynn was set up too. What they are doing is Orwellian: White Helmets, election manipulation, propaganda, McCarthism, etc. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. ..."
"... See also this primer on Mueller's MO. ..."
"... The button pushers behind the Trump collusion and Russia election hacking false narratives got what they wanted: to walk the democrats and republicans straight into Cold War v2; to start their campaign to suppress alternative voices on the internet; to increase military spending; and more, more, more war. ..."
"... Russiagate was very successful <=pls read, re-read Pft @ 46.. he listed many things. divide and conquer accomplished. a nation state is defined as an armed rule making structure, designed by those who control a territory, and constructed by the lawyers, military, and wealthy and run by the persons the designers appoint, for the appointed are called politicians. ..."
"... At the beginnng of Russiagate, I wrote on Robert Parry's Consirtium News that Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. How hard would it be to brainwash an already brainwashed population? ..."
"... The purveyors of Russiagate will re-compose themselves, brush off all reports and continue on. One just cannot get away from one's nature, even when that nature is pure idiocy. ..."
"... Russiagate will not go away unfortunately because it has evolved in the "Russiagate Industry". As mentioned by others, the Russiagate Industry has been very profitable for many industries and people. Russiagate has generated an entire cottage industry of companies around censorship and "find us a Russian". Dow Jones should have an index on the Russiagate Industry. ..."
For more than two years U.S. politicians, the media and some bloggers hyped a conspiracy theory. They claimed that Russia had
somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to get him elected.
An obviously fake 'Dirty Dossier' about Trump, commissioned by the Clinton campaign, was presented as evidence. Regular business
contacts between Trump flunkies and people in Ukraine or Russia were claimed to be proof for nefarious deals. A Russian
click-bait company was accused of manipulating the U.S. electorate by posting puppy pictures and crazy memes on social media.
Huge investigations were launched. Every rumor or irrelevant detail coming from them was declared to be - finally - the evidence
that would put Trump into the slammer. Every month the walls were closing in on Trump.
Finally the conspiracy theory has run out of steam. Russiagate
is finished :
After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016
election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats
and Republicans on the committee.
...
Democrats and other Trump opponents have long believed that special counsel Robert Mueller and Congressional investigators would
unearth new and more explosive evidence of Trump campaign coordination with Russians. Mueller may yet do so, although Justice
Department and Congressional sources say they believe that he, too, is close to wrapping up his investigation.
Nothing, zero, nada was found to support the conspiracy theory. The Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. A few flunkies
were indicted for unrelated tax issues and for lying to the investigators about some minor details. But nothing at all supports the
dramatic claims of collusion made since the beginning of the affair.
In a recent statement House leader Nancy Pelosi was reduced
to accuse Trump campaign officials of doing their job:
"The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to
influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. ...
No one called her out for spouting such nonsense.
Russiagate created a lot of damage.
The alleged Russian influence campaign that never happened was used to
install censorship on social media. It was used
to undermine the election of progressive Democrats. The weapon salesmen used it to push for more NATO aggression against Russia.
Maria Butina, an innocent Russian woman interested in good relation with the United States, was
held in solitary confinement
(recommended) until she signed a paper which claims that she was involved in a conspiracy.
In a just world the people who for more then two years hyped the conspiracy theory and caused so much damage would be pushed out
of their public positions. Unfortunately that is not going to happen. They will jump onto the next conspiracy train continue from
there.
Posted by b on February 12, 2019 at 01:38 PM |
Permalink
Comments next
page " Legally, Maria Butina was suborned into signing a false declaration. If there were the rule of law, such party or
parties that suborned her would be in gaol. Considering Mueller's involvement with Lockerbie, I am not holding my breath. FWIW the
Swiss company that made the timers allegedly involved in Lockerbie have some
comments of its own .
I will be really glad when this 'get Russia' craziness is over, but I suspect even if the Mueller investigation has nothing,
all the same creeps will be pulling out the stops to generate something... Skripal, Integrity Initiative, and etc. etc. stuff
like this just doesn't go away overnight or with the end of this 'investigation'... folks are looking for red meat i tell ya!
as for Maria Butina - i look forward to reading the article.. that was a travesty of justice but the machine moves on, mowing
down anyone in it's way... she was on the receiving end of all the paranoia that i have come to associate with the western msm
at this point...
Hillary's loss is actually best explained as her throwing the election to Trump . The Deep State wanted a nationalist
to win as that would best help meet the challenge from Russia and China - a challenge that they had been slow to recognize.
= ... to smear Wikileaks as a Russian agent
The DNC leak is best explained as a CIA false flag.
= ... to remove and smear Michael Flynn
Trump said that he fired Flynn for lying to VP Pence but Flynn's conversations with the Russian Ambassador after Obama threw
them out for "meddling" in the US election was an embarrassment to the Administration as Putin's Putin's decision not to respond
was portrayed as favoritism toward the Trump Administration.
You can take this to the bank. Hardcore Russiagaters will never give up their belief in collusion and Russian influence in
the 2016 campaign -- never. Congress and Mueller will be accused of engaging in a coverup. This is typical behavior for conspiracy
theorists.
I hope that Russiagate is indeed "finished", but I think it needs to be draped with garlic-clove necklaces, shot up with silver
bullets, sprinkled with holy water, and a wooden stake driven through its black heart just to make sure.
I don't dispute the logical argument B. presents, but it may be too dispassionately rational. I know that the Russiagate
proponents and enthralled supporters of the concept are too invested psychologically in this surrealistic fantasy to let go, even
if the official outcome reluctantly admits that there's no "there" there.
The Democratic Party, one of the major partners mounting the Russophobic psy-op, has already resolved to turn Democratic committee
chairmen loose to dog the Trump administration with hearings aggressively flogging any and all matters that discredit and undermine
Trump-- his business connections, social liaisons, etc.
They may hope to find the Holy Grail: the elusive "bombshell" that "demands" impeachment, i.e., some crime or illicit conduct
so heinous that the public will stand for another farcical impeachment proceeding. But I reckon that the Dems prefer the "soft"
impeachment of harassing Trump with hostile hearings in hopes of destroying his 2020 electability with the death of a thousand
innuendoes and guilt-by-association.
Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt
to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate
the Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means.
Put more succinctly, I fear that Russiagate won't be finished until Rachel Maddow says it's finished. ;)
Once a hypothesis is fixed in people's minds, whether true or not, it's hard to get them to let go of it. And let's not forget
how many times the narrative changed (and this is true in the Skripal case as well), with all past facts vanishing to accommodate
a new narrative.
So I, like others, expect the fake scandal to continue while many, many other real crimes (the US attempted
coup in Venezuela and the genocidal war in Yemen, for instance) continue unabated.
Putin solicits public input for essential national
policy goals . If ever there was a template to follow for an actual MAGAgenda, Putin's Russia provides one. While US politicos
argue over what is essentially Bantha Pudu, Russians are hard at work improving their nation which includes restructuring their
economy.
Russiagate has exposed the great degree of corruption within the Justice Department bureaucracy, particularly within FBI,
and within the entire Democrat Party.
I very much doubt it it is over. Trump is corrupt and has links to corrupt Russians. Collusion, maybe not, but several
stinking individuals are in the frame for, guess what - ...bring it on... The fact that Hilary was arguably even worse (a point
made ad-nauseum on here) is frankly irrelevant. The vilification of Trump will not affect the warmongers efforts. He is a useful
idiot
for a take on the alternative reality some are living in
emptywheel has an article up on the nbc link b provides and the article on butina is discussed in the comments section...
as i said - they are looking for red meat and will not be happy until they get some... they are completely zonkers...
Blooming Barricade , Feb 12, 2019 2:55:18 PM |
link
Now that this racket has been admitted as such, I expect all of the media outlets that devoted banner headlines, hundreds of thousands
of hours of cable TV time, thousands of trees, and free speech online to immediately fire all of their journalists and appoint
Glenn Greenwald as the publisher of the New York Times, Michael Tracey at the Post, Aaron Matte at the Guardian, and Max Blumenthal
at the Daily Beast.
Since this is obviously not going to be allowed to happen, and since these people get away with everything, expect this
to never end, despite all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter if they've been exposed as CIA propagandists or Integrity
Initiative stooges, the game goes on...and on.... the job security of these disgraced columnists is the greatest in the Western
world.
The US needs an enemy, how else can they ask NATO members to cough up 2% of GDP [just for one example Germany's GDP is nearly
4 Trillion dollars [2017] for defence spending, what a crazy sum all NATO members must fork out to please the US, but then most
of that money must be spent on the US MIC 'interoperability' of course.
Then of course Russia has to be surrounded by NATO should they try and take over Europe by surging through the Fulda gap./s
Then of course there are the professional pundits who have built careers on anti Russian propaganda, Rachel Maddow for instance
who earns 30,000$ per day to spew anti Russian nonsense.
Another great damage of Russiagate was the instigating of a nuclear arms race directed primarily at Russia, and ideologically
justified by its diabolical policies.
I'm sorry b is so down on Conspiracy Theories, since they reveal quite real staged homicidal false flag operations of US power.
Feeding into the stigmatizing of the truth about reality is not in the interests of the earth's people.
somehow I see this "revelation: tied to Barr's approaching tenure. I think they (FBI/DOJ) didn't want his involvement in their
noodle soup of an investigation and the best way to accomplish that was to end it themselves. I also suspect that a deal has been
made with Trump, possibly in exchange for leaving his family alone.
So we will see no investigation of Hillary, her 650,000
emails or the many crimes they detailed (according to NYPD investigation of Weiner's laptop) and the US will continue to be at
war all day, every day. Team Swamp rules.
Meanwhile, MSM is prepping its readers for the possibility that the Mueller report will never be released to us proles. If that's
the case, I'm sure nobody will try to use innuendo to suggest it actually contains explosive revelations after all...
Harry, its vitally important as the US desperately wants to keep Europe under its thumb and to stop this European army which
means Europe lead by Paris and Berlin becomes a world power. Trump's attempts to make nice with Russia is to keep it out of the
EU bloc.
Well, the liberal conspiracy car crash ensured downmarket Mussolini a second term, it appears...Hard Brexit Tories also look likely
to win thanks to centrist sabatoge of the left. You reap what you sow, corporate presstitutes!
Sane people have predicted the end of Russiagate almost as many times as insane people have predicted that the "smoking gun that
will get rid of Trump" has been found. And yet the Mighty Wurlitzer grinds on, while social media is more and more censored.
I expect it all to continue until the 2020 election circus winds up into full-throated mode, and no one talks about anything but
the next puppet to be appointed. Oops, I mean "elected".
You also need to behead the corpse, stuff the mouth with a lemon and then place the head down in the coffin with the body in
supine (facing up) position. Weight the coffin with stones and wild roses and toss it into a fast-flowing river.
Russiagate won't be finished until a wall is built around Capitol Hill and all its inhabitants and worker bees declared insane
by a properly functioning court of law.
I also suspect that a deal has been made with Trump, possibly in exchange for leaving his family alone. So we will see no
investigation of Hillary ...
Underlying your perspective is the assumption that USA is a democracy where a populist "outsider" could be elected President,
Yet you also believe that Hillary and the Deep State have the power to manipulate government and the intelligence agencies and
propose a "conspiracy theory" based on that power.
Isn't it more likely that Trump made it clear (behind closed doors, of course) that he was amenable to the goals of the Deep
State and that the bogus investigation was merely done to: 1) cover their own election meddling; 2) eliminate threats like Flynn
and Assange/Wikileaks; 3) anti-Russian propaganda?
Dowd, Trump's former lawyer on Russiagate stated there may not even be a report. If this is the case then the Zionist rulers have
gotten to Mueller who no doubt figured out that the election collusion breadcrumbs don't lead to Putin, they lead to Netanyahu
and Zionist billionaire friends! So Mueller may have to come up with a nothing burger to hide the truth.
B is the only alternative media blogger I've followed for a significant amount of time without becoming disenfranchised. Not because
he has no blind spot - his is just one I can deal with... optimism.
I will believe Russiagate is finished when expelled Russian staff gets back, when the US returns the seized Russian properties,
when the consulate is Seattle reopens and when USA issues formal apology to Russia.
Posted by: hopehely | Feb 12, 2019 5:14:49 PM |
link
Nobody has ever advanced the tiniest shred of credible evidence that 'Russia' or its government at any level was in any way implicated
either in Wikileaks' acquisition of the DNC and Podesta emails or in any form of interference with the Presidential election.
This has been going on for three years and not once has anything like evidence surfaced.
On the other hand there has been an abundance of evidence that those alleging Russian involvement consistently refused to listen
to explore the facts.
Incredibly, the DNC computers were never examined by the FBI or any other agency resembling an official police agency. Instead
the notorious Crowdstrike professionally russophobic and caught red handed faking data for the Ukrainians against Russia were
commissioned to produce a 'report.'
Nobody with any sense would have credited anything about Russiagate after that happened.
Thgen there was the proof, from VIPS and Bill Binney (?) that the computers were not hacked at all but that the information
was taken by thumbdrive. A theory which not only Wikileaks but several witnesses have offered to prove.
Not one of them has been contacted by the FBI, Mueller or anyone else "investigating."
In reality the charges from the first were ludicrous on their face. There is, as b has proved and every new day's news attests,
not the slightest reason why anyone in the Russian government should have preferred Trump over Clinton. And that is saying something
because they are pretty well indistinguishable. And neither has the morals or brains of an adolescent groundhog.
Russiagate is over, alright, The Nothingburger is empty. But that means nothing in this 'civilisation': it will be recorded
in the history books, still to be written, by historians still in diapers, that "The 2016 Presidential election, which ended in
the controversial defeat of Hillary Clinton, was heavily influenced by Russian agents who hacked ..etc etc"
What will not be remembered is that every single email released was authentic. And that within those troves of correspondence
there was enough evidence of criminality by Clinton and her campaign to fill a prison camp.
Another thing that will not be recalled is that there was once a young enthusiastic man, working for the DNC, who was mugged
one evening after work and killed.
The 'no collusion' result will only spur the 'beginning of the end' baboons to shout even more, they'll never stop until they
die in their beds or the plebs of the Republic made them adore the street lamp posts, you'll see. The former is by far more likely,
the unwashed of American have never had a penchant for foreign affairs except for the few spasms like Vietnam.
There was collusion alright but the only Russians who helped Trump get elected and were in on the collusion are citizens of ISRAEL
FIRST, likewise for the American billionaires who put Trump in the power perch. ISRAEL FIRST.
That's why Trump is on giant billboards in Israel shaking hands with the Yahoo. Trump is higher in the polls in Israel than
in the U.S. If it weren't that the Zionist upper crust need Trump doing their dirty work in America, like trying today get rid
of Rep. Omar Ilhan, then Trump would win the elections in Ziolandia or Ziostan by a landslide cause he's been better for the Joowish
state than all preceding Presidents put together. Mazel tov to them bullshet for the rest of us servile mass in the vassal West
and Palestinians the most shafted class ever. Down with Venezuela and Iran, up with oil and gas. The billionare shysters' and
Trump's payola is getting closer. Onward AZ Empire!
He proved himself so easy to troll during the election. It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all
along was to get him elected and have a candidate they could manipulate.
At least Germany has the good sense not to throw taxpayer money at the F-35.
German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation I don't know what they have
in mind with a proposed airplane purchase. If they need fighters, buy or lease Sweden's Gripen. If attack airplanes are what they're
after, go to Boeing and get some brand new F-15X models. If the prickly French are agreeable to build a 6th generation aircraft,
that would be worth a try.
Regarding Rachel Maddow, I recently had an encounter with a relative who told me 1) I visited too many oddball sites and 2)
he considered Rachel M. to be the most reliable news person in existence. I think we're talking "true believer" here. :)
It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all along was to get him elected and have a candidate
they could manipulate.
Considering how those "intelligence agencies" are hard pressed to find their own tails, even if you allow them to use both
hands, it would surprise me.
That Trump would turn out to be a tub of jello in more than just a physical way has been a surprise to an awful lot of us.
Russiagate was very successful. You just have to understand the objectives. It was a great distraction. Diverting
peoples attention from the continued fleecing of the "real people" which are the bottom 90% by the "Corporate People" and their
Government Lackeys.
It provided an excuse for the acting CEO (a figurehead) of the Corporate Empire to go back on many of the promises made
that got him elected, and to fill the swamp with Neocon and Koch Brother creatures with the excuse the Deep State made him do
it. More proof that there is no deception that is too ridiculous to be believed so long as you have enough pundits claiming it
to be so
Allowed the bipartisan support for the clamp down on alt media with censorship by social media (Deep State Tools) and funded
by the Ministry of Truth set up by Obama in his last days in office to under the false pretense of protecting us from foreign
governments interference in elections (except Israel of course) . Similar agencies have been set up or planned to be in other
countries followig the US example such as UK, France, Russia, etc.
Did anyone really expect Mr "Cover It Up " Mueller to find anything? Mueller is Deep State all the way and Trump is as well,
not withstanding the "Fake Wrestling " drama that they are bitter enemies. All the surveillance done over the past 2-3 decades
would have so much dirt on the Trumpet they could silence him forever . Trump knew that going in and I sometimes wonder if he
was pressured to run as a condition to avoid prosecution. Pretty sure every President since Carter has been "Kompromat"
If you've done just a cursory look into Seth Rich, you'd be very suspicious about the story of his life and death. IMO
Assange/Wikilleaks were set up. And Flynn was set up too. What they are doing is Orwellian: White Helmets, election manipulation,
propaganda, McCarthism, etc. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
Russians and likely at the behest of the Russian state interfered and it was fair payback for Yeltsin's election. It is time to
move on but not in feigned ignorance of what was done. Was it "outcome" affecting, possibly, but not clearly and if the US electoral
college and electoral system generally is so decrepit that a second level power in the world can influence then its the US's fault.
It's not like the 2000 election wasn't a warning shot about the rottenness of system and a system that doesn't understand a
warning shot deserves pretty much what it gets. But there's enough non-hype evidence of acts and intent to say yes, the Russians
tried and may have succeeded. They certainly are acting guilty enough. but still close the book move and move on to Trump's 'real'
crimes which were done without a Russian assist.
I seem to recall former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray saying that it was not a hack and that he had been handed
a thumb drive in a field near American University by a disgruntled Democrat whistleblower. Further, I seem to recall William Binney,
former NSA Technical Leader for intelligence, conducting an experiment to show that internet speeds at the time would not allow
the information to be hacked - they knew the size of the files and the period over which they were downloaded. Plus, Seth Rich.
So why does anyone even believe it was a hack, @32 THN?
Just another comment re Mueller. There is a great documentary by (Dutch, not Israeli---different person) Gideon Levy, Lockerbie
Revisited. The narration is in Dutch, but the interviews are in English, and there is a small segment of a German broadcast. The
documentary ends abruptly where one set of FBI personnel contradict statements by another set of FBI personnel. See also
this primer on Mueller's MO.
reply to Les 42
"It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all along was to get him elected and have a candidate they
could manipulate."
Not the intelligence agencies, the Military IMO. They knew HC for what she was; horrifically corrupt and,again IMO,they know
she is insane.
They saw and I think still see Trump as someone they could work with, remember Rogers (Navy) of the NSA going to him immediately
once he was elected? That was the Military protecting him as best they could.
They IMO have kept him alive and as long as he doesn't send any troops into "real" wars, they will keep on keeping him alive.
This doesn't mean Trump hasn't gone over to the Dark Side, just that no military action will take place that the military command
doesn't fully support.
Again, I could be wrong, he could be backed by fiends from Patagonia for all I really know:)
The button pushers behind the Trump collusion and Russia election hacking false narratives got what they wanted: to walk the
democrats and republicans straight into Cold War v2; to start their campaign to suppress alternative voices on the internet; to
increase military spending; and more, more, more war.
Boy, I hope Jackrabbit sees this. Everyone knows I believe Trump is the anointed chosen of the Zionist 1%. There was no Russia
collusion; it was Zionist collusion with a Russian twist...
Oh yeah! Forgot to mention the latest. Trump is asking Kim to provide a list of his nuclear scientists! Before Kim acts on this
request, he should call up the Iranian government for advise 'cause they have lots of experience and can warn Kim of what will
happen to each of those scientists. They'll be put on a kill-list and will be extrajudicially wacked as in executed. Can you believe
the chutzpah? Trump must think Kim is really stupid to fall for that one!
Aye! The thought of six more years of Zionist pandering Trump. Barf-inducing prospect is too tame.
The view from the hermitage is, we are in the age of distractions. Russiagate will be replaced with one of a litany of distractions,
purely designed to keep us off target. The target being, corruption, vote rigging, illegal wars, war crimes, overthrowing sovereign
governments, and political assasinations, both at home and abroad. Those so distracted, will focus on sillyness; not the genuine
danger afoot around the planet. Get used to it; it's become the new normal.
@76Hw
I have yet to read anything more delusional, nay, utterly preposterous. Methinks you over-project too much. Even Trump would have
a belly-ache laugh reading that sheeple spiel. You're the type that sees the giant billboard of Zionist Trump and Yahoo shaking
hands and drones on and on that our lying eyes deceive us and it's really Trump playing 4-D chess. I suppose when he tried to
pressure Omar Ilhan into resigning her seat in Congress yesterday, that too was reverse psychology?
Trump instagramed the billboard pic, he tweeted it, he probably pasted it on his wall; maybe with your kind of wacky, Trump
infatuation, you should too!
Russiagate is finished because Mueller discovered an embarrassing fact: The collusion was and always will be with Israel. Here's
Trump professing his endless love for Zionism:
Trump Resign
Russiagate was very successful <=pls read, re-read Pft @ 46.. he listed many things. divide and conquer accomplished.
a nation state is defined as an armed rule making structure, designed by those who control a territory, and constructed by the
lawyers, military, and wealthy and run by the persons the designers appoint, for the appointed are called politicians.
Most designs of armed nation states provide the designers with information feedback and the designers use that information
to appoint more obedient politicians and generals to run things, and to improve the design to better serve the designers. The
armed rule making structure is designed to give the designers complete control over those targeted to be the governed. Why so
stupid the governed? ; always they allow themselves to be manipulated like sheep.
When 10 angry folks approach you with two pieces of ropes: one to throw over the tree branch under which your horse will be
supporting you while they tie the noose around your neck and the other shorter piece of rope to tie your hands behind ..your back
you need at that point to make your words count , if five of the people are black and five are white. all you need do is
say how smart the blacks are, and how stupid the whites are, as the two groups fight each other you manage your escape. democrat
vs republican= divide to conquer. gun, no gun = divide to conquer, HRC vs DJT = divide to conquer, abortion, no abortion = divide
to conquer, Trump is a Russian planted in a high level USA position of power = divide to conquer, They were all in on it together,,
Muller was in the white house to keep the media supplied with XXX, to keep the law enforcement agencies in the loop, and to advise
trump so things would not get out of hand ( its called Manipulation and the adherents to the economic system called Zionism
For the record, Zionism is not related to race, religion or intelligence. Zionism is a system of economics that take's no captives,
its adherents must own everything, must destroy and decimate all actual or imaginary competition, for Zionist are the owners and
masters of everything? Zionism is about power, absolute power, monopoly ownership and using governments everywhere to abuse the
governed. Zionism has many adherents, whites, blacks, browns, Christians, Jews, Islamist, Indians, you name it among each class
of person and walk of life can be found persons who subscribe to the idea that they, and only they, should own everything, and
when those of us, that are content to be the governed let them, before the kill and murder us, they usually end up owning everything.
1. why the Joint non nuclear agreement with Iran and the other nuclear power nations, that prevented Iran from developing nuclear
weapons, was trashed? Someone needs to be able to say Iran is developing ..., at the right time.
2. Why Netanyohu made public a video that claimed Iran was developing nuclear stuff in violation of the Iran non nuclear agreement,
and everybody laughed,
3. Why the nuclear non proliferation agreement with Russia, that terminated the costly useless arms race a decade ago, has
been recently terminated, to reestablish the nuclear arms race, no apparent reason was given the implication might be Russia could
be a target, but
4. why it might make sense to give nukes to Saudi Arabia or some other rogue nation, and
5. why no one is allowed to have nuclear weapons except the Zionist owned and controlled nation states.
Statement: Zionism is an economic system that requires the elimination of all competition of whatever kind. It is a winner
get's all, takes no prisoners, targets all who would threaten or be a challenge or a threat; does not matter if the threat is
in in oil and gas, technology or weapons as soon as a possibility exist, the principles of Zionism would require that it be taken
out, decimated, and destroyed and made where never again it could even remotely be a threat to the Empire, that Zionism demands..
Hypothesis: A claim that another is developing nuclear weapon capabilities is sufficient to take that other out?
I am glad that most commenters understand that Russiagate will not go away. But the majority appear to miss the real reason. Russiagate
is not an accusation, it is the state of mind.
At the beginnng of Russiagate, I wrote on Robert Parry's Consirtium News that Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on
decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. How hard would it be to brainwash an already
brainwashed population?
The purveyors of Russiagate will re-compose themselves, brush off all reports and continue on. One just cannot get away
from one's nature, even when that nature is pure idiocy. Of course, the most ironic in the affair is that it is the so called
US "intellectuals", academics and other assorted cretins who are the most fervent proponents. If you were wondering how Russia
can make such amazing defensive weapons that US can only deny exist and wet dream of having, there is your answer. It is the state
of mind. The whole of US establishment are legends in their on lunch time and totally delusional about the reality surrounding
them - both Russiagate and MAGA cretins, no report can help the Russiagate nation.
Finally, I am thinking of that crazy and ugly professor bitch from the British Cambridge University who gives her lectures
naked to protest something or other. I am so lucky that I do not have to go to a Western university ever again. What a catastrophic
decline! No Brexit can help the Skripal nation.
Russiagate is finished, but is DJT also among the rubble?
Hardly any money for the border wall and still lingering in the ME?
If Hoarsewhisperer proves to be correct above re: DJT, he will really have to knock our socks off before election 2020. To
do this he will have to unequivocally and unceremoniously withdraw from the MENA and Afghanistan and possibly declare a National
Emergency for more money for the wall.
The problem is, when he does this, he will look impulsively dangerous and this may harm his mystique to the lemmings who need
a president to be more "presidential."
My money is on status quo all the way to 2020 and the rethugz hoping the Dems will eat their own in an orgy of warring identities.
The collusion story may be faltering, but the blame for Russia poisoning the Skripals lives on. The other night on The News Hour,
"Judy" led off the program with this: "It has been almost a year since Kremlin intelligence officers attempted to kill a Russian
defector in the British city of Salisbury by poisoning him with a nerve agent. That attack, and the subsequent death of a British
woman, scared away tourists and shoppers, but authorities and residents are working to get the town's economy back on track. Special
correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports."
Russiagate will not go away unfortunately because it has evolved in the "Russiagate Industry". As mentioned by others,
the Russiagate Industry has been very profitable for many industries and people. Russiagate has generated an entire cottage industry
of companies around censorship and "find us a Russian". Dow Jones should have an index on the Russiagate Industry.
Here is one recent example. You know the measles outbreak in the US Pacific Northwest. Yup, the Russians. How do we know.
A government funded research grant. The study found that 899 tweets caused people to doubt vaccines. Looks like money is
to be had even by academics for the right results.
It is unclear how long this vulnerability exists, but this is pretty serious staff that shows
how Hillary server could be hacked via Abedin account. As Abedin technical level was lower then
zero, to hack into her home laptop just just trivial.
Microsoft also patched
Exchange against a vulnerability that allowed remote attackers with little more than an
unprivileged mailbox account to gain administrative control over the server. Dubbed
PrivExchange, CVE-2019-0686 was publicly disclosed last month , along with
proof-of-concept code that exploited it. In Tuesday's
advisory , Microsoft officials said they haven't seen active exploits yet but that they
were "likely."
B you check out the brief awaiting adjudication, whereby they state that they will appeal to
to SCOTUS. Mueller is unconstitutional and plausible criminal.
67 pages
ARGUMENT I.
Congress Has Not "By Law" Vested The Attorney General With Authority to Appoint the
Special Counsel as an Inferior Officer.
The principal question before this Court is whether there is any statute that clearly
conveys power to the Attorney General to appoint a private attorney as Special Counsel at the
level of an inferior officer. The Special Counsel claims that §§ 515 and 533(1) do
the job. But the Spe
cial Counsel's "plain-text" analysis redrafts both provisions in material ways.
He also places extensive reliance on historic practice and predecessor versions of §
515 to aid his redrafting.
None of this squares with controlling and settled law. Here, the plain text of
§§ 515 and 533(1) does not clearly confer authority to appoint any special counsel,
much less one as an inferior officer.
"... To that end, the senator from Florida on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to limit corporate buybacks. Unlike a plan pitched by Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer earlier this month, Rubio's plan would seek to end preferential tax treatment of share buybacks, by decreeing that any money spent on buybacks would be considered - for tax purposes - a dividend paid to shareholders, even if individual investors didn't actually part with any stock. ..."
"... Any tax revenue generated by these changes could then be used to encourage more capital investment, Rubio said. As part of the proposal, Rubio would make a provision in the tax law that allows companies to deduct capital investment permanent (that provision is currently set to expire in 2022). ..."
"... But before lawmakers take their next steps toward regulating how and when companies should return excess capital to shareholders, they might want to take a look at a column recently published by WSJ's "Intelligent Investor" that expounds a concept called "the bladder theory." ..."
"... But the law most likely to govern here is the Law of Unintended Consequences. ..."
"... That companies bought back a record $1 trillion worth of stock last year while employers like GM slashed jobs and closed factories has stoked criticisms of the Trump tax cuts, but as the gulf between the rich and the poor grows ever more wide (a phenomenon for which we can thank the Federal Reserve and other large global central banks) it's worth wondering: facing a simmering backlash to one of the most persistent marginal bids in the market place, have investors already become too complacent about proposals like Rubio's? ..."
"... Worse, since they're largely funded by increased corporate debt (!) they amount to corporate strip-mining by senior management. This is disgraceful and dangerous. The debt will bust some corporations when the inevitable next downturn comes. ..."
"... This buyback cancer, which has grown rapidly because of corrupt SEC thinking and perverse tax incentives, requires urgent treatment. ..."
For better or worse, Republican Senator and one-time presidential candidate Marco Rubio
isn't about to let
the Democrats own the fight to curtail one of the most flagrant examples of post-crisis
corporate excess. And if he can carve out a niche for himself that might one day help him
credibly pitch himself as a populist firebrand, much like the man who went on to claim the
presidency after defeating him in the Republican primary, well, that sounds to us like a
win-win.
To that end, the senator from Florida on Tuesday unveiled a proposal to limit corporate
buybacks. Unlike a plan pitched by Bernie Sanders and Chuck Schumer earlier this month, Rubio's
plan would seek to end preferential tax treatment of share buybacks, by decreeing that any
money spent on buybacks would be considered - for tax purposes - a dividend paid to
shareholders, even if individual investors didn't actually part with any stock.
According to CNBC
, the plan calls for every shareholder to receive an imputed portion of the funds equivalent to
the percentage of company stock they own, which, of course, isn't the same thing as directly
handing capital to shareholders (it simply changes the tax rate that the company buying back
the shares would pay).
Ultimately, Rubio hopes that these changes would discourage companies from buying back
stock. Those companies that continued to buy back shares would help contribute to higher
revenues by increasing the funds that can be taxed, while also raising the rate at which this
money can be taxed. Any tax revenue generated by these changes could then be used to encourage
more capital investment, Rubio said. As part of the proposal, Rubio would make a provision in
the tax law that allows companies to deduct capital investment permanent (that provision is
currently set to expire in 2022).
But before lawmakers take their next steps toward regulating how and when companies should
return excess capital to shareholders, they might want to take a look at a column recently
published by WSJ's
"Intelligent Investor" that expounds a concept called "the bladder theory."
Overall, however, buybacks (and dividends) return excess capital to investors who are free
to spend or reinvest it wherever it is most needed. By requiring companies to hang onto their capital instead of paying it out, Congress might
- perhaps - encourage them to invest more in workers and communities.
But the law most likely to govern here is the Law of Unintended Consequences. The history of investment by corporate managers with oodles of cash on their hands isn't
encouraging. Hugh Liedtke, the late chief executive of Pennzoil, reportedly liked to quip
that he believed in "the bladder theory:" Companies should pay out as much cash as possible,
so managers couldn't piss all the money away.
That companies bought back a record $1 trillion worth of stock last year while employers
like GM slashed jobs and closed factories has stoked criticisms of the Trump tax cuts, but as
the gulf between the rich and the poor grows ever more wide (a phenomenon for which we can
thank the Federal Reserve and other large global central banks) it's worth wondering: facing a
simmering backlash to one of the most persistent marginal bids in the market place, have
investors already become too complacent about proposals like Rubio's?
We ask only because
the Dow soared more than 350 points on Tuesday, suggesting that, even as Rubio added a
bipartisan flavor to the nascent movement to curb buybacks, investors aren't taking these
proposals too seriously - at least not yet.
Celotex
This still doesn't address the insider trading aspect of stock buybacks, with insiders front-running the buyback.
vladiki
No one's arguing that if a company's groaning with cash then buybacks make sense. But it's the other 95% of of them that
are the problem. Compare the 20 year graphs of buybacks with corporate profits, corporate debt, corporate tax paid, corporate
dividends paid.
They tell you what everyone in higher management knows - that they're a tax-free dividend mechanism pretending to be
"capital rationalisation".
Worse, since they're largely funded by increased corporate debt (!) they amount to corporate strip-mining by senior
management. This is disgraceful and dangerous. The debt will bust some corporations when the inevitable next downturn comes.
This buyback cancer, which has grown rapidly because of corrupt SEC thinking and perverse tax incentives, requires
urgent treatment.
james diamond squid
Everyone is in on this ponzi. I'm expecting tax deductions for buying stocks/homes.
Krugman is a dangerous neoliberal propagandist... And he essentially kills Democratic Party
appeal to voters by trying to equate protest against immigration and racism.
To claim the Clinton neoliberal Democrats who are directly or indirectly responsible for
killing of million of "brown people" and bombing a dozen of countries support for civil rights is
a real, Nazi-propaganda like, stretch...
I consider myself socially conservative and economically liberal and I very bitterly
reject the idea that I am a "racist". The left has to stop tossing around the word "racist"
to essentially mean "anything they dislike" and "anyone they disagree with". I am not a
racist, and I defy anyone to prove I am. Dr. Krugman, if you are going to call 50% of the
voters in the US "racists"....well, consider what happened when your pal Hillary called us
"deplorables in a basket". How'd that work out for her?
Democrats love to eat their own. We have one of the most racist presidents to ever hold
office in modern times, yet some Democrats are going after Northam over some dumb stunt that
happened decades ago. Is he a good leader NOW? Does he support good policies NOW? Is
Northam's behavior really any worse (blackface versus sexual misconduct) than someone who
just got a seat on the Supreme Court? Wow, this is like watching an episode of The Twilight
Zone. Republicans have a strategic advantage because, while Democrats get all twisted up in
identity politics, Republican leaders are only tightly focused on serving the rich and
powerful at the expense of average Americans. No party disunity there. Democrats need to
start focusing on the basic, kitchen table issues that average Americans care about, like
affordable health care, affordable housing and affordable higher education. With that strong
streak of self-destruction that runs through Democrats, Nancy Pelosi is needed more than ever
in the people's House where badly needed legislation has to move forward.
A Democrat could beat Trump if he was pro-single payer, pro family, pro-union, anti-war,
and for the aggressive taxing of ultra high wealth if he could just shut down the flagrant
abuse of our immigration laws and border. That candidate can't win the primary though because
not welcoming the infinite number of suffering illegal immigrants to share these expensive
benefits or wanting law and order to immigration earns a label of "racist" in the Democratic
Party. Trump will win in 2020 unless dems stop with the wild misuse of the word racist.
"Racial hostility" is what I, a white male, feel from the Democrats. It's a common thread
among the reluctant Trump supporters I know - they are disgusted by Trump, but they won't
support the Democrats for that reason. My 66-year-old father recently said to me, for the
first time, "well, you know, I'm a racist."
This man voted for Obama, but I wouldn't be surprised if he casts his vote for Trump in
2020 because the left has lost all credibility in his eyes. They call my dad a racist over
and over, but he knows he's a fair person, so he's accepted that the "racist" label isn't
that big of a deal.
I have a hard time getting my head around the author's use of "racist". For example
'economically liberal, socially conservative politicians -- let's be blunt and just say
"racist populists."' Where does he get that connection from? Certainly not from any
dictionary I have seen. I realize that the left has adopted the habit of calling everyone
they disagree with "racist", but this article seems to completely disconnect the word from
its meaning. In fact, I have to wonder whether any of the labels he is using, "conservative",
"liberal", "populist", etc. are anchored to their literal meanings. Making sense of what he
is talking about is impossible if his words have no well defined meaning.
This analysis is simple, elegant, and completely wrong. Libertarians are far from a
majority, but far more than 4%. Probably about 20-25%. "Live and let live" isn't quite that
dead. The two party kakistocracy gives people few opportunities to express it in elections.
Sorry Professor, but there are plenty of us who don't care who you marry, make cakes for,
dress up as, smoke, grow, say, write, spend your money on, put in your or in your body, just
so long as you leave us alone. In a dim past it was called Liberalism. Before that it was
called Liberty.
On economic issues, especially on social programs, the public is to the left of the
Democrats but the numbers of the public who are racist populist are sizable enough for the
Republicans to successfully exploit it every election cycle. That's why Trump carried the
white working class voters and enough of the suburban and college educated white voters to
win the electoral votes.
This is the dilemma of the Democrats for they cannot win elections without working class
white support. Racism, and the history of it, is like a curse spelled upon the American
political system and as long as there are politicians, mostly Republicans, and others who
politically and financially benefit from appealing to racism, true democracy and racial
harmony will never arrive in America.
The democrats really shot themselves in the foot when they decided to take the stand that
those who want less immigration or legal immigration are "racists". That is the wedge the
will drive off the most important block which is the working class midwestern men. If only
there were a democrat or an outsider that could stomach being called a racist who was
conservative on immigration but liberal on economics, pro-worker, families then he could beat
Trump. Otherwise with Kamala or someone that does not appeal to rust-belt workers, there will
be 4 more years of Trump. Mark my words.
I take issue with two ideas of Mr Krugman: the statement that Trump is not a true 'racist
populist' ...what does that mean anyway? , and that Democrats are moving too left,
endangering their prospects. The first idea is that Trump is not keeping a racist agenda is
clearly false. His Muslim ban, immigration policies and mass detentions are all following
thru on racist ideas. Why Krugman does not feel these are somehow playing to a racist base,
and is faking begs credulity. The second idea that Dems are moving too far is not supported
by polls that show a majority of people support Medicare for all and taxes on billionaires.
The country's middle class has been beaten down for 30 years and now is the time to correct
that!
"Voters want an economic move to the left -- it's just that some of them dislike
Democratic support for civil rights, which the party can't drop without losing its soul." The
Democratic Party lost its soul long ago Paul. It lost it when it championed free trade,
unguarded borders, Nafta, destroyed defense budgets, tolerated the indecency of Bill Clinton,
allowed unions to become corrupt, failed to fix Social Security and bankrupted every American
downtown and small business for the pursuit of the mythological better jobs and better living
through more imports of products from China as our factories closed and our industries moved
offshore. The Democratic Party has betrayed America for the last 30 years and now you're
lamenting the loss of Democratic Party members and conservative left wingers. The Democrats
moved too far left many years ago. The issues Paul are jobs, industry, affordable housing and
healthcare, education for our children, and retirement with dignity. Not to forget safety
without sacrificing our right to self-defense. The Republicans and the Democrats equally and
together polluted our Democratic institutions. They've corrupted our judicial processes and
disenfranchised minorities. We don't need a coffee billionaire or any other billionaire. We
need decent, hardworking, intelligent and socially responsible citizens who want legitimate
government and institutions. Not corruption from Wall St. or Washington DC. Where are the
legitimate candidates?
"... Under Warren's proposal, households with over $50 million in assets would pay a 2 percent tax on their net worth every year. The rate would rise to 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Warren's plan would affect just 75,000 households total. ..."
"... Taxes on wealth in Switzerland are not fixed, but set by 26 regional governments with rates that varied from 0.13 percent to 1 percent per year in 2016, according to the OECD report. They also are much broader, affecting not just millionaires, but many middle-class households as well ..."
"... A study of the country's tax system by Jonathan Gruber and several other economists found that for every 0.1 percent taxes on wealth went up in an area, the wealth taxpayers reported to the government dropped by 3.5 percent ..."
"... "When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it. ..."
"... "It's really difficult to enforce," said Alan Cole, a former adviser to House Republicans on tax policy. "That's why almost everyone goes the capital gains tax route and very few go the wealth tax route." ..."
"... The OECD's report found that countries with wealth taxes have tended to collect relatively similar amounts of revenue over time even as the overall wealth in their countries increased at much faster rates. This suggests taxpayers either found new ways to get around them or that legislators and tax collectors weren't keeping pace with annual growth. ..."
"... While they expect the rich to succeed in shielding some of their assets, Warren advisers Saez and Zucman peg the number at 15 percent total based on a survey of existing research. In a letter to Warren, they wrote that Gruber's study was an "outlier" and that studies of wealth taxes in other countries like Sweden and Denmark showed less tax avoidance ..."
"... Lily Batchelder, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser under President Barack Obama, pointed to The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a 2010 U.S. law in coordination with other governments around the world that requires banks to report activity by American citizens. ..."
"... The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel Macron replaced the country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate partly in response to data suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000. ..."
"... In one prominent case, famed actor Gérard Depardieu moved across the border to less-taxed Belgium while criticizing France's policies. It wasn't just the wealth tax -- the previous government also imposed a 75 percent tax rate on income for millionaires, a policy that bears similarities to a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. ..."
"... Warren's plan would apply to Americans based on citizenship, not where they live or where their money is earned, so the ultra-rich couldn't easily move to avoid it. If they renounced their citizenship, they'd have to pay a one-time 40 percent "exit tax" on their net worth. ..."
Versions of a
"wealth tax" proposed by the 2020 hopeful have been put in place in a number of countries. Most have
gotten rid of them.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has made a splash with her plan for a
"wealth tax" on the super-rich, a major break from typical Democratic proposals that target income,
investment gains and inheritances.
While wealth taxes aren't a new invention and a handful of
developed nations currently have them in place, they are on the decline: The number nations that are
members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with a wealth tax dropped from 12
to four from 1990 to 2017, according
to a report
by the organization last year.
With inequality hitting new heights, though, Democrats running for president have made finding new
ways to tax the rich and distribute the benefits downward a key part of their economic message. Wealth
taxes are making a comeback in policy discussions abroad as well, led by French economist Thomas
Piketty's call for a global tax on the rich.
Now economists are debating what other countries can tell us about the Warren Ultra-Millionaires
Tax and whether it's useful to tie their experiences to the United States.
One prominent case study is Switzerland, where a longstanding series of wealth taxes account for
about 1 percent of GDP each year. That's a much higher share than in other countries with a wealth tax
and it's similar to what Warren's advisers predict her own tax would raise.
"The comparison everyone is thinking of is Switzerland, because it's probably the best precedent
for a reasonably effective wealth tax," Ari Glogower, a professor at Ohio State University who
researches wealth taxes, told NBC News.
The country's wealth tax may offer some insight into one looming question over Warren's wealth tax,
which is whether its targets would find ways to avoid paying it. It's an important debate, because
Warren's counting on her tax to raise a lot of money for social programs: $2.75 trillion over 10
years, according to an estimate by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists advising her
campaign.
Under Warren's proposal, households with over $50 million in assets would pay a 2 percent tax
on their net worth every year. The rate would rise to 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Warren's
plan would affect just 75,000 households total.
Taxes on wealth in Switzerland are not fixed, but set by 26 regional governments with rates
that varied from 0.13 percent to 1 percent per year in 2016, according to the OECD report. They also
are much broader, affecting not just millionaires, but many middle-class households as well
.
A
study
of the country's tax
system by Jonathan Gruber and several other economists found that for every 0.1 percent taxes on
wealth went up in an area, the wealth taxpayers reported to the government dropped by 3.5 percent
.
"When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told
NBC News. "We don't know if it's by saving less or by hiding it.
"
Critics point to these shifts as evidence that a wealth tax is an inefficient way to collect taxes.
While the IRS can easily check the price of a publicly traded stock, it may be hard to value a
privately held company or a rare art collection until it's sold, which is often a source of legal
battles in calculating estate taxes. But unlike an estate, which is taxed once at death, the
government would have to figure out the value every year.
"It's really difficult to enforce," said Alan Cole, a former adviser to House Republicans on
tax policy. "That's why almost everyone goes the capital gains tax route and very few go the wealth
tax route."
The OECD's report found that countries with wealth taxes have tended to collect relatively
similar amounts of revenue over time even as the overall wealth in their countries increased at much
faster rates. This suggests taxpayers either found new ways to get around them or that legislators and
tax collectors weren't keeping pace with annual growth.
Anticipating this concern, Warren's plan includes a pledge to bolster the IRS, require a minimum
number of audits, and use a variety of techniques to indirectly value more difficult to price assets.
While they expect the rich to succeed in shielding some of their assets, Warren advisers Saez
and Zucman peg the number at 15 percent total based on a survey of existing research. In a letter to
Warren, they wrote that Gruber's study was an "outlier" and that studies of wealth taxes in other
countries like Sweden and Denmark showed less tax avoidance
.
As Gruber noted, Switzerland's broad tax base makes it a less than exact comparison. But the tax
rate in Warren's plan would also be much higher, giving its targets more motive to avoid it. They
would also be more likely to have skilled accountants and lawyers to help them out.
"It doesn't mean it's a bad idea or it won't raise money," Gruber said. "Elizabeth Warren's tax
would raise money, it's a question of how much."
At the same time, some argue recent changes in finance make it harder for the rich to hide assets
from tax collectors.
Lily Batchelder, a professor at New York University and former economic adviser under President
Barack Obama, pointed to The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, a 2010 U.S. law in coordination with
other governments around the world that requires banks to report activity by American citizens.
"It's certainly not perfect and there's more work to be done, but compared to even five years ago,
the landscape has really changed," she said. "So people who are looking at this from five or 10 or 20
years ago are missing that."
Gruber's study does cut against another top concern raised by critics of a wealth tax -- that it
will cause taxpayers to pack up and move. Even with lower-tax options inside the same country, their
research found little sign of people moving to avoid higher rates.
The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to
a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel
Macron
replaced the
country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate
partly in response to data
suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000.
In one prominent case, famed actor Gérard Depardieu
moved across the border
to less-taxed Belgium while criticizing France's policies. It wasn't just
the wealth tax -- the previous government also imposed a 75 percent tax rate on income for
millionaires, a policy that bears similarities to a proposal by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.
Warren's plan would apply to Americans based on citizenship, not where
they live or where their money is earned, so the ultra-rich couldn't easily move to avoid it. If they
renounced their citizenship, they'd have to pay a one-time 40 percent "exit tax" on their net worth.
"We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have democracy, we can't have both." Judge
Brandies was right
Notable quotes:
"... "We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have democracy, we can't have both." Judge Brandies was right. The Republicans have chosen extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, the few who happen to donate to their campaigns specifically, rather than democracy. The Republicans have sold out the American people. ..."
"... It's all thanks to the Roberts' SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, the McCutcheon decision, and egregious GOP'er gerrymandering of 2010. Vulture Capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist. ..."
I don't think it's that complicated. Donald Trump is the Republican party. He has solidified
his power in three basic ways. The first is that he gave a huge tax cut to corporate America.
This greatly boosted profits and the stock market reacted in sync. This is all Wall Street and
big business cares about. Nothing else matters to them and consequently they ignore everything
else that Trump does, no matter how awful, how incompetent and how damaging it is to our
republic.
@R. Law "We can have extreme wealth concentrated in the hands of the few; or, we can have
democracy, we can't have both." Judge Brandies was right. The Republicans have chosen extreme
wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, the few who happen to donate to their campaigns
specifically, rather than democracy. The Republicans have sold out the American people.
We agree with Dr. K.: " But maybe the gravitational attraction of big money -- which has
completely captured the G.O.P., and has arguably kept Democrats from moving as far left as
the electorate really wants -- is too great. " defines the issue, since 'voters' are not the
actual consumers of politics being sold by the pols - those consumers are the pols' donors:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/government-wealthy-study_n_5154879.html
It's all thanks to the Roberts' SCOTUS's Citizens United decision, the McCutcheon decision,
and egregious GOP'er gerrymandering of 2010. Vulture Capitalism and democracy cannot
co-exist.
Elizabeth is super rich when compared to the average American citizen (who's worth is around
$100,000), but keep in mind that Congress is virtually made up of some of the richest people in
the country.
While a whole lot of Elizabeth's net worth is based around the investments she's
made, she also has a huge house that's worth almost $2 million which isn't bad at all. The
house is reportedly in Massachusetts.
CNN reported that Warren is worth between $3.7
million and $10 million dollars because of her combined net worth with her husband and ranked
her the 76th wealthiest out of 541 senators and representatives.
It's quite interesting to know
that Warren didn't start off rich – she was born to a middle-class family and rose to the
top based on pure merit.
She earned a degree in bankruptcy law and began teaching in
universities just like her husband. They were soon able to amass a huge amount together.
For decades we have heard about the loss of industrial production throughout what is called the "Rust Belt". It's presented,
even as recent as the prior presidential election as a relative regional problem that only began post-Reagan.
With all due respect, it looks like you forgot that at some point quantity turns into quality, so making simple extrapolations
might well result in an oversimplification of the current situation.
You essentially ignore the current reality of rising popular anger, and the fact of breaking of the social contract by neoliberal
(and first of all financial) oligarchy, which is as detached from "deplorable" as French aristocracy ("let them eat cakes" mentality.)
While less dangerous for the oligarchy then when the USSR used to exist, the level of social anger comes into play as never
before. In 2016 became a material factor that decided the elections. I do not see that 2020 will be different.
The most detrimental effects from outsourcing and offshoring will come to the forefront probably in 10 years or so when the
oil price might be well over $100 per barrel. But even now this huge social experiment on live people in redistribution of wealth
up turn out to be detrimental for the unity of the country (and not only to the unity).
The current squabble between globalist, Clinton wing of Democratic Party allied with the corporatists with the Republican Party
(with supporting intelligence agencies) and rag-tag forces of the opposition is a good indication of the power of this resentment.
Spearheaded by intelligence agencies (with material support from British government ) attack on Trump (aka Russiagate) is the
attack on the idea of an alternative for neoliberal globalization, not so much on the personality or real or perceived Trump actions;
the brutal, Soviet-style attack on the deviation from neoliberal status quo directed on the political elimination of the opposition
by elimination of Trump from the political scene. Much like Show Trials were in the USSR (in this case people were charged to
be British spies ;-)
There are two countries now co-existing within the USA borders. Which often speak different languages. One is the country of
professionals, managers, and capital owners (let's say top 10%). The other is the country of common people (aka "deplorable",
or those who are below median wage -- ~$30K in 2017; ratio of average and median wage is now around 65% ).
With the large part of the latter living as if they live in a third world country. That's definitely true for McDonald, Wall-mart
(and all retail) employees (say, all less than $15 per hour employees, or around half of US workers).
I think the level of anger of "deplorable" will play the major role in 2020 elections and might propel Warren candidacy. That's
why now some MSM are trying to derail her by exploiting the fact that she listed her heritage incorrectly on several applications.
But when the anger of "deplorable" is in play, then, as Donald Trump aptly quipped, one could stand in the middle of Fifth
Avenue, shoot somebody and do not lose any voters. I think this is now true for Warren too.
-- The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001
-- The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000
-- From 1999 to 2008, employment at the foreign affiliates of US parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million
-- In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent
-- As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans
were employed in manufacturing was in 1941. The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the
year 2000
-- As of 2010 consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services
-- In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th
-- Asia produces 84% of printed circuit boards used worldwide.
-- In September 2011, the Census Bureau said 46.2 million Americans are now living in poverty, which is the highest number of
poor Americans in the 52 years that records have been kept
President Bill Clinton
claimed
at a forum in 1998 that his grandmother was "one-quarter Cherokee." The assertion, from a politician
with a not-always-sterling reputation for truthfulness, went unheralded.
Clinton's mother had earlier been described, in a 1992
article
, as a "descendant of Irish farmers and Cherokee Indians." The genealogical receipts were never in
evidence. But families have their stories; few seemed to care one way or another.
They do now.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren is one of the most talented politicians in the nation and one of the most
important policy leaders in her party. She has superb communication skills, including the ability to distill
complex class and economic dynamics into compelling,
comprehensible rhetoric
. She is extremely smart. She might make a fine nominee, even president.
She also can't seem to shake a political problem that posed no noticeable discomfort to Clinton.
The latest
installment
-- it seems there may be more -- was the unearthing of an apparently not-so-confidential Texas state
bar form that Warren filled out three decades ago when she was a law professor at the University of Texas. On the
form she wrote her race as "American Indian."
The discovery follows her recent release of a report she commissioned on her DNA that was occasioned by
previous controversy about her claims to American Indian ancestry.
Many people find the storm over Warren ridiculous. And they have reason. At a time when the president of the
United States makes regular and open appeals to bigotry, harping on Warren's minor identity foibles seems absurd.
Warren is not calling Mexicans rapists. She's not
caricaturing
black neighborhoods as savage war zones where you can't walk down the street without being shot.
She has sexually assaulted no one.
Nor did Warren dress in blackface at a time when anyone mindful of history, or even mildly conscious of
contemporary American society outside the confines of a creepy college fraternity, understood it to be an act of
social barbarism.
The Boston Globe
reported
that Warren gained no career benefit from her self-designation. "At every step of her remarkable rise
in the legal profession, the people responsible for hiring her saw her as a white woman," the Globe reported.
Regarding the Texas bar form, Brian Beutler
tweeted
, "The fact that she made the claim on a form that was meant to be unlogged and confidential actually
underscores her point that she identified as she did out of sincere belief."
Warren is 69. Over the years, she has surely mentioned her Indian affinity many times -- contributing recipes in
the 1980s, for example, to "Pow Wow Chow: A Collection of Recipes from Families of the Five Civilized Tribes" --
without social awkwardness or professional consequence.
Warren also grew up in Oklahoma, a state created from Indian Territory. "I think what Warren has done in
identifying as American Indian -- and particularly as a Cherokee -- is very Oklahoman," said Circe Sturm, author of
"
Becoming
Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the 21st Century.
"
Blue-eyed Indians are too common to be political fodder in Oklahoma. "In Oklahoma, you have plenty of native
people who look white but have native ancestry or tribal citizenship," Sturm said in a telephone interview.
There was a time when Elvis Presley could grab a piece of "race music" and exploit it for fame and fortune in
the white mainstream. Three decades ago, Warren perhaps thought she was respectfully identifying with a brutalized
minority, or just imagining herself as the person she thought she was, or wanted to be. You didn't need malicious
intent, or a desire to game racial classifications, to want to stretch the bounds of whiteness.
But as nonwhite Americans have gained more political power, cultural appropriation, conscious or otherwise, has
become increasingly fraught. Complicating matters, tribal identity is a political designation, and Cherokees are
wary
of granting inclusion to any Bill or Elizabeth who purports to have an ancestor somewhere.
Historically, whites generally had greater freedom to try on new identities, and explore new social
arrangements. Racial minorities had their identities assigned, and "passing" beyond rigid definitions was a
perilous exercise.
Now the rules are evolving. A once-free, or at least freer, range of white identity is gradually being fenced
by consequences, just as consequences have bound racial minorities to identities for centuries. A white frontier
is closing.
One of the chief institutions grappling with this transformation, and driving it, is the Democratic Party. As a
woman, Warren has benefited from the party's new openness to female power. But she's being buffeted by crosswinds
on race.
Republicans and much of the GOP-allied media, active or silent partners in the Trumpist campaign to sustain
white political, social and economic power, are rarely as gleeful as when attacking liberals who struggle to
conform to the emerging norms that conservatives subvert. (The
case
of GOP House leader Kevin McCarthy's family, which has cashed in on dubious claims of Indian heritage, is
curiously less scrutinized than Warren's predicament.)
The mainstream news media, always eager to posit a Democratic counterpoint to the criminality and corruption
swirling around Trump, may conclude that Warren's Indian issue is an offense so grave that it rivals substandard
email protocol. The Democratic Party itself, testing its surroundings with multiracial sensors, may conclude that
it has enough high-quality alternatives to Warren that it can afford to leave a star player on the bench.
That would be a shame. Warren is well worth hearing from. But it may also be the high price of progress.
Democrats, after all, are the only game in town. Republicans, seated in the whites-only section of the bleachers,
hurling insults
at the players on the field, won't join in making social justice and empowerment a cause.
Being first movers into a multiracial, female-empowered century has given Democrats a strategic advantage and
moral high ground. But the new terrain is often
tough to navigate
, as another quality politician, Senator Al Franken,
discovered
. The march forward can be unforgiving, leaving even good people behind.
"The march forward can be unforgiving, leaving even good people behind."
Concerning Warren, this
silliness has gone on far too long. Everyone not firmly ensconced in the Trumpist base should just
ignore it from this point forward. I'm originally from Oklahoma and can confirm that pretty much
every family claimed some Native American heritage, usually in hushed, tittering tones. Certainly
my family did, and I've told anyone who asked that I believe there's such DNA in my own ancestry.
Is there? I don't know, and really don't care one way or the other. It's a family story, no more
than that. Media - just let this story die, please. You've milked it long enough.
Concerning other more serious and offensive actions, such as offensive posts, blackface, and
harassment, we need a reasonable balance, not pitchforks. Everyone does something stupid at one
time or another, something offensive, something cruel. After all, we're only human. The
hypocritical faux-outrage from the right should simply be ignored until they're willing to focus
such outrage on their own. The equally passionate outrage on the left, however, needs to accept the
inherent fallibility of human beings.
If Northam wore blackface 35 years ago, dressed up as Michael Jackson, did the moon walk, but
has since acted to promote racial equality, what's the problem? Let the guy apologize and move on.
If, on the other hand, he has a clear history and pattern of such behavior? Don't give him a pass.
It all comes down to allowing people to outgrow their mistakes, to make up for them. If they fail
to do so, then throw them out. But if we fire everyone who has ever made a mistake, we'll quickly
run out of people to hire and fire.
You can claim Indian heritage if you believe that you have Indian heritage. The EOC
Dept can not require a DNA test from you because that would violate your right to
privacy, according to the Supreme Court. Also, transgender self ID is recognized by the
Supreme Court. Transgender, "I am a woman trapped in a man's body). There is also the
transitory transgender.
On campus, we accept any self ID that a person states. It is
all in the mind. If some months who feel Native American and other months Chinese, that
is fine. You will get escorted off campus if you challenge that person's self identity
by the SS(student security).
A British woman was arrested in front of her children and held in police custody for
7 hours after calling a transgender woman a man online.
Did they also use that (fake) heritage to milk affirmative action racial rent seeking?
I think I'll start
checking "black" on the kids college applications as well. They can claim Aunt Lucy from Oldevai Gorge as our
African ancestor. Yes, that famous Lucy. She got around ("she said her name was Lucy, but they all called her
Loose").
"... Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group. ..."
"... Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn. ..."
"... Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to change. ..."
"... If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was during the 30 Years War). ..."
The third trend is the only place where hope can reside. This trend – what I have
previously ascribed to a group I call the "dissenters" – understands that radical new
thinking is required. But given that this group is being actively crushed by the old
liberal elite and the new authoritarians, it has little public and political space to
explore its ideas, to experiment, to collaborate, as it urgently needs to.
Much the same could have been said about the last days of the USSR, or for that matter
the last phase of the 30 Years War or the Napoleonic Wars. As back then, so now: The old
elite and new authoritarians actively crushing the new group, well, they are are actively
crushing _themselves_ at an even greater rate than they are crushing the new group.
Example: Decay of Democratic leadership -- which is now, apparently, two old crazy
people, one of which has active dementia. Waiting in the wings we see various groups that
hate each other and propose what is pretty clearly a loot and burn approach to governing the
US. They vary only in whom they will loot and what they will burn.
Example: Decay of the media, which now knows it is as ineffective as Russian
propaganda towards the USSR's end, and apparently either doesn't care or is unable to
change.
Example: Reaction to yellow vests in France, which drew the reactions described in Cook's
article (at the root of this comment thread). "Back to your kennels, curs!" isn't effective
in situations like this, but it seems to be the only reply the EU has.
New groups take over when the old group has rotted away. At some point, Cook's third
alternative will be all that is left. The real question is what will be happening world wide
at that point. If resource scarcity prompts armed response, well, humanity has enough
shiny new weapons _and untried weapons technologies_ to produce destruction as surprising in
its extent as WW I and WW II were for their times [1] (or as the self supporting tercio was
during the 30 Years War).
Counterinsurgency
1] To understand contemporary effect of WW I on survivors, think of a the survivors of a
group playing paintball who accidentally got hold of grenade launchers but somehow didn't
realize that until the game was over. WW II was actually worse -- people worldwide really
expected another industrialized war within 20 years (by AD 1965), this one fought with
nuclear weapons.
"... The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career: the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer. ..."
"... Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's skin. ..."
"... At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans. ..."
"... Republicans first tried to push the notion that Warren used her Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in which she claimed mixed ancestry. ..."
"... But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren listed her race as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. ..."
"... Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m. ..."
Warren's official entry into the race has differed sharply from when she captured widespread liberal enthusiasm in
her unlikely bid for the Senate seven years ago.
The two-term senator will join a crowded Democratic primary
field with no clear frontrunner – and several contenders jockeying to claim the progressive mantle that she
aspires to grasp. She has also found herself contending with a lingering controversy for previously identifying as
Native American over the course of nearly two decades.
The question now is whether Warren, who moved early to build an expansive field operation in anticipation of
her presidential run, can overcome early setbacks and reclaim her role as the Democratic party's top foil to
Donald Trump.
Born to middle-class parents in Norman, Oklahoma
, Warren has spoken
candidly about how her family's livelihood was upended when her father's heart attack forced him out of work.
Addressing crowds across the country, Warren often recalls how her late mother – determined not to lose the
family's home – "pulled on her best dress" and got her first paying job at the department store Sears.
The job paid minimum wage and exposed Warren firsthand to the topics that would later define her career:
the power of corporations and the effects of bankruptcy on the American consumer.
Her research in bankruptcy law – and the impact on the average person's medical bills, mortgage payments and
other installments – led Warren to become a leading expert on the subject and rise in the academia world.
"These are the issues she still cares about," said Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School who helped
recruit Warren to its faculty.
"I think she is extraordinary for this reason, that she got into politics because she cared about some issues.
She didn't get into politics because she wanted to be in office and then tried to figure out what issues she cared
about."
Warren cultivated a profile as a populist firebrand against the backdrop of the Great Recession, earning the
ire of Wall Street by spearheading the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an agency
established under the Obama administration as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill of 2010.
Upon being passed over to head the agency she helped create, Warren decided to continue the fight from within
the government, embarking on a campaign to win back the late senator and liberal icon Ted Kennedy's seat from the
Republican incumbent, Scott Brown, in the high-profile 2012 Massachusetts Senate race.
Roughly $70m was spent on the bitterly waged contest, which catapulted Warren to the national stage.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Elizabeth Warren speaks during day two of the Democratic national convention in Charlotte, North Carolina,
on 5 September 2012. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
The race also saw Warren cement herself as a leader of the burgeoning progressive movement within the
Democratic party; branding the choice before voters as "Wall Street versus you", Warren viewed the election as an
opportunity to hand a major defeat to what she once
dubbed
as "the largest lobbying force ever assembled on the face of the earth".
Following her victory, Warren's profile grew so rapidly that speculation swiftly emerged over a potential White
House run in 2016, despite the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. A group of progressives even mounted
a #DraftWarren campaign.
Warren, who had been sharply critical of Clinton in part over her ties to Wall Street, ultimately chose not to
challenge her for the Democratic party's nomination and endorsed the former secretary of state's campaign. It was
also during this time that Warren proved among the few capable of getting under then candidate Donald Trump's
skin.
After Trump derided Clinton as a "nasty woman", Warren famously riffed: "Get this, Donald. Nasty women are
tough, nasty women are smart and nasty women vote, and on November 8, we nasty women are going to march our nasty
feet to cast our nasty votes to get you out of our lives forever."
The 2016 presidential election did not, however, produce the groundswell of unified opposition to Trump that
Democrats
had hoped for. Instead, it left the party in search of a clear leader to fill the void left by
Obama's departure from the White House.
For Warren, it looked as though her moment had arrived.
In the early days of the Trump administration, Warren quickly emerged as the face of the Democratic opposition,
matching the president's tweets with sharp ripostes of her own and holding his cabinet nominees to account when
they appeared for consideration before congressional committees.
During the confirmation process for the former attorney general Jeff Sessions, Warren famously read a letter
written 30 years prior by Coretta Scott King, in which the widow of Dr Martin Luther King Jr warned of Sessions'
civil rights record from the time of his nomination for a federal judgeship.
Silenced by Republicans mid-speech
on the Senate floor, Warren read the letter on Facebook Live. The hashtag
#LetLizSpeak trended on Twitter and the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted" was coined.
At the same time, Warren became a top target of conservatives and Trump himself. The president has repeatedly
mocked Warren with the derisive nickname "Pocahontas" – including at an event intended to honor Native Americans.
Although Warren long ignored the president's taunts, she took the unusual step of addressing the issue head on
in October by making public the results of a DNA test revealing that she did, in fact, have some Native American
ancestry.
Rather than putting the topic to rest, Warren's move was rebuked by some tribal leaders, who felt it
politicized their identity, and reignited the story.
Republicans first tried to push the notion
that Warren used her
Native American ancestry to further her career in the 2012 Senate race, homing in on a single questionnaire in
which she claimed mixed ancestry.
An exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe found no evidence that Warren benefited from doing so, and
nearly every living Harvard law professor involved in her hiring
has said
it was not a factor in their votes to offer her a tenured position.
"When we brought her to Harvard, no one had a clue that she thought of herself as Native American," said
Laurence Tribe, the school's professor of constitutional law.
"I think she's had an unfair rap," he added. "I don't think it's the case that she ever exploited her family's
background or ancestry in a way that some people seem to think she did."
The Cherokee nation, one of the groups that was critical of Warren, said she privately apologized to to tribal
leaders.
But the matter did not end there. The Washington Post published a story revealing Warren
listed her race
as "American Indian" while seeking a Texas bar registration card in 1986. Warren apologized once more, telling reporters: "I'm not a tribal citizen.
"My apology is an apology for not having been more sensitive about tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty. I
really want to underline the point, tribes and only tribes determine tribal citizenship."
Warren remains a popular figure in the Democratic party
and was
easily re-elected to a second Senate term in the 2018 midterm elections.
Even so, she received fewer votes in her home state than Charlie Baker, the Republican governor of
Massachusetts, prompting Warren's hometown paper to urge the senator to reconsider a presidential bid.
"While Warren won re-election, her margin of victory in November suggests there's a ceiling on her popularity,"
the
Boston Globe editorial board
wrote. "Baker garnered more votes than she did in a state that is supposed to be
a Democratic haven."
She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically. She takes very sharp and
controversial positions
Barney Frank
"While Warren is an effective and impactful senator with an important voice nationally, she has become a
divisive figure," the board added. "A unifying voice is what the country needs now after the polarizing politics
of Donald Trump." Those close to Warren dismissed the editorial as having more to do with the personal biographies and
inclinations of those who sit on the board. "She's hard-edged, not personally, but ideologically," said Frank. "She takes very sharp and controversial
positions."
"So, yeah, they're going to be people who are unhappy with her."
More challenging for Warren, friends and former colleagues said, would be the task of distinguishing herself
within a diverse field of Democratic candidates that includes at least three of her Senate colleagues and a record
number of women seeking the party's nomination.
Warren's platform includes the single-payer healthcare system Medicare for All, debt-free college tuition and
anti-corruption legislation designed to restore accountability in government. She is also poised to unveil a
proposal that would impose a wealth tax on Americans worth over $50m.
Fried, who served as solicitor general under Ronald Reagan, said he disagreed with some of the more expansive
economic policies touted by Warren. But her greatest asset as a candidate, he acknowledged, would be to approach the campaign with the same steely
resolve to elevate the middle class that endeared her to voters seven years ago.
Although he is only occasionally in touch with Warren as she embarks on what will undoubtedly be a grueling
campaign for America's highest office, Fried recalled recently sending Warren a lengthy article about capitalism
and income inequality.
To his surprise, he received a response from Warren 10 days later. She had not only taken the time to read the
article, but highlighted a portion that stood out to her. "How many presidential candidates would do that?" Fried asked.
In her email, Warren also recounted to her old colleague how not very long ago they sat together on a flight
discussing the prospects of a Clinton presidency.
That day never came to fruition, Warren noted.
"I don't know what lies ahead," she added. "But I know what I'm fighting for."
While controversy around her heritage lingers, voters call the Democrat's fight against economic
injustice 'inspiring'
On a cold, blustery January day in 1912, immigrant women walked out of the Everett Mill in the
->
Massachusetts
factory town of Lawrence demanding higher wages and better working conditions. Mill owners and
city government responded in a swift and heavy-handed manner; local militias and police forces were called to the
streets. Protesters died. Many more were arrested.
On a cold, blustery February day 117 years later, the
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren stood in front of Everett Mill
->
to announce her candidacy for president of the United States
, channeling the spirit of those women as she told
her supporters that they were in a fight for their lives against a rigged system that favors the rich and
powerful.
ss="rich-link">
Why women 2020 candidates face 'likability' question even as they make
history
Read more
"These workers – led by women – didn't have much. Not even a common language. Nevertheless, they persisted,"
she said. "The story of Lawrence is about how real change happens in America. It's a story about power – our power
– when we fight together."
For Warren, who grew up in an economically struggling Oklahoma household and who first rose to mainstream
prominence by handing out practical financial advice to American families, the word "fight" is central to her
platform and political ethos – it was a word peppered throughout her speech.
But on Saturday, she made clear that hers was not just a fight against president Donald Trump, but against a
system she described as one where the rich, privileged and powerful oppress the rest of the country.
"The man in the White House is not the cause of what is broken, he is just the latest – and most extreme –
symptom of what's gone wrong in America, a product of a rigged system that props up the rich and the powerful and
kicks dirt on everyone else," she said. "So once he's gone, we can't pretend that all of this never happened."
The backdrop of the mill, where the so-called Bread and Roses strikes originated, was symbolic. But so too was
the choice of the modern day city of Lawrence, which is one of those places in America that has felt left behind
in recent times. To many in New England, Lawrence is synonymous with crime, drugs and poverty. The Republican
governors of Maine and New Hampshire have invoked the city's name when laying blame for the opioid crises in their
states. As was the case at the time of the strikes, Lawrence is a working class city of immigrants, with a
population that is about 80% Latino. It is a city where wealth is nearby, but out of reach for many.
Sebastian Brown, 31, moved to Lawrence five years ago. While he had yet to choose a candidate to support, he
was excited by Warren's message and was happy Warren chose the town as the site of her announcement.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
I think we need a woman president and I think it will be the fight of our lives
Vicki Ward, rally attendee
"This is a working class city. And I think her – and Bernie [Sanders] – are running on platforms that speak to
the working class and how they're being screwed over by the rich and powerful," he said. "And I think she's a
great messenger for it."
While there was optimism about Warren's candidacy at her rally, she enters an already crowded Democratic field
amid
->
r
enewed controversy over her past identification as Native American.
For years now – since even before he was president –
->
Trump has needled Warren on the issue
, calling her "Pocahontas". He and others accuse Warren of falsely
presenting herself as Native American to gain unfair advantages in life.
The controversy was re-ignited last week when the Washington Post
->
published Warren's 1986 registration card
for the Texas State Bar. In it, she listed "American Indian" as her
race.
Warren has now apologised repeatedly for identifying as Native American, saying in recent days that she "should
have been more mindful of the distinction with tribal citizenship and tribal sovereignty". She still maintains
that Native American ancestry was part of her family's story passed down to her.
->
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Elizabeth Warren called Donald Trump the 'most extreme' symptom of a broken system. Photograph: Cj Gunther/EPA
How damaging the controversy will be remains to be see. Warren enters a diverse Democratic field where other
candidates belong to minority groups: New Jersey senator
->
Cory Booker is African American
;
->
California senator Kamala Harris
was born to an Indian mother and a Jamaican father.
->
Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
is both the first Hindu and first Samoan-American member of Congress, and
the former San Antonio mayor
->
Julián Castro is Latino
. When the Democratic race gets heated, Warren's portrayal of race could prove to be a
point of attack.
Peter Devlin, a 56-year-old dentist from the nearby town of North Andover, said he was at the rally to hear
what Warren had to say but said that the Native American controversy "is going to be a problem" for her campaign.
"I voted for her as senator, but I'm concerned about her electability," he said. "It's going to be a tough run.
She's got a bit of baggage and she's so sort of cliche progressive liberal that I think there's a lot of America
that's not up for that. But I want to hear what she's up to."
ss="rich-link">
Stacey Abrams on the ticket? Democrat's star turn fuels talk for 2020
Read more
However, other attendees, like 64-year-old Vicki Ward, who drove two hours to the event from Vermont, were
ready to throw their support behind Warren on the first day of the senator's presidential campaign.
"I think she's got the qualities that we need," she said. "I think we need a woman president and I think it
will be the fight of our lives."
Maryann Johnson, who came to Warren's announcement from New Hampshire, also said she was already sold on
Warren.
"I basically agreed with everything she said. We need to have more equality, there needs to be less corruption
in government," she said. "She's inspiring."
"An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reportedly told insurance executives in
private not to worry about Democrats' push for "Medicare for All." (The Intercept)"
Ryan Grim...February 5 2019...6:00 a.m.
"Less than a month after Democrats -- many of them running on "Medicare for All" -- won
back control of the House of Representatives in November, the top health policy aide to
then-prospective House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives and
assured them that party leadership had strong reservations about single-payer health care and
was more focused on lowering drug prices, according to sources familiar with the meeting.
Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that
Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health
care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices,
specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing.
Primus, in a slide presentation obtained by The Intercept, criticized single payer on the
basis of cost ("Monies are needed for other priorities"), opposition ("Stakeholders are
against; Creates winners and losers"), and "implementation challenges." We have recreated the
slides for source protection purposes.
Democrats, Primus said, are united around the concept of universal coverage, but see
strengthening the Affordable Care Act as the means to that end. He made his presentation to
the Blue Cross executives on December 4..."...
Personally, I am aghast. The Congress critters are in bed with the medical monopolies. One
example, among many:
The congressional endorsement of the ban on the importation of less expensive drugs,
claimed as a matter of safety, is a travesty. In the last several months, I have had two of
the drugs I take daily, recalled because the Chinese manufacturers shipped the drugs with a
measurable concentration of a known carcinogen in them. Safety, my aching ......
Democrats in action on health care include Max Baucus,Tom Daschle, and most infamously, Billy
Tauzin:
"Two months before resigning as chair of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
which oversees the drug industry, Tauzin had played a key role in shepherding through
Congress the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. Democrats said that the bill was "a give-away
to the drugmakers" because it prohibited the government from negotiating lower drug prices
and bans the importation of identical, cheaper, drugs from Canada and elsewhere. The Veterans
Affairs agency, which can negotiate drug prices, pays much less than Medicare does. The bill
was passed in an unusual congressional session at 3 a.m. under heavy pressure from the drug
companies.[4][5]
As head of PhRMA, Tauzin was a key player in 2009 health care reform negotiations that
produced pharmaceutical industry support for White House and Senate efforts.[6]
Tauzin received $11.6 million from PhRMA in 2010, making him the highest-paid health-law
lobbyist.[7] Tauzin now is on the Board of Directors at Louisiana Healthcare Group. "
"Advocate groups attended a Senate Finance Committee meeting in May 2009 to protest their
exclusion as well as statements by Baucus that "single payer was not an option on the table."
Baucus later had eight protesters removed by police who arrested them for disrupting the
hearing. Many of the single-payer advocates said it was a "pay to play" event.[44][45][46] A
representative of the Business Roundtable, which includes 35 memberships of health
maintenance organizations, health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, admitted that other
countries, with lower health costs, and higher quality of care, such as those with
single-payer systems, have a competitive advantage over the United States with its private
system.[47]
At the next meeting on health care reform of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus had five
more doctors and nurses removed and arrested.[48][49][50] Baucus admitted a few weeks later
in June 2009 that it was a mistake to rule out a single payer plan[51] because doing so
alienated a large, vocal constituency and left President Barack Obama's proposal of a public
health plan to compete with private insurers as the most liberal position.[51]
Baucus has used the term "uniquely American solution" to describe the end point of current
health reform and has said that he believes America is not ready yet for any form of single
payer health care. This is the same term the insurance trade association, America's Health
Insurance Plans (AHIP), is using. AHIP has launched the Campaign for an American Solution,
which argues for the use of private health insurance instead of a government backed
program"
"Daschle co-wrote the 2008 book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis ISBN
9780312383015.[55] He and his co-authors point out that "most of the world's highest-ranking
health-care systems employ some kind of 'single-payer' strategy - that is, the government,
directly or through insurers, is responsible for paying doctors, hospitals, and other
health-care providers." They argue that a single-payer approach is simple, equitable,
provides everyone with the same benefits, and saves billions of dollars through economies of
scale and simplified administration. They concede that implementing a single-payer system in
the United States would be "politically problematic" even though some polls show more
satisfaction with the single-payer Medicare system than private insurance.[56]"
Health care giant Aetna will be the first official client for the former Democratic
leader, who's now running his own consulting shop within the law firm Baker Donelson. Daschle
will lobby for the health insurer on Obamacare implementation and Medicare and Medicaid rule
changes, according to a filing with the Senate Secretary.
"For fifteen years, Tauzin was one of the more Conservative Democrats in the United States
House of Representatives. Even though he eventually rose to become an assistant majority
whip, he felt shut out by some of his more liberal colleagues and sometimes had to ask the
Republicans for floor time. When the Democrats lost control of the House after the 1994
elections, Tauzin was one of the cofounders of the House Blue Dog Coalition, a group of
moderate-to-conservative Democrats.
.......
However, on August 8, 1995, Tauzin himself became a Republican"
"If America Turns to Fascism, Populism Will Be at Its Heart."
Several months ago, I wrote a book review (see Internet Review of Books and my review of
"Fascism: Why Not Here?" by Brian E. Fogarty) about a political history that has made me think
ever since. (Title quote is taken from Fogarty's excellent book http://internetreviewofbooks.com/mar10/fascism.html
.)
Lately, I keep seeing similar ideas popping up--mostly in response to the anti-intellectual,
folksy, populist appeal of people such as Sarah Palin and up-and-coming Tea Party types.
Aw, heck, who couldn't appreciate drinkin' a beer with a politician? That's what we want
from those guys n' gals. We don't want them to be smarter than us or anythin', right? You
betcha.
Call me a snob (and I've been called a "snotty liberal elitist," lately, which I thought was
very funny, actually, and it made me laugh an elitist snort of triumph); I really don't
care.
I demand more; I demand wisdom, good ideas, and a wide understanding of international
politics as well as history; I demand people who can speak without dropping their g's (because
that slangy, folksy gibberish just sounds, frankly, slow).
Working with profoundly gifted kids (as I like to do) is like attending the smartest
cocktail party you were ever invited to--sans cocktails. It's a tennis match of fascinating
ideas about absolutely everything; it makes me hopeful for the future, and it challenges and
amuses me at the same time.
I don't feel that way when I watch any of these populist politicians on the news. Rather, I
feel a sinking, ill feeling...could people really be that stupid? Apparently, yes, in some
cases, they are.
But I actually think there's a way out: it boils down to education and spreading the
truth.
Jon Meacham's editorial this week in NEWSWEEK (7/12/2010, "The Right Kind of American
Populism") speaks to exactly the same issues.
He explains how "...in the age of [Andrew] Jackson, American populism was about money;
later, in the age of George Wallace and Richard Nixon, it became more about culture...Given the
clinical economic and political facts of the hour, we should be living through a Jacksonian era
of hostility to the rich and the well connected. Those whom Jackson called "the humble members
of society--the farmers, mechanics, and laborers" ought to be generating substantial political
pressure to exact reparations from, and impose severe new regulations on, the plutocratic
few...And yet the pitchforks are being brandished not to encourage government to curb the
excesses of the elite but to warn the citizenry that the government has turned into a
socialistic threat to free enterprise."
Meacham (with whom I do not always agree) nailed it, I think; the bottom line is that the
"humble members" of society have been inundated with propaganda and fear-mongering lies by the
very people who profit by keeping them down.
Will they wake up and realize it and fight back (I mean "fight" in a good way--by
voting)?
Will government prove its viability by doing good for the people--finally?
Maybe if that happens--if people let it happen--they will finally wake up and realize who's
really been keeping them poor and oppressed and away from the American Dream.
Maybe it's the "plutocratic few," but maybe it's also themselves.
"... Voters by the millions dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the 1990s. ..."
If last year's election showed us anything, it's that anger and resentment are on the rise.
I hear it from small business owners and working-class families, from millennials and retirees.
There's a sense that we've lost our way, and that the blame rests squarely on our nation's
leadership. Simply put, Americans are sick of being patronized and sick of the same old ideas
that we, as Democrats, are going to keep offering them over and over and over again.
The frustration is palpable. People are fed up with the status quo. Citizens from all walks
of life are sitting around their dinner tables, talking about how they've had it with all the
usual proposals that, once more, we will be repackaging and spoon-feeding to them in a way
that's entirely transparent and frankly condescending.
That's something every American can count on.
It's no wonder voters are furious. Politics-as-usual has failed them, and they desperately
want change that the Democratic Party has no plan to bring about in any meaningful way. But let
me assure you, when our constituents tell us they've had enough broken promises, when they say
our actions haven't addressed their needs, we listen. We hear your concerns -- hear them loud
and clear -- then immediately discard them and revert back to the exact same ineffectual
strategies we've been rallying behind for years.
It doesn't take a genius to see what the polls are telling us. Voters by the millions
dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for
never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated
by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we
going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look
at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats
will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the
1990s.
If Trump runs of the defense of neoliberalism platform he will lose. But Trump proved to be a bad, superficial politician,
Republican Obama so to speak, so he may take this advice from his entourage. Trump proved to be a puppet of MIC and
Israel, his tax cuts had shown that he is a regular "trickle down" neoliberal. So he attraction to voters is down
substantially. Now
Polling is unambiguous here. If you define the "center" as a position
somewhere between those of the two parties, when it comes to economic issues the public is overwhelmingly left of center; if anything,
it's to the left of the Democrats. Tax cuts for the rich are the G.O.P.'s defining policy, but two-thirds of voters believe that taxes
on the rich are actually too low, while only 7 percent believe that they're too high. Voters support Elizabeth Warren's proposed tax
on large fortunes by a three-to-one majority. Only a small minority want to see cuts in Medicaid, even though such cuts have been central
to every G.O.P. health care proposal in recent years.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie Sanders in 2020. ..."
"... Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages. People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot afford to feed their families. ..."
"... As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable. ..."
"... In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom. This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated: ..."
"... All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well. ..."
"... The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen. ..."
Trump Is Right to Be Afraid of Socialism
BY MEAGAN DAY
... I think he's scared," said Ocasio-Cortez of Trump's socialism remarks. "He sees that everything is closing in on him. And
he knows he's losing the battle of public opinion when it comes to the actual substantive proposals that we're advancing to the
public." Given the remarkable popularity of proposals like Bernie's Medicare for All and tuition-free college and Ocasio-Cortez's
70 percent top marginal tax rate, she's probably onto something.
Insiders have suggested that Trump plans to explicitly
run against socialism in 2020. In fact, in playing up the dangers of socialism, he may be positioning himself to run against Bernie
Sanders in 2020. That would be a smart move, since Bernie is the most popular politician in America and could very well be
Trump's direct contender in the general election, if he can successfully dodge attacks from the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party in the primary.
Sanders's rebuttal to Trump's address gave us a preview of how he plans to respond to the mounting attacks on socialism
from the Right. President Trump said tonight, quote, "We are born free, and we will stay free," end of quote. Well I say to President
Trump, people are not truly free when they can't afford to go to the doctor when they are sick. People are not truly free when
they cannot afford to buy the prescription drugs they desperately need. People are not truly free when they are unable to retire
with dignity. People are not truly free when they are exhausted because they are working longer and longer hours for lower wages.
People are not truly free when they cannot afford a decent place in which to live. People certainly are not free when they cannot
afford to feed their families.
As Dr Martin Luther King Jr said in 1968, and I quote, "This country has socialism for the rich, and rugged individualism
for the poor." What Dr. King said then was true, and it is true today, and it remains absolutely unacceptable.
In essence what we're seeing here is Bernie Sanders challenging the popular equation of capitalism with democracy and freedom.
This is the same point Bernie has been making for decades. "People have been brainwashed into thinking socialism automatically
means slave-labor camps, dictatorship and lack of freedom of speech," he said in 1976. This Cold War dogma swept the pervasive
reality of capitalist unfreedom - from the bondage of poverty to the perversions of formal democracy under the pressure of a dominant
economic class - under the rug. In a 1986 interview, Bernie elaborated:
All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small "d." I believe in democracy, and by
democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means
that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average
working person who's making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank
or corporation. So, if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy
as well.
For more than four decades, Bernie made these points to relatively small audiences. In 2016, everything changed, and he now
makes them to an audience of millions.
The rise of neoliberalism and the fall of the Soviet Union relieved the capitalist state's elite of the need to keep shoring
up the equation between capitalism and freedom. Capitalists and their ideology had triumphed, hegemony was theirs, and socialism
was no real threat, a foggy memory of a distant era. But forty years of stagnating wages, rising living costs, and intermittent
chaos caused by capitalist economic crisis remade the world - slowly, and then all at once. When Bernie Sanders finally took socialist
class politics to the national stage three years ago, people were willing to listen.
Bernie has been so successful at changing the conversation that the President now feels obligated to regurgitate Cold War nostrums
about socialism and unfreedom to a new generation.
Good, let him. Each apocalyptic admonition is an opportunity for Bernie, and the rest of us socialists, to articulate a different
perspective, one in which freedom and democracy are elusive at present but achievable through a society-wide commitment to economic
and social equality. We will only escape "coercion, domination, and control" when we structure society to prioritize the well-being
of the many over the desires of the greedy few.
Mr. Bill said in reply to anne... February 06, 2019 at 03:29 PM
A lot of the opinion part of what Paul Krugman says, in this article, maybe, doesn't ring quite true, although I don't dispute
the facts.
Poll after poll show that 75% of us agree on 80% of the issues, regardless of which political tribe we identify with.
I tend to think that the real problem is that neither the GOP, which represents the top 1% of the economically comfortable, nor the
Democrats who represent the top 10%, are representative of the majority of Americans.
Frantically trying to slice and dice the electorate into questionably accurate tranches, ignores the elephant in the room, Paul.
"... The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel ..."
"... Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy ..."
"... Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war ..."
"... So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision. ..."
"... Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance. ..."
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is
apure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted,
more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic
disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the
US establishment
gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same
establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that
the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the
targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is
prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a
second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria
and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action
with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond.
Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting
the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious'
record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the
"longest shutdown in US history"
.
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this
was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire
launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate
governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in
plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired
by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly
admitted recently,
" It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and
produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan
people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the
great untapped
natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by
the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary.
Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability
to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund
its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan
resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of
the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically
and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's
puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity
in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament
approved this action
, killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European
countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even
trying to
veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes
the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism
with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and
ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to
its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
"... "Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you didn't come across as crazy so... ..."
This woman had NO CLUE what she was talking about. She thought she was on a show that would just tow the party line and let
her get away with wrong statements. She's just repeating what critics say with no idea of the truth. What a fool. As a woman,
THIS IS WHY I WON'T JUST VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN. We are just as capable of being stupid as anyone else.
Bari: "I think Tulsi Gabbard is an Assad toadie." Joe: "What do you mean by toadie?" Bari: "Oh, I don't know what that means."
Joe: "Okay, I looked it up, and it's like a sycophant." Bari: "Then Tulsi is like an Assad sycophant." Joe: "So what do you mean
by that?" Bari: "I'm not sure what sycophant means either." Joe: "I looked up the definition, it's like a suck-up." Bari: "All
right, Tulsi is an Assad suck-up." Joe: "Could you explain that further?" Bari: "I don't know what suck means." Joe: "It's what
you're doing right now."
"Am I crazy?" -Bari Weiis Well Bari Weiis you're either crazy or you're a yet another worthless establishment shill whose job
is spread deliberate misinformation about the most genuine anti-war candidate running at a time when the entire MSM, MIC, and
the neoliberal rightwing establishment (including AIPAC) is deliberately smearing her to immediately kill her campaign. And you
didn't come across as crazy so...
I will be very surprised if neocons would not frame her Putin toady as well. This is how this
system works. It eliminates undesirable to the neoliberals candidates with 100% efficiency.
They
serve as local STASI and some former STASI official might well envy neocons efficiency of
silencing opponents (with much less blood and overt repression, by pure magic of neocon
propaganda ).
Notable quotes:
"... She has "monstrous ideas, she's an Assad toady," Weiss tells Rogan. ..."
"... Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven -- known -- about her." ..."
"... When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant, Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details." ..."
"... Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January 2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in the country's civil war as "terrorists." ..."
"... She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile attacks by the US and its allies against the country. ..."
Monday to discuss current events, but
things got embarrassing when she went in on Gabbard, a progressive Democrat whose foreign
policy positions have turned more than a few heads.
Neocon NY Times columnist Bari Weiss smeared Tulsi Gabbard (who bravely opposed regime
change and US support for Salafi-jihadist contras) as an "Assad toady," then couldn't
spell/define toady or offer any evidence to prove her smear. Embarrassingly funny pic.twitter.com/m0MLaHFPiX
When Rogan asks for clarification, she says, "I think that I used that word correctly." She
then asks someone off camera to look up what toady means. "Like toeing the line," Rogan says,
"is that what it means?" "No, I think it's like, uh " and Weiss drones off without an answer.
She then attempts to spell it, and can't even do that. "T-O-A-D-I-E. I think it means what I
think it means "
Rogan then reads the definition: "Toadies. The definition of toadies: A person who flatters
or defers to others for self-serving reasons." "A sycophant. So I did use it right!" Weiss
exclaims. "So she's an Assad sycophant? Is that what you're saying?" "Yeah, that's, proven --
known -- about her."
When Rogan asks what Gabbard has said that qualifies her as a sycophant,
Weiss replies: "I don't remember the details."
"We probably should say that before we say that about her -- we should probably read it,
rather, right now, just so we know what she said," Rogan notes. "I think she's, like, the
motherlode of bad ideas," Weiss then says. "I'm pretty positive about that, especially on
Assad. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't think I'm wrong." It seems to us here at Sputnik that such
claims should be made with a bit more confidence than this. So let's set the record
straight.
Gabbard, who announced her presidential campaign on January 11, has drawn incredible amounts
of ire from mainstream Democrats tripping over themselves for war with Syria because in January
2017, Gabbard met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and denounced the opposition rebels in
the country's civil war as "terrorists."
She has also expressed skepticism about accusations that Assad's
government has used chemical weapons during the conflict and spoken out against cruise missile
attacks by the US and its allies against the country.
"Initially I hadn't planned on meeting him," Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, told CNN's Jake
Tapper following the meeting. "When the opportunity arose to meet with him, I did so, because I
felt it's important that if we profess to truly care about the Syrian people, about their
suffering, then we've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there is a
possibility that we could achieve peace. And that's exactly what we talked about."
"I have seen this cost of war firsthand, which is why I fight so hard for peace," Gabbard
said. "And that's the reality of the situation that we're facing here. It's why I have urged
and continue to urge [US President Donald] Trump to meet with people like Kim Jong Un in North
Korea, because we understand what's at stake here. The only alternative to having these kinds
of conversations is more war."
Moreover, in a March 2016 speech before Congress, Gabbard called Assad
"a brutal dictator," noting that her opposition to what she called a "war bill" was over the
legal ramifications that she feared would lead to the overthrow of Assad, which she opposes on
anti-interventionist grounds.
"[T]oppling ruthless dictators in the Middle East creates even more human suffering and
strengthens our enemy, groups like ISIS and other terrorist organizations, in those countries,"
Gabbard
said at the time.
Gabbard has been thoroughly demonized for her pro-peace views by global liberal media, as
Trump has been for his moves to end the war in Syria and avoid another on the Korean Peninsula.
For example, The Daily Beast's
article announcing her candidacy called Gabbard "Assad's Favorite Democrat" in its
headline; a Haaretz
headline from last week say she had "Tea With Assad," and the Washington Post has
called her "Assad's Mouthpiece in Washington." The UK Independent
called her a "defender of dictators."
It's not clear what Weiss had in mind when she called Gabbard a "sycophant" and a "toady,"
since the congresswoman's rhetoric about Assad has consisted of skepticism and opposition to
intervention, and she hasn't hesitated to call the Syrian president a "brutal dictator." What
Gabbard's treatment has demonstrated is that a Democrat who steps out of line from the party's
pro-regime change agenda in Syria and who condemns Muslim extremists associated with Daesh and
al-Qaeda should be prepared to suffer for it in the mainstream media.
"... As a Trump supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over. The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie. ..."
I trust Tulsi on
foreign policy more than I trust just about anybody else. Some people don't like her because she won't just say that we
should stop all military under any circumstances. She's been in the military. She understands the military. She understands
that the military is not evil. Drones are not evil. They're just currently being misused. We need to cut military spending,
but not eliminate it. We need to end offensive wars and withdraw from countries that aren't attacking us. But that doesn't
mean we don't need a military and don't need to be ready to defend ourselves.
I'm from the Uk
as soon as I heard Tulsi was running I got excited....a chance for real change and dismantling of the military industrial
complex.....could it be?
Why do you
worship Bernie Sanders so much? What does he have that Tulsi Gabbard doesn't in terms of policy? May I note that Sanders is
more pro-Israel and actually more for war than Gabbard is. It means something when it's coming from a vet who actually served
and visited war-torn countries.
As a Trump
supporter from 2016, this is probably the only Democratic candidate that I would seriously consider abandoning Trump over.
The rest, I wouldn't give them the time of day - even Bernie.
That's nice. I
always liked her, but I was worried about her military policy, good that she got rid of that doubt right away. Now we just
need these people to actually follow through and not become another Obama with his "change" and "hope". Not that any of this
is going to really make a difference or anything unless all the sycophants in the opposition suddenly dies, but it' still
nice that someone seems to care.
I love Tulsi; her ad was great. She's the only dem I would vote for at this point. Kamala is an evil hypocrite. And Tulsi's
right, love is the most powerful force in the planet.
Wake up folks -Tulsi would not have run if Bernie was going run. Bernie will endorse her early on and she will have a much
tougher fight than he did, because while Sanders caught the corporate establishment sleeping in 2016, they are now frightened
and see Gabbard coming. They will use every dirty trick at their disposal to keep her from catching fire -and that begins with
dividing progressives like us. Tulsi is not perfect because no one is perfect. But she is young, bright and fucking fearless compared
to other politicians about putting the long term good of the American people above the moneyed interests who think they own our
media and our government. This is why the establishment despises her more than even Sanders. 2020 will reveal weather or not we
can retake ownership of our media and our government. That fight will require all of us - so Kyle get on the bus!
Tulsi is an amazing candidate in her own right, but IMO she would be a perfect VP pick for Bernie. She has the amazing foreign
policy cred and would really shore up Bernie's weakest areas.
Tulsa Gabbard's ad doesn't mention the people who die in the countries we invade. That's 600k people in Iraq for example. A
significant omission me thinks.
The Aloha Spirit Law is a big deal in Hawaii. Government officials are required to approach dignitaries from other countries
or states with the spirit of aloha. "Aloha" means mutual regard and affection and extends warmth in caring with no obligation
in return. Aloha is the essence of relationships in which each person is important to every other person for collective existence.
I think that's what we want in a President or a diplomat.
She's great and unique as she doesnt fall back to identity politics and sjwism as much as the standard left politicians. I
hope she doesnt bend her ethics when the sjws come for her. I'm putting my trust in her. I hope she wins. And if she isn't in
the race, i wont be voting.
The question I would love her to address specifically is will her campaign focus on decreasing military spending like Bernie
Sanders? She has a military background and the US loves war. This ad is good but it is tip toing around the MIC ( military industrial
complex) She can be non interventionist but not decrease military spending is what worries me
This is why we need Gabbard on the debate stage. She will push the Overton window on revealing to the public what our military
is actually doing overseas. She's also a staunch progressive. Bernie/Tulsi 2020. Their weakness match well with each other, and
Tulsi was one of the first to jump ship on the sinking DNC ship when Hillary got caught cheating being the DNC. Keep small donations
going into your favorite progressive candidates to hear their voice. It doesn't work any other way folks.
Intervention isn't only an issue about morality. As Dwight Eisenhower put it (even though he himself was far from an anti imperialist),
you can't have an endless stream of money dedicated to military endeavors AND a sufficient investment in domestic public priorities.
This easily explains why we have increasingly decrepit infrastructure, increasingly worse performing education, increasingly worse
performing health care, absurdly insufficient regulation between government and business (although the pay to play system certainly
is the top reason) and a generally decaying public atmosphere. Beyond the fact that getting involved everywhere creates humanitarian
crises, countless dead people, hopelessly destroyed countries, and so much more, even if other countries haven't in return bombed
our shores from sea to sea, even if generally speaking those who consider not only the US but Americans the "enemies" haven't
overwhelmed with non stop attacks, this non stop and ever growing appetite for more money for more war priorities has created
the very decline we see in our country today. Until there is a change in priorities in general, these problems in the US will
only continue to get worse.
Man, Tulsi made me tear up. She's my girl. This message reminds me more of the message of Jesus than many of the fundamentalists.
She's not even Christian, yet represents Christ very well. I love this woman.
Prepare for BAE, Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other weapons corporations and their bum lickers to launch a viscous
smear campaign against her suggesting she's somehow a Neo Nazi communist anti Semitic islamophobic islamist.
Tulsi 2020 she's saying some of the same things Trump said in his 2016 campaign. Unfortunately, he didn't deliver. Per the
corporate Democrates, making America better is a bad thing.
Tulsi can actually beat Trump...if she gets the nomination. The wars are the elephant in the room, and whoever is willing to
take that on full force, can win.
"Fauxcahontas " is never going to live this one down.
In a report published Tuesday night, just before President Trump started his State of the
Union,
the Washington Post revealed that it had discovered a document where 2020 Democratic
presidential contender Elizabeth Warren, who was exposed by a DNA test that backfired late last
year for having a negligible amount of Native American heritage, listed her race as "American
Indian" on a registration card for the Texas State Bar in the mid-1980s.
The card lists Warren's name, gender and the address for the University of Texas law school
in Austin, where she was working at the time. On the line for "race," Warren wrote: "American
Indian." Meanwhile, lines for "National Origin" and "Physical handicap" were left blank.
As
WaPo explains, "the card is significant" because, for the first time, it shows that Warren
"directly claimed the identity."
One spokeswoman said Warren was sorry for "not more mindful of this" (presumably referring
to the risks that this would all blow up in her face later in life), when she was younger, and
for falsely identifying as a Native American for more than two decades.
"I can't go back," Warren told WaPo.
According to WaPo, the card, dated April 1986, is the first document to surface showing
Warren claiming Native American heritage in her own handwriting. Her office didn't deny the
authenticity of the document.
WaPo explained that it found the card through an open-records request.
Using an open records request during a general inquiry, for example, The Post obtained
Warren's registration card for the State Bar of Texas, providing a previously undisclosed
example of Warren identifying as an "American Indian."
The card was filled out by Warren after she was admitted to the Texas bar. Her reasons for
joining the bar are unclear: Though, at the time, she was doing legal work on the side, the
work wasn't anything that required her to be admitted to the bar. The date on the card
coincided with her fist self-identified listing as a "minority" by the Association of American
Law Schools, where she reported herself as a minority in the directory every year beginning in
1986 (the year the Association started listing minority law professors). Her name dropped off
that list in 1995.
Warren also famously had her ethnicity changed to Native American from "White" in December,
1989 while working at UPenn, two years after she was hired. She also listed her ethnicity as
Native American when she started working at Harvard Law School in 1995.
In a sign that Warren's listing herself as Native American may have been more an act of
self-delusion than an attempt to give herself a leg up in the world of academia, the card
explicitly states that "the following information is for statistical purposes only and will not
be disclosed to any person or organization without the express written consent of the
attorney."
Back in October, Warren's decision to release her DNA test results revealed that she had a
negligible level of Native American heritage (possibly as little as 1/1,024 Native) while the
stunt - which backfired spectacularly - angered leaders of the Cherokee nation, who, as WaPo
explained, typically exercise tight control over the process of connecting individuals with the
tribe. Warren's apology for that incident hasn't been uniformly accepted, and there are still
some who want to see a more thorough apology from Warren.
Whether this is enough to sink her primary bid remains to be seen. But one thing is for
sure: We imagine President Trump will be weighing in with some more prospective campaign
materials.
When you overemphasize and exaggerate identity politics beyond all reason, you're bound to
get plenty of people playing these angles. She's already benefited from it, so too *******
bad.
Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983 with a degree in political science and
graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1991.
Trump graduated from the undergraduate school of finance and commerce at Penn
(Wharton school), but he did not graduate at the top of his class or with honors. He did NOT
graduate at the top of his class at Wharton undergrad or grad, as the Liar in Chief has
frequently quipped. It is believed he was in the bottom third of the undergraduate class.
It is illegal under federal law to release any former student's records to
reporters or members of the public without that person's specific, written permission. Obama
hasn't released them, but neither have other presidential candidates released their college
records.
Trump has not released his records from Penn either. But of course he is your Orange
Geezus, so this is an inconvenient truth for you
This is one of the things I find so disingenuous about the Jews. On the one hand, they
claim they are always the victims. On the other, they claim they are superior intellectually.
They are a money cult and they promote one another shamelessly. And yet they have the balls
to talk about white privilege. Talk about a red herring. My God.
First of all financial oligarchy should be taxes and Glass-Steagall reinstalled. Reinstallation of Grass-Steagall is very important
as well as raising capital gains taxes. So Warren should concentrate on attacking financial casino first...
Notable quotes:
"... We already saw this with minimum wage proposals, where minimum wages were raised by voter initiative, while Democratic candidates refuse to endorse them and lost. ..."
"... Yet kurt insists that we shouldn't be critical of the corrupt and comatose Democratic leadership, even though they clearly don't represent the vast majority of Democrats. I mean, what's democracy for, if not to follow corrupt leaders in lock step? ..."
"... If the Democratic elite is so enamored of taxing the wealthy, why is it that the DCCC never manages to stand candidates who share that view? ..."
"... Democratic perfidy on taxes dates back to JFK, when Kennedy (a plutocrat) starting cutting them on the his class. After that Tip O'Neill exacerbated the Democratic sell-out by embracing Reagan's tax cuts. ..."
"... It is time for America to live up to it's hyperbole. There are two parties in America. The GOP represents the top 1 %. The Clinton Democrats represent the top 10 %. ..."
"... The unrepresented 90 %, pay the bills, fight the wars, and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in the military budget would serve two masters. Firstly, it may force, a long overdue, economic efficiency on an out of control, wasteful monopolist, that has lost it's way. I'm pretty sure they can provide, at the least, the lame defense they have been providing, at half the cost. Secondly, with the savings, we can provide our citizens with health care, including dental. ..."
"... Our military will scream loudly, like the despots they idolize. Luckily, we have a cadre of true American soldiers that can replace the corrupt dogs of war, currently in control. ..."
Polls show that Democrats overwhelmingly favor the two AOC proposals and probably the Warren proposal as well.
Problem is that the corrupt, sclerotic and comatose Democratic establishment (Pelosi, Schumer) would rather squelch such proposals,
preferring to lose elections to endorsing and enacting them.
We already saw this with minimum wage proposals, where minimum wages were raised by voter initiative, while Democratic
candidates refuse to endorse them and lost.
Green New Deal, wealth tax, and 70% income tax are campaign issue made in heaven for Pelosi, Schumer, and party leaders...but
they are nowhere to be found. They regard the proposals as politically unfeasible, because their handlers are staunchly opposed.
Yet kurt insists that we shouldn't be critical of the corrupt and comatose Democratic leadership, even though they clearly
don't represent the vast majority of Democrats. I mean, what's democracy for, if not to follow corrupt leaders in lock step?
"Oh - Pelosi is supportive of a much higher marginal rate and welcomes AOC and has said so repeatedly so there's that."
Stop you're lying.
"You and your bretheren should double check your thoughts about Pelosi and Schumer - recognize the difference between political
posturing and reality - and then check to see if what you believe has a real basis in reality or if it is just the bothsidism
of the press providing you with the BS position of the right."
Follow your own advice. You lie constantly and are full of it.
Democratic perfidy on taxes dates back to JFK, when Kennedy (a plutocrat) starting cutting them on the his class. After that Tip
O'Neill exacerbated the Democratic sell-out by embracing Reagan's tax cuts.
Pelosi is following a long tradition of Democrats who pander to the wealthy...behaving like Republicans but trying to make-believe
that they represent we, the people.
Sure, we should fix the income tax...but that largely leaves out established wealth...plutocrats who largely live off their rents.
I pay at a rate of almost 2% on my house...France had a wealth tax...it can be done. Sweeping it under the rug, as Democrats
love to do, only guarantees that it will be buried, the implicit Democratic position.
In any case, the income tax and wealth tax proposals are ideal for Democrats...if they want to win elections rather than simply
pander to their wealthy donors.
It is time for America to live up to it's hyperbole. There are two parties in America. The GOP represents the top 1 %. The Clinton
Democrats represent the top 10 %.
The unrepresented 90 %, pay the bills, fight the wars, and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune.
A 50% reduction in the military budget would serve two masters. Firstly, it may force, a long overdue, economic efficiency on an out of control, wasteful monopolist, that has lost it's way.
I'm pretty sure they can provide, at the least, the lame defense they have been providing, at half the cost. Secondly, with the savings, we can provide our citizens with health care, including dental.
Our military will scream loudly, like the despots they idolize. Luckily, we have a cadre of true American soldiers that can replace
the corrupt dogs of war, currently in control.
Is anyone else tired of the longest, least productive waste of war in American history ? What
have we achieved, where are we going with this ? More war.
We are being fed a fairy tale of war about what men, long dead, did. And the reason they did
it. America is being strangled by the burden of belief that now is like then.
By the patrician men and women administrators, posturing as soldiers like the WW2 army, lie
for self profit. Why does anyone believe them ? Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, each an economic
decision, rather than a security issue.
Capitalists need their options regulated and their markets ripped from their control by the
state. Profits must be subject to use it to a social purpose or heavily taxed. Dividends
executive comp and interest payments included
Well done! Much clearer than your usual. There are several distinct motivations for taxes. We
have been far enough from fairness to workers, for so long, that we need to use the tax
system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority, which matches both objectives. Wealth
tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the last
40 years.
Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote a particular
policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"...we need to use the tax system to redistribute the accumulated wealth of the plutocrats.
So I would say high marginal rates are a priority..."
Forgive me, but high marginal rates (which I hugely favor) don't "redistribute the
accumulated wealth" of the plutocrats. If such high marginal rates are ever enacted, they'll
apply only to the current income of such plutocrats.
You merged paragraphs, and elided the next one. The way I see it, high rates are a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth, and its diversion into
financial gambling.
But yes that would be a very slow way to redistribute what has already accumulated.
Didn't mean to misinterpret what you were saying, sorry. High rates are not only "a
prerequisite to prevent the reaccumulation of obscene wealth," they are also a reimposition
of fair taxation on current income (if it ever happens, of course).
Wealth tax is needed until we reverse the massive inequality supported by the policies of the
last 40 years. Carbon tax and the like are a different thing, use of the tax code to promote
a particular policy and reduce damage to the commons.
"
more wisdom as usual!
Although wealth tax will be unlikely, it could be a stopgap; could also be a guideline to
other taxes as well. for example, Elizabeth points out that billionaires pay about 3% of
their net worth into their annual tax bill whereas workers pay about 7% of their net worth
into their annual tax bill. Do you see how that works?
it doesn't? this Warren argument gives us a guideline. it shows us where other taxes
should be adjusted to even out this percentage of net worth that people are taxed for. Ceu,
during the last meltdown 10 years or so ago, We were collecting more tax from the payroll
than we were from the income tax. this phenomenon was a heavy burden on those of low net
worth. All this needs be resorted. we've got to sort this out.
and the carbon tax? may never be; but it indicates to us what needs to be done to make
this country more efficient. for example some folks, are spending half a million dollars on
the Maybach automobile, about the same amount on a Ferrari or a Alfa Romeo Julia
quadrifoglio, but the roads are built for a mere 40 miles an hour, full of potholes.
What good is it to own a fast car like that when you can't drive but 40 -- 50 miles an
hour? and full of traffic jams. something is wrong with taxation incentives. we need to get a
better grid-work of roads that will get people there faster.
Meanwhile most of those sports cars just sitting in the garage. we need a comprehensive
integrated grid-work of one way streets, roads, highways, and interstates with no traffic
lights, no stop signs; merely freeflow ramp-off overpass interchanges.
Jesus Christ said, in so many words, that a man's worth will be judged by his generosity and
his avarice.
" 24And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus said to them again, "Children,
how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to pass through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." 26They were even more
astonished and said to one another, "Who then can be saved?"
"... "As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me . ..."
"... In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet. ..."
"... It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For example, take a look at this Vanity Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever taken and starts off (emphasis not ours): ..."
"... One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her? ..."
"... Obey or die ... that's the ethos of the U.S. elite, these days ... Tulsi can't fight that. ..."
"... I wonder if Ron Paul feels jealous that Tulsi is getting all the hate he used to get when HE ran for president on the peace platform? ..."
"... I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now "perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media, whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex. ..."
"... Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win against a sensible person ..."
"... The term "neoliberal warmongers" is thus born ... ..."
"... Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with "liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in the demonization of Russia. ..."
"... All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag" presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause! ..."
"... Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3 decades ago and present day Israel. ..."
"... Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that. ..."
"... Too bad, the rabid dogs are firmly in charge of the US government. ..."
"... she could beat orange ... orange is afraid of her... so are the zio elite ..."
Tulsi Gabbard Slams "Neocon/Neolib Warmongers" After NBC Propaganda Exposed
by Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/04/2019 - 11:31 525 SHARES
Tulsi Gabbard lashed out at "neocon" and "neolib warmongers" after NBC News was exposed
trying to smear her as a Kremlin stooge. The network was called out over the weekend for
relying on a Democrat-run firm that created fake Russian twitter bots to stage a "false flag"
campaign against Republic Roy Moore in the 2017 Alabama special election - New Knowledge.
To justify its claim that Tulsi Gabbard is the Kremlin's candidate, NBC writes:
"analysts at New Knowledge, the company the Senate Intelligence Committee used to track
Russian activities in the 2016 election, told NBC News they've spotted 'chatter' related to
Gabbard in anonymous online message boards, including those known for fomenting right-wing
troll campaigns."
Only to be called out hard by journalist Glenn Greenwald:
After Greenwald fingered NBC for relying on New Knowledge - run by Jonathan Morgan (who also
developed the technology behind "Hamilton 68" Russian bot-tracking propaganda website that refuses
to disclose its methods) - Gabbard chimed in, tweeting:
"@ggreenwald exposes that @NBC used journalistic fraud to discredit our campaign. But more
important is their motive: "to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic
Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the
Kremlin.""
She later added:
"As commander-in-chief, I will work to end the new cold war, nuclear arms race and slide
into nuclear war. That is why the neocon/neolib warmongers will do anything to stop me .
Disturbingly, the Senate Intelligence Committee has relied on a
report by New Knowledge on Russian social media election interference, while the firm has
created a "Hamilton 68" offshoot, "Disinfo2018" referenced in the NBC article, which claims
that three of the top URLs propagated throughout social media by Kremlin bots were about
Gabbard.
In short; NBC relied on a known propagandist who created a Russian bot "false flag" to
meddle in an election, who claims to track pro-Kremlin Twitter activity, in order to smear
Tulsi Gabbard as a Putin puppet.
It's uncanny what lengths the establishment will go to in order to eliminate threats. For
example, take a look at this Vanity
Fair hit piece from Jan 30, which uses perhaps the most unflattering photo Gabbard has ever
taken and starts off (emphasis not ours):
The presidential campaign of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, the renegade Democrat known as much for
her chummy relationship with Bashar al-Assad as for supporting Bernie Sanders , is
beginning to resemble the candidate herself: confusing, disorganized, and, according to
Politico
, falling apart. - Vanity
Fair
One question remains; will Gabbard become a Democrat puppet like Bernie Sanders if the DNC
colludes with their chosen candidate to cheat against her?
I thought Social Security was "the third rail of politics" but obviously it is now
"perpetual war". Anyone daring to touch it is going to be zapped by the corporate media,
whose owners are likely majority stockholders of the military industrial complex.
Tulsi Gabbard for 2020 is not enough. You will also need a group of truly knowledgeable,
experienced and courageous reformers to fill the cabinet. People who dare to take on the CIA,
the MIC, and the pro-Israel lobby. People like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Edward Snowden,
Julian Assange ...
Orange wants to run against some crazy like Hitlery... easy pickings ... he can't win
against a sensible person... mericans are tiring of orange... he may be one term if he
doesn't deliver on ****.. just get some wall... cheap wall, any wall... move on
Yes, good to add that term to "neoconservative warmongers" because of the degree to which
almost all successful politicians have become puppets of the best organized gangsters (due to
the long history of the vicious feedback loops of the funding of all aspects of the political
processes.) The false fundamental dichotomies and related impossible ideals associated with
"liberal" versus conservative" are manifestations of the methods of divide and
conquer, which methods are being pushed towards oblivion with their excessive indulgence in
the demonization of Russia.
Welcome To The Wile E Coyote Phase Of American History:
Alcohol Prohibition and the War on Drugs were insane &
War on Terror was perhaps thousands of times more so,
Demonizing Russia is thousands of times more insane.
All of those may be viewed as manifestations of "false flag attacks" whereby the ruling
classes drive the people they rule over to fight against boogie men, in ways which
therefore backfire badly, by causing the "blowbacks" which those "false flag"
presentations of the "public enemies" were originally designed to cause!
Running against the fake news is pretty effective. She's pretty effective at staying rational. She needs to establish a bipartisan core who will support her once elected. And some decent appointees. If she has family that she likes she'll need to get them in protective situation. And divest of any assets. I don't know why she would want this task - it's unwinnable.
Tulsa Gabbard shares the same views on Israel that most of the world outside of the US
hold ... that there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3
decades ago and present day Israel.
With that said, there is fuckall chance of her ever getting either party's support.
Sad, because if America changed course on their blind support of Israel today, the
backlash would be less extreme than what the future holds when Americans finally realize that
they've been duped into supporting a pariah state.
...there really is zero difference between the apartheid South Africa regime of 3
decades ago and present day Israel.
Yup. That would be the result when you're in the same region with a severely low IQ
culture.
Now that the evil SA apartheid is ended, the natives are rising up and showing their
sadism and hatred for all manner of civilization. They sing and chant about how much they
want to "kill de white man!" But they have NO IDEA what to do once they've done that.
It's a failed state in the making, and it's happening FAST. If you wanted to horrify me by bringing up the wicked nasty apartheid of SA... Wow.
Ah, so they steal the land, put the indigenous people in "homelands" and then wonder why
those same people are pissed ? I'm neither a black South African living under the Apartheid
regime of yesteryear, or a Palestinian driven from his home; but I'm pretty certain that if I
had been either; I would have been packing a AK47 and a limpet mine staking out the occupiers
shopping malls.
mericans voted for orange for certain reasons... health care, no more war... he is not
delivering very well... too much time on the wall.. orange is sucked into the wall **** by
dems...
Japan has medicare for all. Doctors and nurses are paid by the government. You are sick..
you go to the hospital.. you get treated..and you go home. There is nothing wrong with that.
If Japan can pay the doctors, if Germany, France, Nederland, Sweden, England, China, etc, can
pay the doctor's salaries, why can't the USA?
Currently, they spent $50 billions a year destroying Syria. They spent trillion destroying
Iraq. They spent billions a year maintaining a military base in Japan while Japanese foot the
medical bills of its citizen. Don't you see there something wrong with this picture? If it's
to deploy soldiers all around the world and kill people, we have the money. No one
complains.
Yes, medicare for all. Every developed nations does it. And their citizens are not sicker
than us. Some of the French, Japanese, German living here in the USA, go home to get treated
when they have serious illnesses. They don't want the huge medical bills.
"... Trump's lack of knowledge and dismal understanding of major issues have always been some of his biggest weaknesses, but the problem here is even worse than that. The president is not merely ignorant and unfamiliar with the relevant issues. We have known that all along. According to this report, he is determined to remain ignorant and fixed in his mistaken views about a wide range of issues, and the officials serving under him are enabling this so that they don't make him angry at them. The point isn't that intelligence agencies get everything right (they don't), but on the issues where the president has publicly differed from their assessments he is consistently getting things wrong because that makes it easier for him to pretend that his policies are succeeding when everyone else can see that they aren't. ..."
"... There is nothing wrong with informed skepticism of official claims. It would be unhealthy and dangerous to accept official claims without testing them and putting them under scrutiny. Unfortunately, that isn't what Trump is doing. He is reflexively rejecting all evidence that undermines his own official claims about the nuclear deal, North Korea, and many other things, and he is doing that because the evidence proves his claims to be false. ..."
Timereports
on Trump's unwillingness or inability to consider evidence that contradicts what he thinks he knows about foreign policy issues:
What is most troubling, say these officials and others in government and on Capitol Hill who have been briefed on the episodes,
are Trump's angry reactions when he is given information that contradicts positions he has taken or beliefs he holds. Two intelligence
officers even reported that they have been warned to avoid giving the President intelligence assessments that contradict stances
he has taken in public.
Trump's lack of knowledge and dismal understanding of major issues have always been some of his biggest weaknesses, but the
problem here is even worse than that. The president is not merely ignorant and unfamiliar with the relevant issues. We have known
that all along. According to this report, he is determined to remain ignorant and fixed in his mistaken views about a wide range
of issues, and the officials serving under him are enabling this so that they don't make him angry at them. The point isn't that
intelligence agencies get everything right (they don't), but on the issues where the president has publicly differed from their assessments
he is consistently getting things wrong because that makes it easier for him to pretend that his policies are succeeding when everyone
else can see that they aren't.
That invincible ignorance has serious consequences for U.S. policies and interests and for our relations with other states. One
of those consequences was the decision to renege on the nuclear deal with Iran because the president wrongly believed that they aren't
complying with the deal when all evidence shows that they have been complying from the beginning. Trump declared the deal to be "horrible,"
and so he refuses to consider the proof that shows his opposition to be baseless. At the same time, he imagines that there has been
great progress with North Korean disarmament because it flatters him to think that this is true.
There is nothing wrong with informed skepticism of official claims. It would be unhealthy and dangerous to accept official claims
without testing them and putting them under scrutiny. Unfortunately, that isn't what Trump is doing. He is reflexively rejecting
all evidence that undermines his own official claims about the nuclear deal, North Korea, and many other things, and he is doing
that because the evidence proves his claims to be false.
This is not even a question of whether one happens to agree or disagree with the president's policies. The president simply makes
things up or repeats the lies that others have told him, and he then uses this garbage information to defend policies that make no
sense. That makes it practically impossible for the president to learn or change course when a policy is failing, because he is apparently
unable or unwilling to accept new information that doesn't bolster his preconceived notions of how clever and effective his decisions
have been. An unwillingness to listen to dissenting views and a refusal to consider contradictory evidence are among the greatest
flaws of our worst presidents, and they presage many more terrible decisions in the next two years.
He called
Warren's wealth tax proposal "ridiculous" and Harris'
single-payer health care plan "not American," while also saying "we can't afford" debt-free
college, a plank likely to end up in many candidates' platforms.
"What's 'ridiculous' is billionaires who think they can buy the presidency to keep the
system rigged for themselves while opportunity slips away for everyone else," Warren fired back on
Twitter.
Bill Burton, a former deputy press secretary in the Obama White House who is now working for
Schultz, told NBC News that his boss anticipated there would be "immediate vigorous debate
about whether this is a good idea."
Huge external debt plus high unemployment represents two vital preconditions of rise far right nationalism and fascism in all
its multiple incarnations. In this sence Ulrain, Argentina and Brasil are different links of the common chain of
events.
In a way fascism is a way of reaction of nation deeply in crisis. In essence this is introduction of war time
restrictions on political speech and freedoms of the population. The Catch 22 is that often this is done not so much to
fight external threat, but top preserve the power of existing financial oligarchy. Which fascist after coming to power quickly
include in government and and desire of which are disproportionally obeyed by fascist state.
What in new in XXI century is the huge growth of power on intelligence agencies which is way represent crippling fascism or
neofascism. In a way, then intelligence agencies became political kingmakers (as was the case with the assassination of JFK,
impeachment of Nixon, elections of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, as well as establishing Mueller commission after Trump
victory), we can speak about sliding the county of the county toward fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that followed. ..."
"... The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015 ..."
"... Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it forward. ..."
"... The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise. Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power. ..."
"... Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a program called Operation Paperclip . Many were dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist. ..."
"... A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason. Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism. ..."
"... The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism ..."
Missing from explanations of the rise of Mr. Bolsonaro is that for the last decade Brazil
has experienced the worst economic
recession in the country's history (graph below). Fourteen million formerly employed,
working age Brazilians are now unemployed. As was true in the U.S. and peripheral Europe from
2008 forward, the liberal response has been austerity as the Brazilian ruling class was made
richer and more politically powerful.
Since 2014, Brazil's public debt/GDP ratio has climbed from 20% to 75%
proclaims a worried IMF. That some fair portion of that climb came from falling GDP due to
economic austerity mandated by the IMF and Wall Street is left unmentioned. A decade of
austerity got liberal President Dilma Rousseff removed from office in 2016 in what can only be
called a Wall Street putsch. Perhaps Bolsonaro will tell Wall Street where to stick its loans
(not).
Back in the U.S., everyone knows that the liberalization of finance and trade in the 1990s
was the result of political calculations. That this liberalization was/is bipartisan suggests
that maybe the political calculations served certain economic interests. Never mind that these
interests were given what they asked for and crashed the economy with it. If economic problems
result from political calculations, the solution is political -- elect better leaders. If they
are driven by economic interests, the solution is to change the way that economic relationships
are organized.
Between 1928 and 1932 German industrial production fell by 58%. By 1933, six million
formerly employed German workers were begging in the streets and digging through garbage
looking for items to sell. The liberal (Socialist Party) response was half-measures and
austerity. Within the liberal frame, the Depression was a political problem to be addressed in
the realm of the political. Centrist accommodation defined the existing realm. Adolf Hitler was
appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the pit of the Great Depression.
In Brazil in the early-mid 2000s, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula,
implemented a Left program that pulled twenty million Brazilians out of poverty. The Brazilian
economy briefly recovered after Wall Street crashed it in 2008 before Brazilian public debt was
used to force the implementation of austerity. Dilma Rousseff capitulated and Brazil re-entered
recession. Rousseff was removed from power in 2016. Hemmed in by Wall Street and
IMF mandated austerity , any liberal government that might be elected would meet the same
fate as Rousseff.
In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that
preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations
and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to
the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial
economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that
followed.
Since 2008, the fiscal structure of the EU (European Union) combined with wildly unbalanced
trade relationships led to a decade of austerity, recession and depression for the European
periphery. In the U.S., by 2009 Wall Street was pushing austerity and cuts to Social Security
and Medicare as necessary to fiscal stability. The consequences of four decades of
financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external
class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely
distributed busts.
With the presumed shared goal of ending the threat of fascism:
The ideological premises behind the logic that claims fascists as the explanation of fascism
emerge from liberalism. The term here is meant as description. Liberalism proceeds from
specific ontological assumptions. Within this temporal frame, a bit of social logic: If
fascists already existed, why didn't fascism? The question of whether to fight fascists or
fascism depends on the answer. The essentialist view is that characteristics intrinsic to
fascists make them fascists. This is the basis of scientific racism. And it underlies fascist
race theory.
The theory of a strongman who exploits people who have a predisposition towards fascism is
essentialist as well if receptivity is intrinsic, e.g. due to psychology, genetics, etc.
Liberal-Left commentary in recent years has tended toward the essentialist view -- that
fascists are born or otherwise predisposed toward fascism. Unconsidered is that non-fascists
are equally determined in this frame. If 'deplorables' were born that way, four decades of
neoliberalism is absolved.
The problem of analogy, the question of what fascism is and how European fascism of the
twentieth century bears relation to the present, can't be answered in the liberal frame. The
rise and fall of a global radical right have been episodic. It has tied in history to the
development of global capitalism in a center-and-periphery model of asymmetrical economic
power. Finance from the center facilitates economic expansion until financial crisis interrupts
the process. Peripheral governments are left to manage debt repayment with collapsed
economies.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would suggest
the opposite. In 2015, self-identified Marxists in Greece's SYRIZA party capitulated to the
austerity and privatization demands from EU creditors led by Germany. Even Lenin negotiated
with Wall Street creditors (on behalf of Russia) in the months after the October Revolution. In
a political frame, the solution from below is to elect leaders and parties who will act on
their rhetoric.
The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate
their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in
payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist
expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't
serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to
repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable
loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015.
Fascist racialization has analog in existing capitalist class relations. Immigration status,
race and gender define a social taxonomy of economic exploitation. Race was invented decades into the
Anglo-American manifestation of slavery to naturalize exploitation of Blacks. Gender difference
represents the evolution of unpaid to paid labor for women in the capitalist West. Claiming
these as causing exploitation gets the temporal sequence wrong. These were / are exploitable
classes before explanations of their special status were created.
This isn't to suggest that capitalist class relations form a complete explanation of fascist
racialization. But the ontological premise that 'freezes,' and thereby reifies racialization,
is fundamental to capitalism. This relates to the point argued below that the educated German
bourgeois, in the form of the Nazi scientists and engineers brought to the U.S. following WWII,
found Nazi racialization plausible through what has long been put forward as an antithetical
mode of understanding. Put differently, it wasn't just the rabble that found grotesque racial
caricatures plausible. The question is why?
Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson
administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and
in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and
images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it
forward.
The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had
no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise.
Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by
the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power.
Since WWI, commercial propaganda has become ubiquitous in the U.S. Advertising firms hire
psychologists to craft advertising campaigns with no regard for the concern that psychological
coercion removes free choice from capitalism. The distinction between political and commercial
propaganda is based on intent, not method. Its use by Woodrow Wilson (above) is instructive: a
large and vocal anti-war movement had legitimate reasons for opposing the U.S. entry into WWI.
The goal of Bernays and Wilson was to stifle political opposition.
Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their
families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a
program called Operation Paperclip . Many were
dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In
contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi
scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent
contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist.
The problem isn't just that many committed Nazis were scientists. Science and technology
created the Nazi war machine. Science and technology were fully integrated into the creation
and running of the Nazi concentration camps. American race 'science,' eugenics, formed the
basis of Nazi race theory. Science and technology formed the functional core of Nazism. And the
Nazi scientists and engineers of Operation Paperclip were major contributors to American
post-war military dominance.
A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious
past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of
liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason.
Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois
basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project
within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism.
This is no doubt disconcerting to theorists of great difference. If Bolsonaro can impose
austerity while maintaining an unjust peace, Wall Street and the IMF will smile and ask for
more. American business interests are already
circling Brazil, knowing that captive consumers combined with enforceable property rights
and a pliable workforce means profits. Where were liberals when the Wall Street that Barack
Obama saved was squeezing the people of Brazil, Spain, Greece and Portugal to repay debts
incurred by the oligarchs? Liberalism is the link between capitalism and fascism, not its
antithesis.
Having long ago abandoned Marx, the American Left is lost in the temporal logic of
liberalism. The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on
Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
"People on the left that identify as Democratic socialist, the left that supports Sanders or
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for them, Bernie got robbed in 2016," said Michael Kazin, the
Georgetown University historian and co-editor of Dissent. "They think the
Establishment is always looking for someone to go against Bernie -- to run against progressives
in the party and stop them from being ascendant. I think they are suspicious of Beto because he
has taken oil and gas money, he's becoming the darling of big donors, and Obama likes him."
Being liked by Obama, who won two presidential elections and left office with an 90
percent favorable rating among Democrats, might not seem like a disadvantage in a
Democratic primary. But to many on the left, Obama's sins are plentiful: he bailed out Wall
Street, half-assed the stimulus package and health-care reform, deported more undocumented
immigrants than any president, and prosecuted drone warfare that left piles of civilian
casualties across the Middle East. What especially chafes Sanders-style progressives is that
Obama cloaked a centrist neoliberal agenda in a soaring, feel-good rhetoric that charmed voters
and made them forget about all the bad stuff.
Obama was cool. So is O'Rourke. The lines, then, are quickly being drawn: Beto is just a
Davos Democrat on a skateboard.
"I'm not sure we need another Obama, or another of any Democrat we've had recently,"
Elizabeth Bruenig recently
wrote in The Washington Post, urging caution before Democrats rush to O'Rourke's
corner. "I think the times both call for and allow for a left-populist candidate with
uncompromising progressive principles. I don't see that in O'Rourke." She labeled O'Rourke
"progressive-ish," pointing to his "thin" statements on energy regulation and his membership in
the New Democrat Coalition, "a centrist caucus with Clintonian views on health care, education,
and trade."
"... We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one. ..."
I don't know if I have already posted this here in this blog in the past, but it's as
actual as ever: an interview with Adolf Hitler, by journalist George Sylvester Viereck, in
1923 (the NSDAP was founded in 1920). Viereck was himself a Nazi:
"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party
programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"
"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of
dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The
Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from
the Socialists.
"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain
lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to
disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private
property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is
patriotic.
"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the
National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race
solidarity. To us state and race are one."
"... The Trump administration's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts appears to have not made any major impact on businesses' capital investment or hiring plans, according to a new survey. ..."
"... "A large majority of respondents, 84%, indicate that one year after its passage, the corporate tax reform has not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans," NABE President Kevin Swift said in a release. "Fewer firms increased capital spending compared to the October survey responses, but the cutback appeared to be concentrated more in structures than in information and communication technology investments." ..."
"... The lower tax rates did have an impact in the goods-producing sector, NABE found, with 50% of respondents reporting increased investments at their companies, and 20% saying they redirected hiring and investments to the US from abroad. ..."
The Trump administration's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts
appears to have not made any major impact on businesses' capital investment or hiring plans,
according to a new survey.
A quarterly poll from the National Association for Business Economics
published Monday found that some companies reported accelerating investments because of
lower corporate taxes, but a whopping 84% of respondents said they had not changed their plans.
That's up slightly from 81% in the previous survey published in October,
Reuters reports.
The White House had said the massive stimulus package, which cut the corporate tax rate to
21% from 35%, would boost business spending and job growth. The tax cuts that came into effect
in January 2018 were the biggest overhaul of the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years.
"A large majority of respondents, 84%, indicate that one year after its passage, the
corporate tax reform has not caused their firms to change hiring or investment plans," NABE
President Kevin Swift said in a release. "Fewer firms increased capital spending compared to
the October survey responses, but the cutback appeared to be concentrated more in structures
than in information and communication technology investments."
The lower tax rates did have an impact in the goods-producing sector, NABE found, with 50%
of respondents reporting increased investments at their companies, and 20% saying they
redirected hiring and investments to the US from abroad.
An analysis of how S&P 500 firms were reacting to the tax cut by researchers at the
University
of Michigan found that 4% of the sample said in Q1 of 2018 they would pay some of their tax
savings back to workers, and 22% mentioned in earnings conference calls they would increase
investment because of the tax cuts.
Though for small businesses, a new survey from the
National Federation of Independent Business released earlier this month found 61% of owners
reported making capital investments, unchanged from last month but 5 points higher than in
August. In December, 35% of small-business owners reported increasing employee compensation and
24% reported planned increases in the next few months.
Taming of financial oligarchy and restoration of the job market at the expense of outsourcing and offshoring is required in the
USA and gradually getting support. At least a return to key elements of the New Deal should be in the cards. But Clinton wing of Dems
is beong redemption. They are Wall Street puddles. all of the them.
Issues like Medicare for All, Free College, Restoring Glass Steagall, Ending Citizen's United/Campaign finance reform, federal jobs
guarantee, criminal justice reform, all poll extremely well among the american populace
If even such a neoliberal pro globalization, corporations controlled media source as Guardian views centrist neoliberal Democrats
like Booker unelectable, the situation in the next elections might be interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin ..."
"... 2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy. ..."
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic
party. Booker ,
Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice)
and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college
tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on
Wall Street. According to
CNBC , all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan
Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which
just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and
Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and
other powerful executives.
When CNBC's story about
Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support
for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money". But what's most telling isn't
that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn't take
their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus
their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and
conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries,
the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites
might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their
victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances,
the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could
create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's
recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values
across sectors."
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think
there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments
like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that
Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to
scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of
Bernie Sanders . It seems likely that he will run
for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising
ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal
will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those,
unfortunately, are few and far between.
Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin
Just like universal health care, let's give up, it's too hard, we're not winners, we're not number one or problem solvers
and besides, someone at some time for some reason might get something that someone else might not get regardless if that someone
else needs it. Let's go with the Berners who seem to believe there will never be none so pure enough to become president.
The corporate state does not cast the votes. The public does.
Leaning farther to the left on issues like universal healthcare and foreign wars would be agreeing with the public. Not only
the progressive public, but the GENERAL public. The big money donors are the ONLY force against the Democrats resisting these
things.
2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform
that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and
well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy.
Bernie's challenge will "morph into all-out war". "Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats", blah, blah, blah. But we're
going to continue to play along? Why? Oh yeah, Bhaskar Sunkara will have us believe "There is no alternative". Remember TINA?
Give it up, man, just give it up.
One dollar, one vote.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money
to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.
Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that
will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment
that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities
- should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those
wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate
establishment who serve the same rich masters.
Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the
PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives"
in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left
by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?
Vintage59 pointed out lots of things people have changed. Here's an exhaustive list of the legislation passed by people
who didn't get elected but were more progressive than the people who did:
There is also a steadily growing list of Democrats who did worse in elections than a hypothetical Democratic candidate had
been projected to do.
The party can either continue being GOP-Lite or it can start winning elections. It can't do both.
Nobody is going to get elected on a far left platform. Not in the USA and not anywhere. That's just a fact. And everybody
is going to need $$$ in the campaign. Of course candidates are going to suck up to Wall street and business in general.
And we would have been a thousand percent better off with HRC in the white house than we are now with the Trumpostor.
We don't need a candidate with far-left platform, we need one that is left-leaning at all. HRC and her next generation of clones
are mild Republicans.
Those who want to push the Democrats to the left in order to win perhaps need to stop talking to each other and talk to
people who live outside of LA and NY. If you stay within your bubble it seems the whole world thinks like you.
How old will Sanders be in 2020?
The people (outside the coasts) lean to the left some big issues. Medicare for all. Foreign wars. etc.
A sane person might ask why in the hell the left-side party is leaning farther to the right than the general public.
Sanders is a dinosaur. If there is a reason for Wall Street to be wary of him then it is that the mentally challenged orange
guy may win another term if the Democrats run with Sanders.
Hopefully, Sanders will understand what many of his supporters do not want to see: At some time age becomes a problem. If
the Democrats decide to move to the left rather than pursuing a pragmatic centrist approach, Ocasio-Cortez might be an option.
If they opt for the centrist alternative, it might be Harris or Gillibrand. Or, in both cases, a surprise candidate. But Sanders'
time is over, just as Biden's Bloomberg's.
It's true, but Trump is such a clusterfuck that an 80yo president is still be a better situation. Many countries have had rulers
in their 80s at one time or another.
Trump is clearly showing early-stage dementia now. Compare footage of him 10+ years ago to anything within the last 6-12 months
and it's obvious. The stress levels of being the POTUS + blackmailed by Putin + investigations bearing down on him . . . it's
wearing him down fast.
Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out
of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing
on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
Where has offering candidates who actually have a chance to win gotten us? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the ADA, Title
9, Social Security, and more. None of these exist without constant changes. All took years to pass against heavy opposition. None
went far enough. All were improvements.
The list of wrongheaded things that were also passed is longer but thinking nothing changes because it takes time is faulty
logic.
Our capitalist predators are still alive and well. The finance, insurance, and real estate
organizations are the worst predators in the USA.
They will eat your babies if you let them.
New emails published by the U.S. Department of State reveal the real motives behind the
international invasion of Libya.
The new emails of Hillary Clinton reveal that the real reason behind the invasion were
primarily the countries large gold and oil reserves, and the extension of French influence in
North Africa.
Fort Russ reports:
The U.S. State Department has published a series of emails that reveal the volume of gold
reserves of Gaddafi. According to the documents, the reserves are so great that they could
become the basis for creating a pan-African currency, which, in turn, could compete with the
dollar in the region.
Also, the reasons for intervention were identified as the major oil reserves of Libya and
the strengthening of French influence in North Africa. However, in 2011, Western leaders
welcomed the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime as a democratic step. "Long live Benghazi, long
live Libya, long live the friendship between France and Libya!", – said French President
Nicolas Sarkozy.
"You showed the world that you can overthrow the dictator and have chosen freedom!" –
said the Prime Minister of Great Britain David Cameron, speaking to the Libyan people."The
people of Libya got rid of a dictator. Now it has a chance," claimed the Vice-President of USA
Joe Biden.
In the past five years, the violence and chaos in Libya has not stopped. In the background
of this, "Islamic State" is gaining momentum in the country and has captured new territory. In
January 2016, dozens of people were killed as a result of terrorist.
Previously, "Islamic State" had claimed responsibility for the attack on a training camp in
Zliten. According to the correspondent of the newspaper The Jerusalem Post Ariel Ben Solomon,
from the outset it was obvious that intervention in Libya would lead to negative consequences
for the country.
"The email to Clinton is confirmed by the results of studies that began to appear after the
invasion of Libya, organized by France with U.S. support. Major oil reserves of the country
were the main reason for intervention. Dictators lead many African countries, but the West is
in no hurry to intervene in each of them. The Obama administration from the beginning was
guided by rather naive misconceptions on the actions that needed to be taken to resolve the
situation in Libya after the war," said RT political analyst Ariel Ben Solomon.
Source:
http://yournewswire.com/clinton-email...Ozzie Crosby2 years ago
America needs war to survive. The United States IS the infidel. It's not just propaganda.
pav_k20072 years ago
modern day robbers! K Lyall2 years ago
Imagine a NWO puppet like her in the White House for 4 more years!
10 11
View reply Hide replies 1979USHI2 years ago The
Western nations governments are totally out of order and need to be taken to a real world
court. Notta
Dr2 years ago
incredibly disgusting what we are learning about warmongering corporate globalist elites. there
is a strong move starting in the other direction....more conservative nationalist leaders are
rising up everywhere. these monsters ask need to be arrested, tried and severely
punished....held to the highest level of accountability.
Nancy Pelosi is worth several hundred million dollars. I don't think she's a Marxist in
the classical sense. Although she would fit the classic Soviet politburo member with their
private dachas on the Black Sea. I would argue she and her ilk across both parties have
enabled massive market concentration across many many sectors just in the past 4 decades.
They're elitists who back an oligarchy of their fellow elitists. They are the basis for the
symbiotic relationship between Big Business and Big Government. As Steve Bannon calls them,
they're the Party of Davos. IMO, the only difference between the two parties are their
rhetoric. Both of course engage in identity politics with the Democrats focused on the SJW
virtue signaling while the Republicans have for decades channeled the evangelicals.
Trump is an outsider. They consider him to be an uncouth nouveau riche. And are appalled
that his media savvy upended their Borg candidates. Nancy believes she is now the
opposition leader with the mandate from the Party of Davos to ensure the defeat of
Trump. This brouhaha over SOTU is just the first skirmish. I wouldn't underestimate
Trump in these media centered battles. While the corporate media who as Bannon calls the
opposition party creates the perception of a Trump administration in chaos, the Deplorables
are still backing him. His approval rating at this midway point in his presidency is no worse
than Obama and even GOP megagod Reagan. It's the reaction of the people from the heartland
when he served the Clemson team Big Macs and fries compared to the derisive commentary of the
urban/suburban crowd.
McConnell is also a card carrying member of the Party of Davos or else he would have
jumped to invite Trump to speak from the Senate. But Trump's shtick is the people's leader.
So he should speak from a heartland location. Your suggestion is a good one. Another could be
a cornfield in Iowa, the first primary state where all the Democrats presidential contenders
will be camping out soon.
Essentially they are trying to control the US foreign policy. That's a sign of the slide to neofascism as under
neofascism intelligence agencies have a political role and are instrumental in crashing the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist NKVD. ..."
"... The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder, Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy." ..."
"... Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television news. ..."
"... But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials." ..."
The Times claims that Trump "had caught the attention of FBI counterintelligence agents when
he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack the emails of his
opponent, Hillary Clinton." Given that this was a sarcastic campaign remark directed against
Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, and delivered at a
public news conference, Trump's sally can hardly be construed as evidence of a conspiracy.
The Times article goes on to describe how FBI officials monitored the platform adopted at
the Republican National Convention, reporting that the spy agency "watched with alarm as the
Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to
benefit Russia." That is, the nation's top police agency was concerned that the positions
adopted contravened certain basic tenets of dominant sections of the foreign policy
establishment.
By what constitutional authority can the FBI, based on political positions adopted by one or
the other of the two main capitalist parties, open up a secret investigation into treason and
conspiracy? Such an operation bespeaks a police state and recalls the methods of the Stalinist
NKVD.
The agency also investigated four of Trump's campaign aides over possible ties to Russia,
and even made use of the notorious Steele dossier, consisting of anti-Trump gossip collated
from Russian sources by a former British intelligence agent on the payroll of the Democratic
Party.
After Trump fired Comey, according to the Times , "law enforcement officials became so
concerned by the president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working
on behalf of Russia against American interests Counterintelligence investigators had to
consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national
security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or
had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence."
The operations of the FBI, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Times , recall the paranoid
rantings of the John Birch Society, the ultra-right group formed in the 1950s, whose founder,
Robert Welch, notoriously claimed that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former World War II
commander of Allied forces in Europe, was a "a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist
conspiracy."
Claims that once were the province of an extremist group, on the fringes of American
politics, are now embraced by the military-intelligence apparatus, appear on the front page of
the most influential American daily newspaper, and dominate the network and cable television
news.
But these allegations have no credibility. Why should anyone believe claims that Trump, at
age 70, after decades as a real estate mogul, con man and media celebrity, with a
billion-dollar fortune, suddenly decided to throw in his lot with Vladimir Putin? Even the
Times report itself concedes, in a single sentence buried in the 2,000-word text, "No evidence
has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian
government officials."
While there is no evidence of a conspiracy between Trump and Moscow, the Times report itself
is evidence of a conspiracy involving the intelligence agencies and the corporate media to
overturn the 2016 presidential election - which Trump won, albeit within the undemocratic
framework of the Electoral College - and install a government that would differ from Trump's
chiefly in being more committed to military confrontation with Russia in Syria, Ukraine and
elsewhere.
A secret security investigation by a powerful police agency directed against an elected
president or prime minister can be described as nothing other than the antechamber to a coup by
the military or intelligence services.
Historically, the FBI has been at the center of such dangers in the United States. Its
founding director, J. Edgar Hoover, was notorious for his unchecked power, particularly during
the period of the McCarthy anticommunist witch hunt, when he accumulated dossiers on virtually
every Democratic and Republican politician and authorized widespread spying on civil rights and
antiwar groups.
President John F. Kennedy was so concerned that he installed his brother Robert as attorney
general - and nominal superior to Hoover - to keep watch over the bureau. That did not save
Kennedy from assassination in 1963 , an event linked in still undisclosed ways to ultra-right
circles, including Cuban exiles embittered by the Bay of Pigs disaster, Southern
segregationists, and sections of the military-intelligence apparatus up in arms over Kennedy's
signing of a nuclear test ban treaty with Moscow.
The New York Times report - and a companion piece published Sunday in the Washington Post
claiming that Trump has kept secret key details of his private conversations with Putin - serve
to legitimize antidemocratic and unconstitutional conduct by the military-intelligence
apparatus .
These reports shed light on the striking complacency in the "mainstream" media over Trump's
threats to declare a national emergency, using the pretext of his conflict with congressional
Democrats over funding of a border wall, which has led to a three-week-long partial shutdown of
the federal government.
If one takes for good coin the main contention of the reports by the two newspapers, their
acquiescence in a potential Trump declaration of emergency rule is inexplicable. After all, if
Trump is Putin's agent, then a Trump declaration of a state of emergency, giving him sweeping,
near-absolute authority, would put the United States under the control of Moscow.
The explanation is that the Times and the Post welcome the discussion of emergency rule, to
prepare the forces of the state for coming conflicts with the working class. Their only
disagreement with Trump is over which faction of the ruling elite, Trump or his opponents in
the Democratic Party, should direct the repression.
One thing is certain: if Trump declares a national emergency, or if, as the Post suggested
in an editorial, his opponents in the ruling elite declare a national emergency over alleged
Russian "meddling" as part an effort to remove him, it will represent an irrevocable break with
democracy.
It is impossible to determine which side in this sordid conflict is more reactionary. The
working class is confronted with two alternatives :
either the present political crisis will be resolved by one faction of the ruling elite
moving against the other, using the methods of palace coup and dictatorship, whose essential
target is the working class,
or workers will move en masse against the political establishment as a whole and the
capitalist system that it defends.
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to
remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment,
etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with
both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
"... Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason. ..."
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad.
Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Haigin88 ->
Tom J. Davis Clinton's Iraq
war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China, she probably perceived
that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college;
her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton
and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think ,
Clinton's Iraq war vote. She was always dealing with the inverse Nixon In China rule. Just as only Nixon could speak with China,
she probably perceived that only males could be doves. That's an explanation not an excuse. Again, a total lack of integrity from
Clinton.
Also, much of Clinton's later foulness was attempted to be offset by her early opinions and actions - her speeches at college;
her working for children. Gabbard is around the other way: her record got better, offsetting much of her earlier nonsense. Clinton
and Gabbard are apples and oranges, I think
We've known since WW2, that fighting fascism is difficult. Benito Mussolini defined fascism
as "Barely able to slip a cigarette paper between business and government." And when business
runs government, we have even exceeded fascism. The new battle against fascism is not going
to be easy.
"Mounting a campaign against [financial] plutocracy makes as much sense to the typical
Washington liberal as would circulating a petition against gravity.
What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation but a kind of therapy for
those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept the inevitability of
the situation."
"... The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us". ..."
"... But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests! ..."
"... In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone. ..."
"... This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him. ..."
"... Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country. ..."
"... This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together. ..."
"... Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either! ..."
"... Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917. ..."
"... France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description. ..."
"... This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history. ..."
"... Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power. ..."
"... By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary. ..."
"... Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe . ..."
"... Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past. ..."
The magazine LePoint is one of the main media outlets of the French
conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France
Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people
clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the
Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea
from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and
killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the
level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and
arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you
wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a
massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is
to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers
or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't
been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in
France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and
motorways of France.
Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning
Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just
him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a
minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot
happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on
Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many
after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on
New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing
numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was
just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek
newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests.
Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement
of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of
Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online
about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that
what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek.
If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution"
written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize
symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French
bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with
what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to
announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.
A terrified
ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has
no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the
revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of
France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the
"reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and
rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the
2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them
probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but
it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred
by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a
President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not
probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation,
as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a
party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as
he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.
The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic
callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the
people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages
devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a
single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which
led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a
Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will
produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow
Vests!
They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken
seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the
presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning
of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron
himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and
indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he
himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe
that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want,
without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every
night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from
reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected
him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of
himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing
anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and
arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that
made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out
during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the
people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall –
they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action
to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.
Macron as a Provocateur.
Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron
was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited
Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory,
galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and
the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give
her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program
of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the
people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the
people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely
strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the
Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul
capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to
experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened,
looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of
which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving
lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People
could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds
either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin ,
who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary
situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and
the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party."
"Revolutionary
Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two
demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the
percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and
the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a
situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in
Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history
teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn
a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and
an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not
for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian
Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible
eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of
intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is
already history.
People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands,
in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
preserving the purchasingpower of the poorest social strata, e.g.
with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the
entire population,
the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens'
Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revokeelectedrepresentatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate,
all that in the context of establishing a SixthFrenchRepublic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the
Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of directdemocracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian
manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and
full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be
given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing
groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the
demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of
French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these
demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the
absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone
down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas
of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be
described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked
or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political
institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the
regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and
the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence,
but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social
violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a
number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal
fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page
over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money
to support such causes.
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an
absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to
keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later
demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion
shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa,
depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving
society out of the crisis.
The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else
for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do
with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps.
Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first "
AssemblyofAssemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind
in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils (
Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold,
the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a
way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement,
or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for
France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level
of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the
necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more
realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of
forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic
alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the
only way to synthesize the inevitablydifferentlevels of
consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left"
and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and
those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a
program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could
contribute.
In her CritiqueoftheRussianRevolutionRosaLuxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical
of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes
her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed
its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the
unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about
both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our
countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the
Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is
to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more
in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic,
ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its
survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the
dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how
humanity will survive.
"... Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares. ..."
"... Warren Supports Medicare for All Only Nominally ..."
"... Never mind that Warren can say, virtually in the same breath, that insurance companies "still make plenty of money" and "we have plenty of work to do to bring down health care spending." RomneyCare was the beta version of ObamaCare. We tried it, as a nation, starting in 2009, and here we are.[5] Is that's what Warren wants, fine, but why not simply advocate for it? ..."
"... Except, perhaps, one distinctly slanted toward insiders. " Work hard and play by the rules " is a Clintonite trope ..."
"... but only through the institutional framework of unions ..."
"... Warren's emphasis on the economic market for health "care?" (insurance companies making plenty of money ..."
"... I've long ago disabused myself of the notion that E. Warren is more than "lipstick" on the usual "pig", but it was good to have written support for that thesis and I will save it for my reference. ..."
"... Non-profit health insurance Company – https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/25/former-excellus-ceo-package-total-m/8155853/ The final retirement package for former Excellus BlueCross BlueShield CEO David Klein likely will exceed -- by millions -- the $12.9 million the company reported to the state in March. $29.8 Million in retirement. Non-profit for who? It's a complete misnomer and a huge problem in the discourse of healthcare. Hospitals are usually non-profits too. They non-profitly charge you $80,000 for a few stitches and some aspirin. ..."
"... The transcript could easily have been a speech by Hillary (and even delivered to Goldman Sachs if Hillary had had the foresight to realize that every speech would become known to everybody in the Internet age -- before Russiagate was leveraged into Social media banning of anti-establishment speech). ..."
"... The Eric Schmidt who took Google down the primrose part of spying on everybody. Warren is centrist. ..."
"... Warren 2020 campaign is DOA. If you want Trump for another four years go with Warren 2020. Bernie would have won. ..."
"... " Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton reborn, and they're both unlikable, because they're both inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else's lives . ..."
Posted on January
20, 2019 by Lambert Strether
New America (board chair emeritus Eric Schmidt
, President the aptronymic Anne-Marie
Slaughter ), a
nominally center-left
Beltway think tank ( funding ) "
took up the mission of designing a new social contract
in 2007 and was the first organization [anywhere?] to frame its vision in these terms." On May 19, 2016, New America sponsored an
annual conference (there was no 2017 iteration) entitled "The Next Social Contract." Elizabeth Warren, presidential contender, was
invited to give the opening keynote (
transcript , whicn includes
video). Warren shared a number of interesting ideas. I will quote portions of her speech, followed by brief commentary, much of it
already familiar to NC readers, in an effort to situate her
more firmly
in the political landscape. But first, let me quote Warren's opening paragraph:
It is so good to be here with all of you. And yes I will be calling on people. Mostly those of you standing in the back. I
always know why people are standing in the back. That's what teachers do.
Professional-class dominance games aside, it's evident that Warren is comfortable here. These are her people. And I would urge
that, no matter what policy position she might take on the trail, these policies and this program are her "center of gravity," as
it were. Push her left (or, to be fair, right) and, like a
bobo doll , she will return to this upright position
. So, to the text (all quotes from Warren from the
transcript ). I'll start
with two blunders, and then move on to more subtle material.
Warren Does Not Understand Uber's Business Model
Or, in strong form, Warren fell for Uber's propaganda.[1] Warren says:
Thank you to the New America Foundation for inviting me here today to talk about the gig economy You know, across the country,
new companies are using the Internet to transform the way that Americans work, shop, socialize, vacation, look for love, talk
to the doctor, get around, and track down ten foot feather boas, which is actually my latest search on Amazon .
These innovations have helped improve our lives in countless ways, reducing inefficiencies and leveraging network effects to
help grow our economy. And this is real growth . The most famous example of this is probably the ride-sharing platforms in our
cities. The taxi cab industry was riddled with monopolies, rents, inefficiencies. Cities limited the number of taxi licenses
Uber and Lyft, two ride-sharing platforms came onto the scene about five years ago, radically altered this model, enabling
anyone with a smartphone and a car to deliver rides . The result was more rides, cheaper rides, and shorter wait times.
The ride-sharing story illustrates the promise of these new businesses. And the dangers. Uber and Lyft fought against local
taxi cab rules that kept prices high and limited access to services .
And while their businesses provide workers with greater flexibility, companies like Lyft and Uber have often resisted efforts
of those very same workers to try to access a greater share of the wealth that is generated from the work that they
do. Their business model is, in part , dependent on extremely low wages for their drivers.
"In part" is doing rather a lot of work, there, even more than "the wealth that is generated," because NC readers know, Uber's
business model is critically dependent on massive subsidies from investors, without which is would not exist as a firm.
Hubert Horan (November 30, 2016):
Published financial data shows that Uber is losing more money than any startup in history and that its ability to capture customers
and drivers from incumbent operators is entirely due to $2 billion in annual investor subsidies. The vast majority of media coverage
presumes Uber is following the path of prominent digitally-based startups whose large initial losses transformed into strong profits
within a few years.
This presumption is contradicted by Uber's actual financial results, which show no meaningful margin improvement through
2015 while the limited margin improvements achieved in 2016 can be entirely explained by Uber-imposed cutbacks to driver
compensation. It is also contradicted by the fact that Uber lacks the major scale and network economies that allowed digitally-based
startups to achieve rapid margin improvement.
As a private company, Uber is not required to publish financial statements, and financial statements disseminated privately
are not required to be audited in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or satisfy the SEC's reporting
standards for public companies.
The financial tables below are based on private financial statements that Uber shared with investors that were published in
the financial press on three separate occasions. The first set included data for 2012, 2013 and the first half of 2014
The second set included tables of GAAP profit data for full year 2014 and the first half of 2015 ; the third set included
summary EBITAR contribution data for the first half of 2016. .
[F]or the year ending September 2015, Uber had GAAP losses of $2 billion on revenue of $1.4 billion, a negative 143% profit
margin. Thus Uber's current operations depend on $2 billion in subsidies, funded out of the $13 billion in cash its investors
have provided.
Uber passengers were paying only 41% of the actual cost of their trips; Uber was using these massive subsidies to undercut
the fares and provide more capacity than the competitors who had to cover 100% of their costs out of passenger fares.
Many other tech startups lost money as they pursued growth and market share, but losses of this magnitude are unprecedented;
in its worst-ever four quarters, in 2000, Amazon had a negative 50% margin, losing $1.4 billion on $2.8 billion in revenue, and
the company responded by firing more than 15 percent of its workforce. 2015 was Uber's fifth year of operations; at that point
in its history Facebook was achieving 25% profit margins.
Now, in Warren's defense, it is true that she, on May 19, 2016, could not have had the benefit of Horan's post at Naked Capitalism,
which was published only on November 30, 2016. However, I quoted Horan's post at length to show the dates: The data was out there;
it wasn't a secret; it only needed a staffer with a some critical thinking skills and a mandate to do the research to come to the
same conclusions Horan did, and Uber's lack of profitabilty, easily accessible, is a ginormous red flag for anybody who takes the
idea that Uber "generates wealth" seriously. How is it that the wonkish Warren is recommending policy based on what can only be superfical
research in the trade and technical press? Should not the professor have done the reading?[2]
Warren Does Not Understand How Federal Taxation Works
The second blunder. Warren says:
First, make sure that every worker pays into Social Security, as the law has always intended. Right now, it is a challenge
for someone who doesn't have an employer that automatically deducts payroll taxes to pay into Social Security. This can affect
both a worker's ability to qualify for disability insurance after a major [injury], and it can result in much lower retirement
benefits. If Social Security is to be fully funded for generations to come, and if all workers are to have adequate benefits,
then electronic, automatic, mandatory withholding of payroll taxes must apply to everyone , gig workers, 1099 workers, and
hourly employees.
It is laudable that Warren wants to bring all workers in the retirement system. But as NC readers know, Federal taxes do not "pay
for" Federal spending, and hence Warren's thinking that Social Security will be "fully funded" through "payroll taxes" is a nonsense
(and also reinforces incredibly destructive neoliberal austerity policies). I will not tediously rehearse MMT's approach to taxation,
but will simply quote a recent tweet from Warren Mosler:
Warren is indeed a co-sponsor
of Sanders' (
inadequate
) S1804. But read the following passages, and you will see #MedicareForAll not where her passion lies:
As greater wealth is generated by new technology, how can we ensure that the workers who support the economy can actually share
in the wealth?
(The idea that workers "support" "the" [whose?] "economy," instead of driving or being the economy, is interesting, but
let that pass.)
Warren then proceeds to lay out a number of policies to answer that question. She says:
Well, I believe we start with one simple principle. All workers, no matter where they work, no matter how they work, no matter
when they work, no matter who they work for, whether they pick tomatoes or build rocket ships, all workers should have some basic
protections and be able to build some economic security for themselves and their families. No worker should fall through the cracks.
And here are some ideas about how to rethink and strengthen the worker's bargain.
So, she's not just laying out policy for the gig economy (the occasion of the speech); she's laying out a social contract (the
topic of the speech). Picking through the next sections, here is the material on health care:
We can start by strengthening our safety net so that it catches anyone who has fallen on hard times, whether they have a formal
employer or not. And there are three much-needed changes right off the bat on this.
I hate the very concept of a "safety net." Why should life be like a tightrope walk? Who wants that, except crazypants neoliberal
professors, mostly tenured? She then makes recommendations for three policies, and sums up:
These three, Social Security, catastrophic insurance, and earned leave, create a safety net for income.
Hello? Medical bankruptcy ?[3]
She then moves on from the "safety net" for income to benefits, which is the aegis under which she places health care:
Now, the second area of change to make is on employee benefits, both for healthcare and retirement. To make them fully portable.
They belong to the worker, no matter what company or platform generates the income, they should follow that worker wherever that
worker goes. And the corollary to this is that workers without formal employers should have access to the same kinds of benefits
that some employees already have.
I want to be clear here. The Affordable Care Act is a big step toward addressing this problem for healthcare. Providing access
for workers who don't have employer-sponsored coverage and providing a long term structure for portability. We should improve
on that structure, enhancing its portability, and reducing the managerial involvement of employers.
Remember, this is a Democratic audience, and what do we get? "Portability," "access", and reduced "managerial involvement." That's
about as weak as tea can possibly get, and this is a liberal Democrat audience. ("The same kinds of benefits that some employees
already have." Eeesh.) But wait, you say! This speech iis in 2016, and in 2018, Warren supports #MedicareForAll! For example, "
Health care: Supports the "Medicare for All" bill led by Bernie Sanders " (PBS, January 17, 2019). But notice how equivocal that
support is. Quoting PBS again, Warren "called that approach 'a goal worth fighting for.'" Rather equivocal! And folliowing the link
to that quote, we find it's from a
speech
Warren gave to Families USA's Health Action 2018 Conference :
I endorsed Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All bill because it lays out a way to give every single person in this country a guarantee
of high-quality health care. Everybody is covered. Nobody goes broke because of a medical bill. No more fighting with insurance
companies. This is a goal worth fighting for, and I'm in this fight all the way.
There are other approaches as well I'm glad to see us put different ideas on the table.
So, we have a gesture toward #MedicareForAll. But then, Warren, instead of going into detail about how #MedicareForAll would work,
immediately backtracks and emits a welter of detail about minor fixes improvements, on the order of "portability," "access,"
and reduced "managerial involvement." (Different details, but still details). Then she moves on to Massachusetts. Read this, and
it's clear where Warren's heart is:
Massachusetts has the highest rate of health insurance coverage in the nation. We are the healthiest state in the nation[4].
That didn't just happen because we woke up one morning and discovered that insurance companies had just started offering great
coverage at a price everyone could afford.
We demanded that insurance companies live up to their side of the bargain. Every insurer participating in our exchange is required
to offer plans with standard, easy-to-compare benefits and low up-front costs for families. Last year, we had the second-lowest
premiums in the ACA market of any state in the country. Massachusetts insurers pay out 92% of the dollars they bring in through
premiums to cover costs for beneficiaries – not to line their own pockets.
The rules are tough in Massachusetts, but the insurance companies have shown up and done the hard work of covering families
in a responsible way. We have more than double the number of insurers participating on our exchanges, compared to the average
across the country. They show up, they serve the people of Massachusetts, and they still make plenty of money.
Look, we still have plenty of work to do, particularly when it comes to bring down health spending, but we're proud of the
system we have built in Massachusetts, and I think it shows that good policies can have a real impact on the health and well-being
of hard working people across the country.
Never mind that Warren can say, virtually in the same breath, that insurance companies "still make plenty of money" and "we
have plenty of work to do to bring down health care spending." RomneyCare was the beta version of ObamaCare. We tried it, as a nation,
starting in 2009, and here we are.[5] Is that's what Warren wants, fine, but why not simply advocate for it?
Warren Has No Coherent Theory of Change
Except, perhaps, one distinctly slanted toward insiders. "
Work hard and play by the rules
" is a Clintonite trope, but let's search on "rules" and see what we come up with. More from the transcript:
But it is policy, rules and regulations, that will determine whether workers have a meaningful opportunity to share
in the wealth that is generated.
Here, workers are passive , acted upon by rules, and those who create them. But Warren contradicts herself: "Lyft and
Uber have often resisted efforts of those very same workers." Here, workers are active. But if workers are active in the second context,
they are also active in the first! Where does Warren think change comes from? The generosity of Uber and its investors? More:
Antitrust laws and newly-created public utilities addressed the new technological revolution's tendency toward concentration
and monopoly, and kept our markets competitive. Rules to prevent cheating and fraud were added to make sure that bad actors in
the marketplace couldn't get a leg up over folks who played by the rules.
Note the lack of agency in "were added." Warren erases
the
entire Populist Movement ! She also can't seem to get her head round the idea that workers didn't necessarily play by the existing
ruies in order to create new ones. And:
Workers have a right to expect our government to work for them. To set the basic rules of the game. If this country is to have
a strong middle class, then we need the policies that will make that possible. That's how shared prosperity has been built in
the past, and that is our way forward now. Change won't be easy. But we don't get what we don't fight for. And I believe that
America's workers are worth fighting for.
Now, on the one hand, this is great. I, too, believe that "America's workers are worth fighting for." What Warren seems to lack,
at the visceral level, is the idea that workers should be (self-)empowered to do the fighting (as opposed to having the
professional classes pick their fights for them). Here is Warren on unions:
Every worker should have the right to organize, period. Full-time, part-time, temp workers, gig workers, contract workers,
you bet.
Very good. More:
Those who provide the labor should have the right to bargain as a group with whoever controls the terms of their work .
The idea that workers themselves should control the terms of their work seems to elude Warren. This erases, for example, co-ops.
More:
Government is not the only advocate on behalf of workers.
"Not the only?" Like, there are lots of others? This seems a tendentious, not to say naive, view of the role of government. More:
It was workers [here we go], bargaining through their unions [and the qualification], who helped [helped?] introduce retirement
benefits, sick pay, overtime, the weekend, and a long list of other benefits, for their members and for all workers across this
country. Unions helped build America's middle class, and unions will help rebuild America's middle class.
Here, at least, Warren grants workers (partial) agency, but only through the institutional framework of unions . That
distorts the history. Granted, "helped introduce" is doing a lot of work, and who they were "helping" isn't entirely clear,
but the history is enormously complicated. (Here again, Warren needs to do the reading.) For example,
the history
of the weekend long predates unions . And "bargaining through their unions" isn't the half of it. Take, for example,
the Haymarket Affair . From the Illinois
Labor History Society:
To understand what happened at Haymarket, it is necessary to go back to the summer of 1884 when the Federation of Organized
Trades and Labor Unions, the predecessor of the American Federation of Labor, called for May 1, 1886 to be the beginning of a
nationwide movement for the eight-hour day. This wasn't a particularly radical idea since both Illinois workers and federal employees
were supposed to have been covered by an eight-hour day law since 1867. The problem was that the federal government failed to
enforce its own law, and in Illinois, employers forced workers to sign waivers of the law as condition of employment.
Fine, "rules." Which weren't being obeyed! More from the Illinois Labor History Society:
Monday, May 3, the peaceful scene turned violent when the Chicago police attacked and killed picketing workers at the McCormick
Reaper Plant at Western and Blue Island Avenues. This attack by police provoked a protest meeting which was planned for Haymarket
Square on the evening of Tuesday, May 4. Very few textbooks provide a thorough explanation of the events that led to Haymarket,
nor do they mention that the pro-labor mayor of Chicago, Carter Harrison, gave permission for the meeting . Most speakers failed
to appear . Instead of the expected 20,000 people, fewer than 2,500 attended . The Haymarket meeting was almost over and only
about two hundred people remained when they were attacked by 176 policemen carrying Winchester repeater rifles. Fielden was speaking;
even Lucy and Albert Parsons had left because it was beginning to rain. Then someone, unknown to this day, threw the first dynamite
bomb ever used in peacetime history of the United States. The next day martial law was declared, not just in Chicago but throughout
the nation. Anti-labor governments around the world used the Chicago incident to crush local union movements.
This is how workers "helped introduce" the eight-hour day.
Yes, America's workers are "worth fighting for." But they also fight for themselves , and are fought against! Warren's
theory of change -- which seems to involve people of good will "at the table" -- cannot give an account of events like Haymarket
or why, in the present day, it's Uber's drivers who are also the drivers of change, and not benevolent rulemakers. Warren's views
on the social contract are in great contrast to Sanders'
"Not me, us."
NOTES
[1] Warren is far stronger in areas where she has developed academic expertise than in areas where she has not.
[2] Google is Google, i.e., crapified, but if Warren has retracted or changed her views on Uber, I can't find it. She was receiving
good press for this speech as late as
August 2017 .
[3] Oddly, bankruptcy is where Warren made her academic bones. I'm frankly baffled at her lack of full-throated advocacy on this,
especially before a friendly audience.
[4] Warren, by juxtaposition, suggests that Massachusetts' health insurance coverage causes it to be "the healthiest
state in the nation." This post hoc fallacy ignores, for example,
demographics and
the social determinants of health .
[5] Warren focuses on health insurance, not health care. I'm nothing like an expert in the Massachusetts health insurance system.
However, looking at this
chart , I'm seeing all the usual techniques to deny access to care: Deductibles, co-pays, out-of-network costs, and (naturally)
high-deductible plans. Health care should be free at the point of delivery. Why is that so hard to understand?
I quickly went over the (188 page!) report referenced in Warren's claim that "Massachusetts has the highest rate of health
insurance coverage in the nation. We are the healthiest state in the nation". It should be noted I went in with the expressed
purpose of finding something to be snarky about, and I found it.
One of the metrics under "core measures" of clinical care was Preventable Hospitalizations. As it states in the report itself:
"Preventable hospitalizations reflect the efficiency of a population's use of primary care and the quality of the primary health
care received Preventable hospitalizations are more common among people without health insurance and often occur because of failure
to treat conditions early in an outpatient setting". Wow! With such bang up health insurance in MA, one would figure they would
do great on this metric. Nope! MA ranks 37th in the country. Many more such examples can be found, I'm sure.
I have a real dislike of these "who's best" lists, regardless of topic. Rarely do they (the aggregated ratings) contain insight
beyond that captured by the individual metrics.
Massachusetts is #1 on mortality (though they have issues with opioids). They have median US age, so it's not the enormous
Boston student population. So they're doing something right, I'm just not sold it's health insurance or, more to the point, health
insurers. They do have more physicians (and psychiatrists) per capita.
What is "mortality" in this case? I'm curious about this because people often casually say that US health outcomes are worse
than in other countries by looking at life expectancy (which I guess is not the same as mortality), and that comparison is rarely
done on a state by state basis in the US.
Also amazed just now to see that Asian American and Latino life expectancy are so much higher than for white and black Americans.
Does anyone know anything about that? I'm really stunned.
Usually, lower life expectancy for blacks is given as evidence of inequality, but the white-black gap (about 1-2 years) is
tiny compared with the black-Latino and black-Asian gap, or for that matter, the white-Latino or white-Asian gap, which are more
like 5-10 years. I'm really floored by that.
In general, looking at the numbers just now has shaken my assumptions about poor US life expectancy and also racial disparities
and I'm wondering if I'm misinterpreting them.
So, why Mass. has a relatively high life expectancy could in part be due to it having one of the earliest and most aggressive
anti-smoking movements. I'm guessing historically high smoking rates (up to 50% of adults in the 1950s with huge second-hand exposure)
could also account for poorer health outcomes today.
One of my favorite pictures (the one I have not yet taken) would have been an elevated shot of the intersection at Longwood
and Brookline Avenues (379–385 Brookline Ave) at noon on a clear, sunny spring day to see the murmuration of medical staff running
between appointments, lunch, rounds, etc.
The intersection is surrounded by arguably some of the finest medical institutions in the Western world (Beth Israel Deaconess,
Dana-Farber, Brigham & Women's (where Atul Gawande, author of the book "Better" and the whole entire concept of positive deviance,
once held court), Harvard Medical School itself with its etched-in-granite entrace to the Countway Library that reads "Ars Longa,
Vita Brevis", and the Harvard School of Public Health.
The murmuration of white coats may be at that moment the greatest single concentrated density of medical excellence at one
time. It is easy to scoff. I've been the recipient of bad medicine myself, but also far more high-quality, life-saving medicine.
But the public health movement in Massachusetts has been around for a very long time and is supported by and engrained within
governmental regulations, oversight and policy. Insurance plans covering most of the state ranked, typically and for years, #'s
1, 2, 3 and more. The Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Systems report out results that are painstakingly gathered,
audited to improve performance. It is fair to say that a major part of the intersection between computing and medicine was born
and is overseen across the river in Cambridge. Organizations that collect or audit data for health plans and providers are screened,
trained and certified by NCQA ( https://www.ncqa.org/about-ncqa/
).
In addition, there are national, regional and state associations devoted to quality improvement and toi improvement of access.
The National Association of Community Health Centers (those clinics funded Federally to serve the under-served for free or on
a sliding scale) "works in conjunction with state and regional primary care associations, health center controlled networks and
other public and private sector organizations to expand health care access to all in need." There are CHC's dotted everywhere
around the country (albeit not enough of them), and there is a state association in almost every state. No one can ever be turned
away from a CHC, especially for lack of ability to pay; the Federal government underwrites their care.
govts can call force us to call toilet paper a pound, but i doubt they can make it worth a pound of sterling silver – if they
pretend that they can produce any amount.
Warren's emphasis on the economic market for health "care?" (insurance companies making plenty of money ) and
particularly her whole rant on the superlatives of Massachusetts insurance care (that means, care for insurance companies)
, increasingly neglects health and people care as the primary concern of medicine and the people who practice
it.
As an average Joe, meaning not part of the medical world, I have come across a surprising number of doctors in both social
circumstances as well as health issues of my own and of my extended family, where doctors have complained about the ever worsening
constraints imposed on them by insurance companies. I know at least three doctors who retired early because of it and one of them
talks about it being a significant problem in keeping highly qualified doctors in general practice. From ever more ridiculously
short visits, to constant refusal to cover such and such a drug, to all manner of schemes to improve patients health by overseeing
and controlling what the doctor does to finding ways to monitor what the patient does; what he or she takes as medicine and exactly
when and how often – cutting the doctor out of the loop completely. Improve the patient experience my *ss. It's horrible and it
all comes down to ever new ways to reduce coverage – to make more money.
Perhaps I'm being a little unjust, but Warren seems fine with this "system" where the gate keepers make, "plenty of money,"
as long as people are going in and out of doctors' offices in countable droves as if on run-away conveyer belts. I should at least
allow that many of her superlative claims are accurate (or somewhat accurate) and that there is fairly wide coverage in
this state but nevertheless stress that our excellent medical facilities in Boston proper are due to historical reasons and NOT
to RomneyCare.
Thank you Lambert, for your cogent and discerning analysis as always. I've long ago disabused myself of the notion that
E. Warren is more than "lipstick" on the usual "pig", but it was good to have written support for that thesis and I will save
it for my reference.
What worries me more though is Sanders's bill and why he wouldn't go all the way? Would you do an analysis of that please –
will really appreciate it.
The vast majority of Massachusetts health plan providers are nonprofit HMOs so I'm baffled by the idea that they are making
tons of money since legally they are not supposed to.
The most obvious difference between Mass and the rest of the country is precisely the preponderance of nonprofit health plans
(it's not commonly called health insurance here) and nonprofit hospitals. The idea of for-profit health plans and hospitals freaks
me out.
It's worth noting that Mass health coverage seems to have gotten worse in recent years, though I don't know how much of that
is due to Obamacare. High deductibles, coinsurance, confusing in-network requirements combined with poor documentation and even
poorer customer service to tell you what is in-network and what is not. I just got a surprise $370 bill for a provider that supposedly
was out of network even though I had checked extensively that they were in-network. That is the first time that has ever happened
to me in Mass. Not to mention the confusing and unnerving notices I got the last few months saying I was in danger of losing coverage.
A great big ball of Weberian beaureaucratic stress.
Non-profit health insurance Company –
https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/business/2014/04/25/former-excellus-ceo-package-total-m/8155853/ The final
retirement package for former Excellus BlueCross BlueShield CEO David Klein likely will exceed -- by millions -- the $12.9 million
the company reported to the state in March. $29.8 Million in retirement. Non-profit for who? It's a complete misnomer and a huge
problem in the discourse of healthcare. Hospitals are usually non-profits too. They non-profitly charge you $80,000 for a few
stitches and some aspirin.
Health Care Economist / Professor Uwe Reinhardt used to comment that in the current system non-profit hospitals (The Sisters
of Mercy, with a token nun on their board, in his telling) were subject to the same forces as for profit hospitals.
He also said Massachusetts has the only adult health care system, and the other states are all adolescents.
Wow, I'd missed that (moved out of state, then came back). Thanks for the update. It looks like the Catholic Church (former
owner of Caritas) has further enhanced its legacy in Massachusetts. However, I believe it is still true that the hospital market
in Mass. is dominated by nonprofits (albeit greedy nonprofits).
And yes, hospitals and hospital chains (e.g., Partners Healthcare, which is nonprofit) pose huge challenges to managing healthcare
costs in Mass. as the numerous Boston Globe investigative series attest, by using their market power to raises prices.
My concern is when the market becomes dominated by for-profit actors, the profit-seeking, which is already bad with nonprofits,
becomes even worse, especially in an ultra-expensive market like Greater Boston.
I should add (if my earlier comment get's posted), it's even more surprising how many doctor's seem just fine with all the
negative changes being brought about by insurance companies' intrusive quest for control and I don't mean just the ones who say
nothing.
That is, some doctors seem to enjoy the vestiges of the glow of community respect and honor that once went with being a doctor
all while doing almost nothing other than sheep herding patients through the office in good file while staff (not the good doctor)
attend to making the visit digital and storing it away in some cloud.
I agree with Warren Mosler that Elizabeth Warren's apparent ignorance of MMT, much less mastery of it, makes here a lame candidate
in my book. She needs to get woke pretty quickly or settle for some cabinet appointment.
You don't even need MMT. When asked how the federal government can pay for something, people can just answer, "the same way
we pay for military and intelligence spending." Any politician who won't say at least this is deeply suspicious.
In The Unwinding , George Packer quotes Elizabeth Warren as describing her political views thusly:
"I was a Republican because I thought that those were the people who best supported markets"
I'm glad that she's out there, I'm glad that she's talking, and we need an open and transparent nomination process, but Bernie
Sanders remains the only (potential) nominee who comes close to representing my views. Good piece.
The transcript could easily have been a speech by Hillary (and even delivered to Goldman Sachs if Hillary had had the foresight
to realize that every speech would become known to everybody in the Internet age -- before Russiagate was leveraged into Social
media banning of anti-establishment speech).
The speech's date (May 19 2016), was two days after Bernie won the Oregon primary by 14%, and two days before Hillary won the
Washington state primary by 5%.
The Eric Schmidt who took Google doen the path of spying on everybody. He has nothing to offer by centrist rhetoric. It would
be very interesting in how much In-Q-Tel invested in Google.
Thanks for this post.
And thanks for the reminder that the 8 hour workday and the 40 hour workweek were not 'given' to workers, they were won by workers.
Giant companies may hate my Affordable Drug Manufacturing bill – but I don't work for them. The American people deserve
competitive markets and fair prices. By fixing the broken generic drug market, we can bring the cost of prescriptions down.
Sanders:
If the pharmaceutical industry will not end its greed, which is literally killing Americans, then we will end it for them.
Tell me what about Warren not understanding how federal taxes work, which is fundamental to formulating sound fiscal policy
and spending plans, not being serious about fixing our health care system, or praising the predatory gig economy, is "good".
On a side note: self-employed workers pay more out-of-pocket into Social Security than W-2 employees. W-2 employees only pay
half the Social Security tax – employers pay the other half via a "payroll tax."
The self-employed pay both the employee's half of Social Security, and also pay a "Self-Employment tax" (the employer's half
of Social Security). The logic is that if you are both employee and employer, you should pay both halves.
This is thread jacking, plus an economist would point out that the employer clearly is paying a net wage that reflects his
awareness that he is paying the employer side of the FICA taxes.
Or lesser of two evils? There really needs to be a good discussion again about reform versus structural change without Chait-like
pretensions. The question isn't just whether we'll get there in time, but whether reform even out runs reaction. Once you take
out patriotic myth, it's not obvious whethervthe good in the long term is even worth bothering with.
I can't help but think that if you are talking about the "Next Social Contract", them you should put something in there that
if you have children going hungry then something has gone wrong with your society. Not being snarky here as I believe that a fundamental
purpose of society is to protect those in need. An earlier society talked about 'women and children first' and they were not too
far off the mark here.
She was invited to talk about the gig economy but in reading her speech I was under the impression that she wants the Federal
government to underwrite the costs of workers for corporations to ensure that maybe these workers have food to eat while working
for these very same corporations. I suspect that this is the thinking behind letting Amazon workers go for Federal assistance
for the sheer basics of life while Amazon makes off like bandits.
No. The way to go is to enforce corporations like this pay a living wage and not to have them count on the country to make
up the difference. If they start to protest, then start to talk about looking over their accounts for any discrepancies to make
them back off. That's how they got Al Capone you know. Not for being a gangster but for not paying his taxes while doing so. And
do the same for mobs like Uber and Lyft and all the other corporations.
" Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton reborn, and they're both unlikable, because they're both inauthentic scolds who suffer
from hall monitor syndrome. They spent their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly fantasizing about
running every tiny detail of everyone else's lives ."
Sigh. Nail hit squarely on head. The one thing I will say to Warren's credit is that she has learned in some specific ways
that the world isn't invariably the pure meritocracy that is so instinctively part of her world view. That said, it seems clear
there will always be plenty that she is simply not capable of seeing, so she will always say and support things that are just
wrong. She will not be leading the revolution.
"... I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank! ..."
Tulsi Gabbard, Democratic Presidential Candidate,
Apologizes for Anti-Gay Past https://nyti.ms/2HhUDev
NYT - Liam Stack - Jan. 17, 2019
Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who last week announced she was running for
president, apologized Thursday for her history of anti-gay statements and her past work for
an anti-gay advocacy group -- issues that have emerged as an early obstacle as she pursues a
long-shot bid for the Democratic Party's nomination.
I venture to guess, since Anne goes here several times. The 'militarists', unrelated
to LGBT, faction of the DNC will use LGBT comments from Gabbard's past...... to show she is
not liberal enough to defend the party's permanent war profiteering plank!
"... Darnell Strom, a Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to raise money for her campaign! Strom wrote (emphasis added): ..."
Searching the Podesta emails inside WikiLeaks we found a rather disturbing fact about Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced that
she will run for the 2020 US presidency. Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets at the time, sent an email on Aug. 2012
to Hillary Clinton top lobbyist, John Podesta, in order to thank him for his contribution to Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii.
Soltz wrote (emphasis added):
This morning, we are one step closer to making history. In Hawaii, VoteVets PAC-endorsed Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard has
won her primary, in a stunning come-from-behind victory. If she wins in November, she along with Tammy Duckworth (who we also
feel very good about), would be the first female combat veteran ever elected to Congress in United States history! This is
happening because of you. Your tens of thousands of dollars in donations for Tulsi's campaign, through VoteVets PAC , allowed
her to run a first-rate effort.
[...]
VoteVets Action Fund was the first group to step up to help her close that gap. In all, VoteVets Action Fund spent over
$317,000 promoting Tulsi's incredible biography . Now, we're even closer to sending another incredible veteran to Congress,
to add to the growing voice of today's progressive veterans in the halls of power. From all of us at VoteVets.org, I want to
thank you for helping to make this all possible .
While it's quite annoying the fact that one of the most promising progressives for the US presidency, have won back then, to some
extent, thanks to Podesta's money, it is clear that she didn't receive that money directly from Clinton's top lobbyist.
The money was used by VoteVets Action Fund to boost Gabbard's campaign, and there is no evidence that she had direct connections
with the Clinton mechanism.
Furthermore, there is additional evidence about the fact that Gabbard upset the elites inside the Democratic party, as she has
subsequently chosen to adopt more progressive positions and join permanently the Bernie Sanders progressive faction.
For example, Darnell Strom, a
Hillary Clinton fundraiser , sent an email to Tulsi Gabbard on Feb. 2016 to express his big disappointment about
the fact that she had chosen to endorse Bernie Sanders.
The tone of writing reveals a lot of anger for the fact that Gabbard had clearly chosen to join the Bernie Sanders camp instead
of that of Hillary Clinton. And it's quite impressive that in the end, Strom straightly clarifies that he will not help Gabbard to
raise money for her campaign!
Strom wrote (emphasis added):
We were very disappointed to hear that you would resign your position with the DNC so you could endorse Bernie Sanders,
a man who has never been a Democrat before . When we met over dinner a couple of years ago I was so impressed by your intellect,
your passion, and commitment to getting things done on behalf of the American people.
For you to endorse a man who has spent
almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments , doesn't fall in line with what we previously thought of you.
Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful
to Hillary Clinton . A woman who has spent the vast majority of her life in public service and working on behalf of women,
families, and the underserved. You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money,
we no longer trust your judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign .
This is probably the best proof that, at that moment, Tulsi Gabbard had cut ties with the Clinton mechanism permanently. A very
hopeful sign.
Recall that Gabbard
introduced
the Stop Arming Terrorists act to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being used to support terrorists. She is probably the
only one from the US Congress who dared to tell the truth about Syria by stating that " ... the US government has been violating
this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons,
intelligence and other support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. "
"... If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks. ..."
"Gabbard seems to think of international relations in a different register, seeing states as
rational agents pursuing their national interests – mainly in self-preservation and
self-defense. Academics call this way of thinking about geopolitics 'realism'; it is
old-fashioned Realpolitik projected onto the global stage .
If Gabbard's candidacy catches on enough for her to become a threat to prevailing interests
within the Democratic Party, expect to hear more about how her policies are of a piece with
Assad's, the demon of the hour, and also, of course with Vladimir Putin's, the devil incarnate
in the eyes not just of Clintonite liberals, but also of the anti-Trump "conservatives" who
have overrun CNN and MSNBC (=MSDNC), and of the national security state "experts" whom one sees
at all hours of the day and night on those increasingly unbearable cable networks.
Worse still, expect to hear more about how Gabbard's views coincide with Trump's. If anyone
really is the devil incarnate, he's the man. But face it: when he's right, he's right, and
compared to Clintonite Democrats, on more issues than foreign affairs – on trade, for
example -- he's often more right than they. Better a leftwing realist, which is what Gabbard
seems to be, than a Clintonite moralist." • Indeed.
"New Trump campaign hires to focus on convention delegates, party organization" [ Politico
]. "The new hires will help run the campaign's delegate and party organization arm, which is
waging an elaborate nationwide campaign to ensure the delegates selected to attend the
nominating convention are staunch White House allies -- not Never Trump Republicans.
The group
will be focused on delving into the granular state-by-state battles that will ensue in the
coming months and which will determine the composition of the convention delegation."
Taking Stock of Ukraine's Achievements Amidst Russia's Aggression
Five years ago, the Ukrainian people staged a peaceful "revolution of dignity" against a
corrupt regime sponsored by the Kremlin. They stood firm even under gunfire and it was the
discredited President Viktor Yanukovych who eventually retreated and took refuge in Russia.
With Moscow engaging in renewed attacks against Ukraine in the Sea of Azov it is important to
take stock of Ukraine's achievements since those fateful days in Kyiv's Independence
Square."
Talk about Orwellian double speak. Only Russiagaters would eat that **** up in their stupidity
.
pparalegal 10 hours ago (Edited)
Oligarchs, corporations and want to be psychopathic rulers
East and West run the political/ think tank know-it-all class. All profit by it. Governments
start wars, not people.
I am still waiting for an explanation of how the mythical beast New Russia will own the USA
and what they will do with it after that. If we don't bomb the s**t out of some third country
because we can. I am much more concerned about the in house mad cows we have elected to boss the
American public and take the gold out of my teeth for the greater good..
Helg Saracen 10 hours
ago (Edited)
I'm just curious. How many real estate over the past 15 years has been bought by the
Chinese in New York, Chicago and California? How many brands, businesses were bought by the
Chinese from the Americans? How many were "borrowed" technology? And how many Russians bought
(rich Jews from Russia cannot be taken into account, they came to their relatives, well, they
bought a little of everything)? :( 30 years ago, the USSR was communist, and the US was
capitalist, now Russia has become capitalist, and the USA (I don't even know how to say) has
become an elite club for financial bandits manipulating sheep under the name "American Nation".
Mantis964 6 hours ago
and the USA (I don't even know how to say) has become an elite club for
financial bandits manipulating sheep under the name "American Nation".
Even as an old timer, I am drawn to the arguments made by our "Dissident Right"(DR), who seek
to find a Third Way between destructive international capitalism and destructive
international socialism. That movement is Nationalism. Some might call it Fascism, though
that loaded term has become far too pejorative. It is not surprising that one of the heroes
of the US DR is Mr. Putin.
The people making the best oral arguments for this third way that I've listened to thus
far are Mike Enoch and Eric Striker. Do not dismiss them lightly. They are obviously highly
intelligent and their movement is growing. As young white males are increasingly marginalized
and oppressed by the dominant culture, they have nowhere else to go. Old-time GOP civic
nationalism is dead, killed by the Diversity Cult that they foolishly embraced. On their own,
after Trump, and given the snowballing demographic catastrophe, the GOP could never again win
another national election. At some point there will be an uprising, unless young
indoctrinated males have been become like frogs in slowly boiling water, who don't realize
they are being scalded alive until it is too late.
"... Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was - voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street. ..."
"... That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the environment, etc. ..."
"... Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our politics. ..."
"... Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war. ..."
The neoliberalism of the Democratic Party elite (and most of the rank and file) is one big
factor in our 2016 loss. Even voters too ignorant to see Trump for what he really was -
voters that are misinformed to the point that they unwittingly and continually vote against
their own best interests - realized how much the Dems have sold out to Wall Street.
HRC would have been nominated in '08 if she had kissed more Wall Street you-know-what.
That's why they anointed Obama who then proceeded to squander eight years of opportunity
to remove big money from politics and enact progressive reforms to health care, the
environment, etc.
Bernie is a bit long in the tooth, so I am all in for Liz Warren. She's the only one
with both the courage and the intelligence to take on the big money that controls our
politics.
Therefore, you can expect the Russian trolls to be coming for her in force. If you read
anything negative about Warren in the coming months, check the source and don't trust the
accuracy.
Sanders or Warren would mean a change from neoliberal war mongering of the Clinton/W
model. If the Democrats offer up another Clintonite they will lose. They need to offer
something positive to the 90% who have lost the last 40 years of class war.
"... The inquiry follows a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report said that Wells Fargo charged students the highest fees of 573 banks examined. ..."
"... "When granted the privilege of providing financial services to students through colleges, Wells Fargo used this access to charge struggling college students exorbitant fees," Warren said in a statement. "These high fees, which are an outlier within the industry, demonstrate conclusively that Wells Fargo does not belong on college campuses." ..."
Elizabeth Warren is demanding that Wells Fargo & Co. be kicked off college campuses, a market the bank has said is among its fastest-growing.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts and likely presidential candidate said Thursday that she requested more information
from Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer Tim Sloan and from 31 colleges where the bank does business. The inquiry follows a Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau report said that Wells Fargo charged students the highest fees of 573 banks examined.
"When granted the privilege of providing financial services to students through colleges, Wells Fargo used this access to charge
struggling college students exorbitant fees," Warren said in a statement. "These high fees, which are an outlier within the industry,
demonstrate conclusively that Wells Fargo does not belong on college campuses."
Warren has been a vocal critic of Wells Fargo -- including repeatedly calling for Sloan's ouster -- since a series of consumer
issues at the company erupted more than two years ago with a phony-accounts scandal.
Wells Fargo is "continually working to improve how we serve our customers," a bank spokesman said in an emailed statement Thursday.
"Before and since the CFPB's review on this topic, we have been pursuing customer-friendly actions that support students," including
waiving service fees on some checking accounts offered to them.
A reputation for overcharging students could further harm Wells Fargo's consumer-banking strategy. The San Francisco-based bank
has identified college-age consumers as a growth opportunity, and John Rasmussen, head of personal lending, said last year that Wells
Fargo
may expand into the refinancing of federal student loans.
Yep,
The party has circled its wagons.
They insist that the Evil Vlad stole the last election.
Therefore, no need to examine Obama's centrist/neoliberal policies and the socio-economic
conditions that fueled the rejection of Hillary.
We're doomed to repeat our errors.
The farcical DNC leadership echoes the days of Brezhnev's intransigent politburo.
This is the realistic perspective we have to adopt in the US: the Democratic establishment
is part of the neoliberal machinery that has generated Bush's wars, Obama's bank bailouts,
deportations, and drone executions, and now Trump's anti-democratic populism.
"... Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly stayed on-message. ..."
In regards to the Hillary v Bernie question, it also didn't help that the primary vote was
wildly skewed by so-called 'superdelegates,' who don't actually commit their votes until the
DNC convention, but were being counted by the media as having already voted for Hillary,
which made it appear to many of the uninformed that Bernie didn't have any chance of winning,
which may have been intended to keep Bernie supporters home on primary day under the
assumption that Hillary was unbeatable.
As sensible as your suggestions may be, what you're calling for would require at least three
constitutional amendments to be practical - including scrapping the first amendment.
Maybe we should strive towards attainable goals instead?
Didn't help that the ostensibly neutral DNC was sending emails saying that they should play
up Bernie Sanders' Jewish faith (among other attack strategies), fed debate questions to the
Clinton campaign or tried to limit opportunities for Bernie and Hillary to share a stage
together.
Bernie Sanders is widely considered by many to be one of the most popular American
politicians, more than Trump and certainly more popular than Hillary. I think an interesting
phenomenon to notice is the lengths the GOP, in particular, will go to in order to convince
the average voter that anything that cuts taxes is inherently good for the 'little guy,'
while anything that raises taxes is bad. Trump's recent tax cuts are a good example. Most of
the actual cuts go toward the corporations and ultra-wealthy, which just increases the
deficit while shifting the proportion of taxes paid onto the middle class. It's a con that
many Americans are inexplicably susceptible to believing, for some reason.
Progressive believe in inclusion and if that is "moralistic rhetoric" then so be it.
The litany goes "round and round.
Hillary Clinton:
" you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of
deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you
name it!
"Barack Obama:
"Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the
presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion "
Bernie's bid was crushed by Clinton's superdelegates. No amount of throwing money against him
in the direct sense was doing any good. He took popular positions on issues and stubbornly
stayed on-message.
Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country
is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and
reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things
in order to get more people to change their minds about that?
Both parties are content with being unpopular, but with political mechanisms ensuring they stay in power anyway. The Democrats
aren't concerned with being popular. They're content with being a token opposition party that every once in a while gets a few
token years with power they don't put to any good anyway. It pays more, I guess.
It still looks like if Americans want to live in a progressive country, they'll have to move to one. But as it is clear that the
neoliberalism of establishment Democrats has little or nothing to offer the poor and working class, or to non-wealthy millennials,
the times they are a-changing.
Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street
doesn't lose.
Notable quotes:
"... I like Tulsi Gabbard a lot. She knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral (if only she knew then what we know now). Also, it will be delicious to watch the Hillary mouthpieces and stooges - who contended that any criticism of Hillary Clinton was just down to her being female - attackdog Tulsi Gabbard, oblivious to their rancid hypocrisy. ..."
"... Warren's got many bridges and fences to mend with the US left but I think that she knows and that's why she's declared early. I think that she'll be the last progressive standing; that she should run with Sanders as her vice-president for 2020 and then with the now-of-age Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as vice-president for her second term. ..."
"... Tulsi Gabbard for president! Nobody's perfect but at least she isn't a lawyer! ..."
"... As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she worked. ..."
"... Wall Street gives money to the Dems not to help Dems win; it's to make sure Wall Street doesn't lose. ..."
"... That will allow capitalists to focus their attention on candidates such as Bernie
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries
......".
Yes and who's been on the end of media hit pieces recently? Not Booker, Harris, Gillibrand
and the like but Sanders, Warren and Gabbard.
I like Tulsi Gabbard a lot. She knew that Hillary Clinton was a real menace so she not
only endorsed Bernie Sanders but quit her vice-chair post at the DNC in order to do so since
the DNC laws insisted that the DNC stay neutral (if only she knew then what we know now).
Also, it will be delicious to watch the Hillary mouthpieces and stooges - who contended that
any criticism of Hillary Clinton was just down to her being female - attackdog Tulsi Gabbard,
oblivious to their rancid hypocrisy.
There actually is plenty to go on - Gabbard's links to Modi; her past comments about guns,
about immigration, about gay rights when she was under the wing of her Dad's jaundiced
outlook and her appalling comments about torture and that fictional 'ticking time bomb'
scenario - but that's as nothing (and a lot of it probably has crossover appeal and shows an
independent mind) compared to Hillary's decades of moral bankruptcy. Yet critiques of Clinton
were inherently sexist, apparently.
They've never forgiven Gabbard for her righteous stand against the moral hazard of the
Clintons. I think, and as others have said, that she's probably running for vice-president,
at best, or to lay the groundwork for future runs and/or obtain a cabinet position. For 2020,
Democrats will make it their business to take her down after they've invalidated Bernie
Sanders. The current trick is beautiful in its simplicity. They shriek that Sanders will be
divisive and their shrieking will be proof of that contention: quod erat demonstrandum.
Sanders and Gabbard would have a much, much easier time in the general election than in the
'kill switch' Democratic primaries. Those primaries will be brutal beyond belief.
Warren's got many bridges and fences to mend with the US left but I think that she knows
and that's why she's declared early. I think that she'll be the last progressive standing;
that she should run with Sanders as her vice-president for 2020 and then with the now-of-age
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as vice-president for her second term.
ID,
Could you be a conservative projecting your desire for the Dems to select a more
conservative candidate?
A progressive would stomp Trump in the rust belt if they ran on the issues where the
public agrees with progressives. Medicare for all. No more bullshit foreign wars. Do
something about higher education cost/debt. Decriminalize low-level pot offenses. Etc.
All it takes is disobeying the laws that corporate/Wall Street write for Dem
candidates.
I'm sure Wall Street will be quite happy to see the Republicans face some
purer-than-pure left wing candidate at the next Presidential election.
Bernie would have cleaned Trump's clock in the 2016 general election and Wall Street knows
it.
Trump would get curb-stomped by a genuinely left and competent candidate. It's the
standard issue GOP-Lite Democrat that will have a harder time against him (although probably
still win).
The best way to determine if one claims to be a Progressive is to fact-check the
candidate's claim.
The first and foremost question that should be asked and researched: Does this
candidate have as one of his or her top priorities to eliminate corporate/private/labor
money in politics? This would require a major federal campaign finance reform
law that would establish public funding for all campaigns, permanently bar corporate/labor
union/private-entity money (including funding media-attack ads) from any political influence
and require all broadcast/cable networks to allow every candidate equal air time to state his
opinions, policies, promises, and to state why he believes he is the best candidate for the
working class and/or corporations.
As well, such a law should permanently eliminate the revolving door through which
many politicians scamper to become a lobbyist for Wall Street after he "retires" from
politics and the law should block all former lobbyists from running for an office that would
have a bearing on legislation that would affect the corporation for which he or she
worked.
As well, such a law should bar any politicians or family members from purchasing or
selling stocks in corporate entities that would be affected by the legislation on which
the politician is working (insider trading).
Think about it. The lure of big bucks can, and does, corrupt politicians such that they
will work mainly for the donor (corporate, labor, and/or private) and provide for just enough
benefit politicians' the voters (America's working class) to make them think he cares most
about them. Much of that money is hidden in super-pacs where the donor's identity is hidden.
Too, super-pacs would have to be eliminated.
A Progressive should advocate for a large infrastructure project . Our bridges and
highways are now in a state of disrepair. Other nations such as Japan now have high-speed
bullet trains, the fastest so far is Shanghai Maglev and can travel 267.8 mph. The U.S.
has none.
Poverty would be a major focus of Progressives. Corporations will pay as little as
they can get by paying. So there must be a minimum wage boost to a living wage. To
keep corporations from moving to a part-time labor force with less pay, part-time workers
must make the same hourly wage as full time workers. As well, universal, proactive
healthcare must become law (Medicare for all).
Another major way to eliminate poverty would be to reform the income tax structure
such that those individuals whose income exceeds ~$10 million would be taxed at 70%. I would
also suggest that every dollar exchanged on the Stock Exchange would be taxed at 3%.
Using a greater influx of money into the public coffers, education should be a top
priority for lawmakers. College tuition in public schools would be no cost, thus
providing completely tuition free higher education and allowing every student equal
access. A major bill should be passed to provide money to modernize/upgrade all secondary
schools to provide a better learning environment for study. Every primary school should
have a child psychologist on staff. Every High School a psychologist as well as every public
college.
There are other Progressive policies--such as reversing the conservative's trickle-down
economics (also called supply-side economics) such that we return to demand-side
economics--that would be highly beneficial to the working class and to the future
intellectual strength of the U.S., especially by providing a course structure that equips
students to face the quick shift of industry to electronics and robotics. Currently, those
will little technical training are being left behind. We must end this or face a HUGE poorly
educated working class that will have no place to work.
Quite likely, both the RNC and the DNC (Wall Street's favorite politicians) will be
against such measures. They'd rather have more billionaires and an unfettered Wall Street
than eliminate poverty. The only way, however, to have a truly just society is to push
for and vote for a progressive government. But before any of the above can happen, we MUST
eliminate corporate/private/labor money from our government.
If he can only succeed in a positive environment then there's not much hope for him, he needs to be able to fight and prove
he's got what it takes. As it is I'm not sure he's got it.
That's not what I said at all and you know it.
Last time, the only stories that the NYTimes and (mostly) the Guardian could manage to run were Bernie-negative
stories. The NYTimes has already begun the exact same campaign for the 2020 cycle. By comparison, the Guardian
has been providing balanced Bernie coverage.
Do not count on the mainstream media to support him. They're already hard at work smearing him and he hasn't even announced yet.
Half the time they dont even mention him as being a likely contender. It's Biden all day, all night. Might as well be Hillary
again.
Expect 2020 to be quite contentious, possibly even more than 2016. That just means as a supporter of Bernie you'll have to
work twice, maybe three times as hard. The corporate media is going to suppress and challenge him as much as possible. They don't
even mask it anymore.
[Jan 16, 2019] Corporatism is the control of government by big business. This is what we have in the USA today. The main difference between corporatism and fascism is the level of repressions against opposition. Corporatism now tales forma of inverted totalitarism and use ostracism instead of phycal repressions
That is why we need a Constitutional amendment to get the money OUT of politics. Make bribery illegal. THEN, we will not need
Wall Street, which doesn't serve MOST of the population of this country, and is mostly responsible for the wealth gap and lack
of opportunities for most of the population.
I'm not fooled. These are not progressives, they are corporatists, beholden to their donors. They have no courage, no interest
in serving their constituencies, but are only interested in the power and money. What our country , and the world, needs is radical
change from the profit-first point of view. I won't support either one of them.
These corporate-Dem candidates are not being forced to sell out to win elections. Quite the
opposite in fact. They are risking losing their elections for the sake of selling out.
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
"... Here's a good reason to support Tulsi Gabbard. Look at who opposes her. Jacob Wohl Claims Everyone In The Pro-Israel Lobby, Including Himself, Will Interfere With Tulsi Gabbard's Campaign She's taking flak from the Enemy of Mankind. ..."
"... Soon, if Trump keeps the government shutdown, those idled federal workers just might be seen in the streets. ..."
"... "The very conditions Macron strove so very hard to bring about in Damascus and that France DID help bring about in Kiev are now rocking the very foundations of the French Republic." ..."
"... Metaphorically, Rome burns while Nero and his Senators fiddle ..."
George Galloway
weighs in on the chaos engulfing the Empire in Washington, London and Paris. The
Neoliberal ship is foundering while the uplifting of people-based policies of Russia and
China keep them on track to reach their aims. Soon, if Trump keeps the government
shutdown, those idled federal workers just might be seen in the streets. George has a
penchant for connecting things, and had this to say about Macron:
"The very conditions Macron strove so very hard to bring about in Damascus and that
France DID help bring about in Kiev are now rocking the very foundations of the French
Republic."
The false flag of Austerity--Neoliberalism preying on its own as was predicted at its
beginnings is what we're witnessing, while the actors that created the situation cling with
bloody hands to the ship of state unwilling to surrender the wheel to those who might salvage
the situation.
Metaphorically, Rome burns while Nero and his Senators fiddle .
Mueller investigation is a continuation of JFK assassination by other means.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. ..."
"... Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation, unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates. ..."
"... It was the Obama administration which had given the FBI access to this tool : ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system. Trump's election was almost certainly arranged ..."
"... Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton? ..."
"... "I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people." ..."
"... the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us. ..."
"... There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt; the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal enterprise. ..."
"... "Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system." ..."
"... In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting. ..."
"... Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached. And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?). ..."
"... Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any. Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons. ..."
"... "Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an "IC-coordinated" assessment -- the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI -- while analysts from all three agencies were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department." ..."
"... Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network ... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays? ..."
"... For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd. ..."
"... To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British. ..."
"... The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center of constitutional legitimacy. ..."
"... Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells stage one collapse. ..."
"... Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc. ..."
"... My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary (and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. ..."
Despite the loss of major narratives, the war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated. The main of tool
in this war are allegations of relations between Trump and anything Russia. The war runs along several parallel paths.
The narrative war in the media is most visible one. When any of the fake stories about Trump and Russia gets debunked and disposed,
new ones are created or others intensified.
In parallel to these propaganda efforts the deep state created an investigation that Trump has no way to escape from. Enabled
by one of the Obama administrations last acts the investigation is using signal intelligence to entrap and flip the people surrounding
Trump (see section three below). The big price will be Trump himself. Here we take a look at what transpired during the last weeks.
One major anti-Trump narrative was that 'Russian influence' helped to put him into office. This was based on the alleged nefarious
influence a Russian clickbait company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) in St. Peterburg, had on the U.S. electorate. That explanation
never made sense. Little of the IRA activities had to do with the election. It used sockpuppets on Facebook and Twitter to attract
people to websites filled with puppy pictures or similar nonsense. The IRA would then sell advertisement and promotions on these
sites.
This
was obvious for anyone following the factual content of the news instead of the 'opinions' a whole bunch of anti-Trump 'experts'
and the media formed around them.
That the Mueller investigation finally indicted several of the IRA's officers over minor financial transactions was seen as a
confirmation of the political aspects of the IRA activities. But nearly all the reporting left out that Mueller
confirmed the commercial intent behind the IRA and its activities. There is nothing political in the accusations. Indeed point
95 of the Mueller
indictment
of the IRA says:
Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions
and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain
U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false
U.S. persona accounts , including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.
Part of the false narrative of a political influence campaign was the claim that the $100,000 the IRA spent for advertisement
to promote its clickbait webpages through Facebook ads somehow moved people to vote for Trump. But 56% of the IRA ads ran after the
election, 25% of all its ads were never seen by anyone. How a few $10,000 for ads only few saw moved an election that was fought
with several billions spent by each candidate's campaign was left unexplained.
[T]he common understanding is that Russia's interference efforts included sophisticated targeting of specific voting groups on
Facebook, which could have made the difference in states that Trump narrowly won on his way to an electoral-vote victory.
That understanding about Russia's sophisticated targeting, though, is not supported by the evidence -- if it's not flat-out
wrong.
...
Most of the ads purchased by the Russians didn't specify a geographic target smaller than the United States on the whole, according
to a Post review of the ads released by the House Intelligence Committee. Those that did target specific states heavily targeted
those that weren't really considered targets of the 2016 election, such as Missouri and Maryland. And of those ads that did target
specific states, most happened well before or well after the final weeks of the campaign.
All the claims that some Russian sockpuppets influenced the 2016 elections were and are nonsense. The IRA sockpuppets never had
any political intent.
Likewise the allegations that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and Clinton crony Podesta's email are mere assertions for which
no hard evidence was ever provided. The only known fact is that the emails and papers were real, and that there content revealed
the shoddiness of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and her campaign.
Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. Last week
the New York Times claimed that Paul Manafort, who for some time ran the Trump election campaign, gave public and internal
polling data to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska:
Manafort Accused
of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate . A day after that sensational claim made a large splash throughout U.S.
media the New York Times recanted:
CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT
AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported. We have corrected the story & I deleted a tweet repeating the error.
Duh. Manafort gave polling data to his Ukrainian fixer Konstantin Kilimnik with the request to pass it along to Ukrainian oligarchs
for who he had worked before joining the Trump campaign. Kilimnik had long
worked for the International Republican Institute office in Moscow. The IRI is a CIA offshot under Republican Party tutelage
that is used to influence politics abroad. Its long time head was the deceased hawkish Senator John McCain. While he worked with
Kilimnik in the Ukraine, Manafort concentrated on moving the Ukraine towards the European Union and away from Russia. His and Kilimnik
efforts were always opposed to Russian interests. But the NYT and others falsely
try to pass them off as the opposite
with the sole purpose of feeding the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign.
Another anti-Trump/anti-Russian propaganda effort is a new sensational NYT piece on obvious misbehavior in the upper rows
of the FBI :
In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the
president's behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests
, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.
The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions
constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for
Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The NYT lets it seem as if the decision to launch a counter-intelligence investigation related to Trump was as based
on some reasonable suspicion the FBI had. It was not. This was an act of revenge by the upper anti-Trump echelons in the FBI with
which they attempted to undermine Trump's presidency. Note what the claimed suspicion was based on:
Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference
in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign
trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention
platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.
Other factors fueled the F.B.I.'s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former
British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials
tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.
Trump made a joke during the election campaign asking Russia to release the 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton had deleted from her
illegal private email server. There is no requirement, as far as I know, for any candidate to criticize this or that country. How
can not following the non existing requirement to criticize Russia be suspicious? The Republican Party did not soften its convention
platform on Ukraine. It rejected an amendment that would have further sharpened it. Overall the Republican platform was
more hawkish than the Democratic one. The
Steele dossier was of course from A to Z
made up nonsense paid for
by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is non sensible to claim that these were reasonable suspicions sufficient to open a counter-intelligence investigation. The
hasty FBI move to launch a counter-intelligence operation obviously had a different motive and aim.
Strzok and Page sent other text messages that raise the possibility they were discussing opening up a counterintelligence investigation
against Trump before Comey's firing.
"And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting ," Strzok wrote to Page on the day of Comey's
ouster.
Andy is Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy FBI director.
Page gave some indication in her congressional testimony in July 2018 that the text message was a reference to an investigation
separate from the obstruction probe that has already been reported.
Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it
did not do so at all :
In the case of the investigation into Trump, the FBI's decision to open a file on the president so quickly after Comey's firing
in May 2017 was a source of concern for some officials at the Justice Department because the FBI acted without first consulting
leadership at the department . But those worries were allayed when, days later, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was appointed
to oversee the Russia probe ...
After Comey was fired, the FBI made a very hasty move, without reasonable suspicion and without informing the Justice Department,
to launch a counter-intelligence operation involving the sitting president and his administration. What was the real purpose of this
move?
Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation,
unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates.
On his way out the door, we all were wallowing in our winter of discontent, Obama signed an executive order...
...
The order revised the rules around intelligence sharing among our intel community. Specifically, it made the firehose of raw intelligence
collected by the NSA directly accessible to the FBI and CIA. Instead of having to ask for intel and getting what they filtered
down the FBI and CIA could directly access the unfiltered "SigInt" or signals intelligence. Intercepted phone calls, emails, raw
intel from human sources. Everything our vast intelligence vacuum hoovers up, available directly... but only for counterintel
and foreign intel purposes .
The NSA can sit on virtually every communication into and out of the U.S. that takes place over networks. Obama made it possible
for the FBI to directly access everything they had on Trump, et al. Obama supercharged the FBI's ability to investigate Trump.
The Obama administration
enacted the changed executive order EO 12333 in early January 2017, shortly before Trump took over:
Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or
the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.'s analysts passed on only information
they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.
Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by
the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for "minimizing" privacy intrusions.
...
[T]he 12333 sharing procedures allow analysts, including those at the F.B.I., to search the raw data using an American's identifying
information only for the purpose of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigations , not for ordinary criminal cases.
And they may do so only if one of several other conditions are met, such as a finding that the American is an agent of a foreign
power.
However, under the rules, if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to
the Justice Department.
At that time Peter Lee, aka Chinahand,
already had the suspicion
that Obama was behind the FBI campaign against Trump.
With the changes in EO 12333 Obama gave the FBI the ability to launch a world wide snooping operation against the incoming Trump
administration under the guise of a 'counter-intelligence' operation. The hasty FBI move after Comey was fired activated this instrument.
The Mueller investigation has since used it extensively. 'Crimes' revealed through the snooping operation are turned over to the
Justice Department.
The NYT claim that the counter-intelligence investigation was initiated because of reasonable suspicion of Russian influence
over Trump is nonsense. It was initiated to get access to a set of tools that would allow unlimited access to communication of Trump
and anyone related to him. It was Obama who on his way out of the door gave the FBI these capabilities.
There are signs that the unlimited access the FBI and Mueller investigation have to signal intelligence is used to create prosecutions
via ' parallel construction ':
An active counterintel investigation means the Trump Administration's crimes were only as secure as the weakest link in their
weakest moment. We got hints of this early. Our intelligence folks picked up "signals intelligence" or SigInt from Russians talking
to Russians.
Those "signals" aren't the kind of evidence that finds its way into a courtroom. In fact, it's important that it doesn't. It would
burn sources and methods. It lays out the crimes and the players though... and then prosecutors find ways to make triable cases
other ways .
The public sees cases for specific charges carrying significant prison time without ever knowing that the NSA and prosecutors
knew so much more than they ever revealed. Now, apply those principles to the cases we've seen Mueller bring forward so far.
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was
confronted with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There'd
be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn
goes down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He's savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that's left to do
is make the case.
...
The 'crime' that di Flynn in was misremembering a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador. Similar happened with Rick Gates,
Paul Manafort's righthand man and a member of Trump's transition team. Then it happened to Paul Manafort himself and to George Papadopoulos.
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat and email
any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites people as witnesses
and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller has the transcript ready.
A crime has been created and an indictment for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to Flynn and the others the Mueller
investigation entrapped and convicted.
Because of the counter-intelligence investigation the anti-Trump gang in the FBI hastened to initiate, the investigators got hands
on signal intelligence - phone calls, chats and emails - that allowed them to indict minor people for petty crimes and to flip them
to talk to the investigation.
The aim, in the end, was and is to build a prosecution case against President Trump for whatever minor and petty half-backed illegal
doing there may be.
To make such a prosecution and an indictment publicly palpable the media is assigned with launching story after story about nefarious
relations between Trump and anything Russia.
As we have seen above with the IRA story, the retracted NYT 's Manafort bang, and the NYT's false claims about
the motive of the FBI's counter-intelligence investigation, none of these stories hold up to diligent scrutiny. Today's Washington
Post adds another example of no-beef stories that insinuate mystic 'Russian influence' over Trump:
President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin
, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to
discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
The rest of the story largely refutes the claim made in its headline and very first sentence:
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
...
Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin ..
...
In an email, Tillerson said that he " was present for the entirety of the two presidents' official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,"...
After Trump had a first White House meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Washington, lots of leaks about the talk
appeared in the DC media. Trump was accused of giving information about an ISIS plot to the Russians that was allegedly secret.
It was not . Since then Trump clamped down on the number of participants, briefings and readouts for such talks. That is simply
a necessary and laudable behavior. Now the media try to construct that into 'Trump is concealing details' about talks with Russia
even when the U.S. Secretary of State and others are present in these.
Ever since Trump won the Republican primaries, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration and the U.S. and British intelligence
services prepared to prevent a successful Trump presidency. The Steele dossier, created by 'former' British intelligence agents and
paid for by the Clinton campaign, was the basis for an FBI investigation that was seen
as
an insurance against a Trump win. Any possible Russia relations Trump might have came under scrutiny. This prevented him from
fulfilling his campaign promise of coming to better relations with Russia.
Shortly before Obama left the office he created the tool the FBI needed to put its investigation on steroids. When Trump fired
Comey for his handling of the Clinton email affair, the FBI put that tool into action. With unfettered access to signal intelligence
the Mueller investigation was able to entrap a number of Trump related people and to flip them to its side. It will use any information
they give up to find some angle under which Trump can be prosecuted and eventually impeached. Even if nothing comes off this investigations,
the media reports and slander all this created may well be enough to prevent an election of Trump for a second term.
I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign
the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people. Unfortunately I see no way
that Trump could escape from the hold it has gained over him. Exposing it as much as possible might well be his best defense.
It is information that is put out there that is never cross checked by the American people. They are too busy, too involved
with other things or too stupid to find out the true facts. It is hard to predict what will occur next year. I
feel it all depends who wins the primary on the Democrat side.
[Trump] ... was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since
run against him undermines the will of the people.
There is a major flaw in reasoning here. Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system.
Trump's election was almost certainly arranged:
The anti-Russia campaign began in earnest in 2014 (well before the 2016 election);
Trump's pre-election relationship to the Clinton's is highly suspect: they were likely to be much closer than we have
been led to believe;
An FBI informant worked for Trump for over 10 years - during the time that Mueller was FBI director;
Trump was the ONLY populist on the Republican side (out of 19 contenders!);
Sanders was a 'sheepdog'
and Hillary ran a terrible campaign in which she made obvious mistakes that a seasoned campaigner like herself would never
make;
British involvement in the election (Fusion GPS, Cambridge Analytica, a Brit 'spy' in the Sanders campaign, etc.) suggests
CIA-MI6 working together;
Trump Administration policies are consistent those of Clinton-Bush-Obama:
> Obamacare was not repealed "on day one" - it has been strengthened by not defending coverage for prior conditions;
> Trump put TPP provisions into his new North American trade deal;
> Trump continues ME meddling;
> Trump continues militarism and tax cutting;
> Etc.
The only major "difference" that I can think of are Trump's Wall and China tariffs. But these are consistent with the 'Deep
State' goals.
Surveys show that the "will of the people" is very different than the neoliberal, neoconservative policies that the establishment
fosters upon us.
MAGA is a POLICY CHOICE as much as it is a campaign slogan. It is designed to meet the challenge posed by Russia and China
and 'turn the page' on the deceit and duplicity of the Obama Administration just as Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" was designed
to turn the page on the the militarism of the Bush Administration. These BI-PARTISAN page-turnings ensure that there is no accountability
and provides each new Administration with a new sly story line that the public readily swallows. Each new Presidential charade
entertains and misdirects as the interests of the Empire are advanced with a refreshed box of tricks and dishonest narratives.
...war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated.
Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose
people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton?
The war of the Deep State is a psyop to crush dissent as the butt-hurt Deep State continues to pursue their dream of global
hegemony. Anyone that believes that Trump is no part of that psyop is delusional.
Wow, man. Thanks to you and all the regulars here who contribute to gathering relevant info from all kinds of sources. I hate
to repeat myself, but I feel that a little praise every 3 or 6 months is not too much spamming. This is what serious journalism
looks like.
Zachary Smith @2: ... I just don't buy into the "insurance" theory.
And I don't buy the theory that Hillary is hell bent on war. The Clinton's are very rational and calculating and no President has the freedom that your theory suggests. IMO what the Deep State has done under their man Trump is very similar to what the Deep State would have done if they had selected
Clinton instead. The fact is, a populist nationalist is what was deemed necessary to meet the challenge from Russia and China. And that is what
we got (surprise!).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Furthermore, focusing on personality and Party is just what they want
"Watch what they do, not what they say" has a corollary: pay attention to the polices, not the politicians.
"I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign
the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people."
This pretty well sums it up for me. Being old enough to remember FDR and the brief rise of the middle class in the 40's, 50's
and 60's (and having benefited from that attempt at leveling the playing field), I am more than saddened at the downward spiral
of our nation. Politics have obviously never been clean and fair, but the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant
depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us.
Of course b you have nothing here to offer except your opinion. Your views regarding the relentlessness of the US criminal justice
system are on target, just ask the underclasses about that. Once in view, you are never let be and in the US everyone can be found
guilty of something.
Rather nice to see the pampered son of inherited tax-free wealth on the receiving end for once, in my opinion.
Trump is a crook. Russian collusion is his smokescreen. His crimes have already been demonstrated through what little we already
know and there is still much we don't know and probably never will know.
This essay reads something like a veiled mea culpa from you.
You were wrong about Trump from the get go. Why not just admit it and move along? Why remain steadfastly in thrall to any shred
of rightwing, authoritarianism of the elite masquerading as populism?
Whatever Trump gets from the criminal justice system, Congress or the voters appears to be well-deserved. He has brought this
on himself and really there is no one else to blame even as he never will accept responsibility. He is stupid at best, dishonest
at best, a useful idiot at best.
Trump saved his ass financially after a series of disastrous business bankruptcies by accepting what appears by all indications
to be laundered money from literally hundreds of anonymous shell companies investing in his condos since at least 2008.
He has run roughshod over the emoluments clause quite openly.
I do believe, knowing what we know now, he will probably avoid indictment and escape impeachment, maybe only through resignation/pardon
but more likely the old fashioned way: defeat at the polls in 2020.
In many ways Trump has done some good by reinvigorating the US left (such as it is) and bringing at least enough cohesion in
the ranks of a badly splintered populace mainly among white females and white college educated voters who now reject the GOP,
or at least the GOP of Trump.
Whether this will lead to badly needed fixes for the heinous wealth inequality (started with Reagan) is doubtful but at least
the conversation is now underway (started with Bernie) which is the first step.
Tax increases, social security stabilisation, re-funneling wasted MIC billions to domestic programs for the poor, etc.
It is a start. Will it become a solution or a revolution in time?
That is up to the people who are still under the yoke of neoliberalism and global capital flight.
re:
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was confronted
with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There'd be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn goes
down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He's savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that's left to do is
make the case.//
So the situation is worse than I thought. The clear inference is that (1) Flynn (and others) really did commit some major crimes,
and then (2) got off easy by admitting to a memory lapse (3) while cooking a bunch of other gooses.
Flynn does the easy (2) and gets away with (1) and (3), both very serious. This is justice?
As you may recall, the woman threatened conflict on cyberattacks.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack," the Democratic
presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses."
Regarding the Deep State and Trump, Syria is in the process of winning against the neocons. And Iran has not yet been attacked.
Hillary has a record, and for the most part hasn't even tried to run away from it.
thanks b... the topic is so very tiring.. i am sick of hearing about it.. if the usa fell off a cliff and never came back again
- i would be fine with that.. thank you regardless, for taking it apart and trying ti dispel the bullshite.. it is so thick, it
defies logic.. i agree with @1 jose garcia, and @4 radiator...
trump is a crook... so what? most of the business class in the west are at this point! politics and crookery go hand in hand...
i would be surprised if it was any different at this point in time.. how about the intel agencies? you want to sleep with them?
lol..
There's either something wrong with this assumption, or something we're not being told...
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat
and email any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites
people as witnesses and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller
has the transcript ready. A crime has been created and an indiction for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to
Flynn and the others the Mueller investigation entrapped and convicted.
Option 1. Something wrong?
If you're being cross-examined in a court or pseudo-legal forum about things you may or may not remember, you have the right to
decline to answer a question, or to preface any and every answer with the phrase "If I remember correctly blah blah blah..."
Option 2. Something we're not being told?
If the interrogators were able to ambush Flynn, then it's probably because they didn't acquaint him with all of his rights, or
he didn't have a lawyer with him.
Trump's not stupid. He won't blunder into a situation bereft of any semblance of legal Human Rights protections designed to
ambush him. And if he can't have a lawyer with him when the questions start, then he can probably refuse to attend without breaking
any law.
@donkeytale There has been close to three years of serious investigative intent to lay a glove on Trump (HRC's team, the FBI and
Mueller) and there is only the merest scratch of a womaniser (which with three marriages doesn't come as a surprise). What is
quite remarkable, despite all the investigative effort, is how clean Trump has managed to keep himself despite building a fortune
in one of the toughest cities in the world, building himself up through the eras of the five families, junk bonds and ponzi schemes
and soviet union mobsters, not to mention the corruption of the poltical classes and regulatory abuses and unionised labor.
For the world's he moves in, the only explanation that gives him enough protection is that for a long time Trump has been a
protected FBI asset for one of the field offices, possibly now senior service figures. And it's this deep relationship with well
connected parts of the FBI or other secret services that has given him the ability to steer past the various attempts by the deep
state. Why, for instance, do we have such a lot of leakage of the inner workings of the anti-Trump FBI? Some part of the deep
state has become disgusted at the spying (eg on congress), the blackmailing, the warmongering, and deep corruption of the anti-constitutionalists,
and Trump is their vengence. You just have to decide which side you are on...
I read that as Testing - perhaps a trial/demonstration as a professional troll for somebody or other. How else to interpret "only the merest scratch of a womaniser" or "how clean Trump has managed to keep himself". Maybe I'm
surprised not to also see praise for the clever Government Shutdown.
meanwhile..trump and his appointees attack legitimacy of Venezuela govt.
Trump is in bad odor at home while seeking to attack other govts.
' Washington has explicitly expressed its support for a potential coup against the elected Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro,
by offering its backing to the opposition and stating outright it was time for a "new government."
"The Maduro regime is illegitimate and the United States will continue ... to work diligently to restore a real democracy"
to Venezuela, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on his trip to the Middle East on Saturday, adding that Washington
would attempt to make the Latin American nations "come together to deliver that."' https://www.rt.com/news/448673-us-venezuela-time-new-government/
One thing the US deep state and their muller proxy would have on Trump, and most if not all of Trump's team, is collusion with
Israel (can this convert into charges of treason as threats). A weapon that is good for threats against and turning those around
Trump, and possibly used in as a last resort to remove Trump.
Adding to my post @ 18
Pat Lang has a post up "What is wrong with Trump?" "But, how does one explain his lack of action on the border? Does someone or
some thing in Russia, Israel, the UK, his former business associates, have something really juicy on Trump, something that he
fears to unleash through decisive action? pl"
Collusion with Israel is something neither side - team Trump and the deep state - would wish to bring into the open, but this
may be the only thing they have on Trump.
"On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike
Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-Elect Donald Trump.
On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported
on a recommendation in "October" that [NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his
NSA position:
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's
intelligence community have recommended to President
Obama that the director of the National Security
Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military
officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled
to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump
Tower.
Occam's Razor. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
didn't want to participate in the spying scheme [on
Trump]
(Clapper, Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for
President Obama's post presidency efforts to undermine
Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into
[who knows what crimes]"
After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers. There is considerable irony in the Mueller 'probe' and the continuing avalanche of MSM lies and evasions and spin etc pertaining
to Trump.
There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt;
the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations
remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal
enterprise.
Serious criminality at the highest levels of the FBI is now far more obvious to far more people
MSM as evil propaganda is more widely understood.
It is understood widely that the DNC material to Wikileaks was not 'hacked' (Binney)
From the theintercept.com :
"Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower
who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community's
official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year's theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former
officials argue that the DNC data was "leaked," not hacked, "by a person with physical access" to the DNC's computer system."
In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and
Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting.
The Internet Research Agency (IRA) paid $100,000 for Facebook ads and then charged its customers for the clickbait service (between
25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content). So even if the IRA didn't manage to make a profit, the net cost for them must have been much lower than $100,000. Does anyone
know how much revenue it made from that operation? Facebook must know but they've kept quiet about it. Same with Mueller.
Thank you, b. I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around. A very rotten duopoly has taken over the US government,
all based on the premise that money is speech and money runs government, the people be damned. Hence the shutdown being orchestrated
by money, with Trump in the crosshairs.
I also very much adhere to your final paragraph's sentences. Let no one be in any doubt - what is underway is no less than
traitorous activity, a clear violation of the US Constitution, motivated by corrupt individuals whose meanness is beyond dispute.
How it can be redressed at this very late stage beggars the mind; I can only hope it be done as peacefully as possible.
If this is really true, then it's a clear sign of decline: Obama sacrificed a huge chunk of American freedom just for the sake
of personal political revenge. The USA is transitioning from a laissez faire to a highly burocratized, byzantine economy.
Shortly after the USSR's experiment with communism collapsed, I read an article which suggested that if the noise from that fall
was loud, even louder will be the noise when the second shoe (the American experiment with capitalism) falls.
And this is the crux of why I appreciate The Donald. His is the most honest face the US can present to the world at this point
in time. So look at it closely, and marvel at where we have come to.
I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around.
LOL (first time I've ever written this!)
You made the same mistake I did in 2008. The deck was really stacked in that election, though I was too blind to see it at
the time. Smiling & smooth-talking black face issuing zillions of promises, and this was right after the Codpiece Commander. It
took me a whole year to realize I'd been suckered, and by 2012 understood the fix was STILL on. Obama had lost most all of his
glitter by then, so the Power Elites arranged his opposition to be a financial predator/Mormon bishop paired up with the most
awful Libertarian POS I've ever seen. Speaking the honest truth here, I'd prefer to have Sarah Palin as POTUS to Paul Ryan. What
a combo! That's why I offered anybody I met 10:1 odds on Obama winning. Hillary thought she had had seen a winning pattern from
all that, and arranged to have as her opponent a fellow named Donald Trump.
@15 Zachary Smith "How else to interpret 'only the merest scratch of a womaniser' or 'how clean Trump has managed to keep himself'."
Zachary Smith, I have been posting here for a number of years, and on this I have to agree with the newcomer Tess Ting
Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached.
And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?).
To my mind Trump is a very offensive human being, but that isn't an impeachable character trait.
I had assumed that he would have skeletons in his cupboard that would be grounds for impeachment.
Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any.
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
As I say, that is extraordinary.
But - apparently - also true.
Blooming Barricade , Jan 13, 2019 9:21:09 PM |
link
Astonishing how out in the open the military coup plotting against Venezuela is right now, it was consisted an outrage to overthrow
Allende and that was even before direct proof of US involvement, now the anti-war and left wing consciousness of the public and
the intellectual class has been so corroded that nobody care and many even see an attempted coup as a god thing. The ideological
counter revolution in full swing.
@ Yeah, Right who wrote:
"
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
"
I would just bring your attention to the possibility that bringing Trump down brings them down as well. Your assertion that
Trump doesn't have any skeletons in the closet is laughable.
Also consider that most of what is known comes from compromised sources and much of the house of cards we live is built on
sketchy assumptions.
Cui Bono for Trump?
I am beginning to understand how Trump fits the elite plan and instead of your "grab them by the pussy" thought change it to
"they have him by the balls". They played his ego to get him to run the race and then, gee, he won.
I now see Trump as the last great hope of the elite to carve out as big a chunk as they can of the new world....and try and
hold onto it. The ongoing proxy conflicts will keep the musical chair game playing for a bit more but then something is going
to stop the music.
A shrink told me once that after fire came music. What comes after music?
How did I know that you would be first up after b's exhaustive story on the IC's corruption and utterly obvious attempt to
take Trump down to cry, "Fiction."
Here is a reply to all your points:
- yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there
would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence
of THEIR stupidity.
- you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like them
at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable to
recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once
again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here.
- How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig up
dirt?
- Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly
indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor).
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they consistently
step over quarters to pick up pennies.
- Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies align
and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good.
- British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized planning.
Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot.
If Trump's corporate bankruptcies are so well-known, and picked over several times by different media sources (even Snopes
has covered them), surely any other behaviour or incident that might call Trump's character or ethics into question must have
been uncovered by Robert Mueller by now?
I can't imagine the scale of exploding heads among the media talking heads and the establishment of the two parties, IF, Trump
gets re-elected. DC would be in serious melt down. After 4 years of continuous assault the voters may actually repudiate the corporate
media and the DC elites in the 2020 elections.
In any case with the Democrat candidates starting to announce we are essentially into the next presidential campaign. I don't
think it is smart to under-estimate Trump's electoral chances.
"Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it did
not do so at all:"This sounds like the same "kangaroo court" MO Scott Ritter detailed a few years ago:
"Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an "IC-coordinated" assessment -- the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly
involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia
NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI -- while analysts from all three agencies
were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision
of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department."
Why does it have to be either-or?; it could have been for insurance AND warmongering narrative/dog whistling.
Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network
... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays?
NemesisCalling @31: Here is a reply to all your points
Well, you haven't replied to all my points, nor have you addressed the the thrust of my remarks. But I'll answer the issues
that you raised so my view is clear to everyone.
= - yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there
would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence
of THEIR stupidity. Wrong. Firstly, I was referring to the anti-Russia imperative in official circles NOT to the propaganda effort. That imperative
intensified greatly after Russia blocked USA-proxy takeover of Syria (2013), and Crimea and Donbas (2014). In fact,
Kissinger
wrote a WSJ Op-Ed in Aug 2014 that issued a cryptic call for MAGA.
"picking up steam before Trump's election" needs some unpacking. The anti-Russia fervor among the masses has been
entirely concocted, and mostly AFTER 2014.
Nothing has stuck to Trump because there's no substance to the allegations.
= - you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like
them at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable
to recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once
again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here. What does Occam's Razor have to say about the remarkable continuity of US foreign and domestic policy for the last 30 years?
Trump and the Clintons were known to be close. Even their daughter's were/are close.
Are you unaware of the CIA connections of Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Should we assume that Trump is free of any such connection?
= - How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig
up dirt? The FBI informant (Felix Sater) worked for Trump from about 2001 to 2013. This was essentially the same period in which Mueller
was FBI Director. Mueller and Comey are close and are connected to the Clinton's.
The informant wasn't investigating Trump or digging up dirt on him, he was informing on the Russian mob, and probably using
employment by Trump to get closer to the mob. FBI/counter intel might have also used info provided to turn some of the Russians
into US intel assets.
= - Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly
indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor). Have you heard of the Tea Party? Have you heard of Obama using the IRS against the Tea Party? Seems that a Republican populist
would get a lot of votes against the hated Hillary who championed Obama's "legacy".
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they
consistently step over quarters to pick up pennies. You can't admit that the Dem's have failed the left so consistently that it is unlikely to be due to their mental capacity
or an accident of circumstance.
= - Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies
align and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good. I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations
and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
= - British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized
planning. Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot The US IC is undoubtedly primary and universally acknowledged to be the lead in the US-Brit Intel relationship.
The only 'contest' I can discern is how best to fool the people.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
You seem to believe that a populist outsider can be elected President. And, you also believe that a US President can be both
all powerful (Obama) or constrained by Deep State whim (Trump).
You also seem to believe that Trump's rhetoric is gospel-truth and means what you think it does. Surprise! "Negotiation with
Russia" doesn't mean peace. Troop 'pull out' doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon (and possibly never). Anti-TPP doesn't mean
he won't implement TPP provisions in other trade agreements. Etc.
PS The establishment doesn't benefit DESPITE our populist President's, they benefit BECAUSE we are willing to believe that
our populist President's work for US.
Jr, it was a fruitless endeavor, to be sure, but I gave it a shot.
For the record, I never counted Trump as savior, although he could very well be if he continues on getting caught with his
dick in his hand as the empire around him crumbles. He's not a true believer, but he can at the very least be a useful idiot for
the real anti-imperialists in the world.
It is of note that Oleg Deripaska is not a stranger to the world of politics and politicians. Before his fortunes changed dramatically,
Oleg Deripaska was well-known for entertaining world politicians on his luxury yacht moored off Kassiopi in the northwest corner
of the Greek Island of Corfu.
The Rothschilds have an estate outside Kassiopi. Among the many high-powered friends and guests
of Deripaska was UK Tory politician, George Osborne, who visited him on his yacht at Kassiopi while still British Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Osborne and EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson, a powerful force in Tony Blair's government, were both guests at a
function held aboard the yacht in 2008. Baron Mandelson's position in the EU, at the time, led to accusations of a conflict of
interest.
Among other movers and shakers, John McCain was also a friend of Oleg Deripaska, but that friendship may have soured
after the virtual collapse of the Russian billionaire companies. McCain was more a fairweather friend than a stalwart ally through
thick and thin. The reason I mention these tidbits is because the corporate media fails to join all the pieces that show just
how corrupt Western politicians have become.
For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd.
To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential
to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical
assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British.
It would help to get a handle on the precise nature and format of these FBI "under oath" fishing expeditions if the FBI released
transcripts of a few of the recent hi-profile Q & A sessions. If suspects are being convicted for misdemeanors of dubious relevance
to the stated aim of the Mueller Crusade then transcripts would allow inconsistencies to be counted and evaluated. It would also
be interesting to discover whether the FBI uses a seductive approach to questioning, or a confrontational approach, given the
petty nature of the 'crimes' exposed to date.
The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the
Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution
case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center
of constitutional legitimacy.
The Obama Administration would live on in the structure of this "investigation", without ever having
to relinquish power to Trump. The investigation would form the center of "The Resistance", with the ability to question the legitimacy
of the Trump Administration.
I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations
and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
This is very true but only in the same sort of overgeneralised sense with you populate your latest CT. That is, sweep any of
the plainly ridiculous assumptions in your theory under the widest possible rug available to conspiratards.
At least you aint exactly drinking the Orange Kool-Aid like so many of the posters on this thread. That's a big positive in
my book. As for them, it's more a reflection of the love for rightwing authoritarianism than for Trump himself. What they really
wish for is a crafier, shrewder Amerikkkan version of Putin, but they accept Trump because his bumbling is the existential proof
of US decline in relative power, as if such proof was necessary.
And if you overlook all Trump's achievements (such as they are):
1. Obamacare/Medicaid expansion repeal and subsequent degradation of the enrollment and funding processes by executive degree
when appeal failed thanks only to McCain's "in yo office sucka" thumbs down vote.
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (basically same thing)
3. SCOTUS and federal bench selections
The US system is meant to create a uniparty environment whereby opposing views are compromised into a "third way" legislative
process.
I grok this system is broken and completely controlled by the wealthiest (show me a political system anywhere that you prefer
that is not controlled by the wealthiest) but the funding mechanisms need changing before there will ever be significant change
to governing processes.
Trump through his ignorance, corruption and loose lips has tilted the playing field left. Hilliary through her elitism, arrogance,
corruption and lack of retail political skills gets a big assist in the same tilting.
Those who believe (if any truly do) that Trump represents anything more than the end of Reaganist conservatism are "wishin'
and hopin'" as Dusty Springfield would say.
I do applaud those who are willing to show in the comments that they suffer from the real "Trump Derangement Syndrome," such
as your good buddy James. They're all crooks, in his opinion.
So what is it Jim? Do you excuse Trump only or do you excuse them all? LMAO
Putin January 2017 - "You know, there is a category of people who leave without saying goodbye, out of respect for the situation
that has evolved, so as not to upset anything. And then there are people who keep saying goodbye but don't leave. I believe the
outgoing administration belongs to the second category.
What are we seeing in the United States? We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the
fact that the presidential election is over and it ended in Mr Trump's convincing victory. Nevertheless, in my opinion, several
goals are being set in this struggle. Maybe there are more, but some of them are perfectly obvious."
The first is to undermine the legitimacy of the US president-elect. By the way, in this regard, I would like to point out that
whether deliberately or not, these people are causing enormous damage to US interests. Simply enormous. The impression is that,
after a practice run in Kiev, they are now ready to organise a Maidan in Washington to prevent Trump from taking office."
Posted by: pretzelattack , Jan 14, 2019 10:05:43 AM |
link
sure, no doubt trump has been involved in financial improprieties; this in no way means he colluded with Russia to fix the election,
or that russia on its own hacked the election, or any of the other false narratives the ic is trying to cram down our throats
with the connivance of the msm and (mostly, but there are some republicans pushing it, too) the "centrist" dems.
And the clintons have their own skeletons, but they seem to be judgement proof with the aid of comey et al.
The only real difference between Trump and the Clintons at end of the day is they are smart lawyers who obviously better understand
how to navigate the treacherous legal waters surrounding them.
They also know what the definition of "is, is" and how to carefully craft their words in public, while Trump is all loose cannon
all the time ahd his legal representation appears to follow his lead, IE Giuliani and Cohen.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14, 2019 9:45:39 AM | 45:
We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the fact that the presidential election is
over and it ended in Mr Trump's convincing victory.
Not really. What we are seeing is Deep State controlled media force-feeding the public a toxic concoction: the narrative of a
political struggle that centers on anti-Russia hysteria.
Maybe you missed Romney's Op-Ed in which he praised Trump's pro-establishment policies while attacking his Russia-friendly
'pull out' from Syria. That's the best example of the two-faced establishment bullsh*t.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Robert Snefjella , Jan 14, 2019 10:57:29 AM |
link
What is loosely called 'globalism', consisting of various trends and ideologies and practices: the EU and the aborted for now
'North American Union' and satellites, and cell phones able to instantly transmit images from the other side of the planet, and
so on, has also importantly aimed at and advocated for and implemented various means by which national sovereignty was eroded.
And this erosion meant a reduction of the ability of a country's people to wield an effective national politics, let alone
something vaguely democratic, or to implement policies which were at odds with the various globalist institutions and imperatives
and programs. So we've seen on numerous occasions, for example, the IMF impose its globalist economic 'recipe' on a nation's economic
policies.
And even the destruction of Libya in 2011 was primarily or importantly directed at preventing Libya from implementing a national
financial strategy intended to give African countries an alternative to the depredations of global financial 'business as usual'.
But over the last two years the movement to restore or renovate national sovereignty has made something of a comeback.
So for example, Macron as recently as roughly two years ago was being lauded as a great new leader of the globalist project,
and both he and Merkel have gone on record decrying the very concept of national sovereignty.
But now Macron and Merkel are largely reviled, especially Macron, by their people, and 'populist' enthusiasm strengthens. You
can see the same trend in virtually every European country.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because
he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist,
and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic, and that is as I noted
above a very general trend that is quickly manifesting.
Re. the USA, when the handmaidens of power, aka politicians, the servant class in an oligarchic corporatist 'state,' are alarmingly
seen to fight to the death in public it is crystal clear that control (which may take the shape of relatively informal and obscure
networks ) is lost, .. > the 'fight' will only serve to weaken all parties.
Trump is loathed because he upset the apple cart and revealed weakness and fissures in the system. (+ possibly because he is
an upstart, from the wrong side of whatever, has bad hair, is dumb, a thief, more )
He ran as an anti-establishment maverick:
"Drain the Swamp!"
"Lock her up!"
"Build the Wall!"
- and was elected only for that reason. It was disconcertingly easy to do, which is also terrifying to the PTB. Plus, election/voter
fraud did not perform as expected - help !! The MSM promoted him with mega 24/24 coverage - help !!
As the no. 1 disruptive foe is merely an elderly scummy biz type, an intruder, some other entity like malignant agressive Russia
had to be associated with him. (Yes, is was Obama-Clinton who started the highjinks + the following Mueller investig.; see b at
top - also, bashing Russia gradually took wing as it recovered under Putin, the Ukraine plots did not work out, etc. *Crimea!*
the last straw! ..)
If Obama had announced that 2K USA personnel were to be withdrawn from Syria because the good folks want their wonderful husbands
and wives, great ppl, our folks, home soon, they have dutifully served, etc. the MSM and anyone who bothered to digest that news
would have clapped and sent off pixel sparkles and sweet tweets.
Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That
the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells stage one collapse.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist,
and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic ..."
Did Obama really mean it when he touted "Change You Can Believe In"? No. His rhetoric was meant to turn the page
from the Bush Administration excesses and convince the world that USA was not the threat that they perceived us to be. In fact,
he was given a Nobel Prize for essentially not being Bush. But it was all psyop. Obama refused to hold CIA accountable for rendition
and torture, refused to stop NSA pervasive spying, conducted covert wars and regime change ops, bragged of his drone targeting
skills, made Bush tax cuts permanent, bailed out bankers, etc.
Does Trump really mean his nationalism? Only to the extent that a nationalist was needed to meet the challenge from Russia
and China. People don't fight for globalist principals.
US is still a member of NATO, still involved in the Middle East, still has hundreds of bases around the world.
Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade
agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary
and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc.
Is there a requirement for an open trial on these sort of things. I'm not sure about the US, but normally gag orders are all
that's required to keep something quiet. All the people around Trump could be taken down in this way with charges that would stick.
Apparently the only one they cannot take down in this way is the president (Another post up now at SST on the legalities of investigating
the president). As far as I know, the president can only be taken down by impeachment so I guess they wouldn't try to use collusion
with Israel for that unless they could keep what they were impeaching him for secret.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because
he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Yes, "Amerikkka First" represents nationalism for sure. Many, maybe most Amerikkkans have always been nationalistic and detest
globalist structures because they view them as limiting Amerikkka's rightful global sovereignty. This is a fine distinction
I believe gets lost in commentary such as yours. Trump isn't looking to retreat from Amerikkkan Exceptionalism at all, it his
raison d etre for the tariffs and increases in military spending.
The movement which elected Trump represents the nostalgic view of a lost Amerikkkan dominance over the globe, which of course
they blame on those hated Democratic and Republican establishment globalists, Bushes, Clintons and Obama.
You see all that and then assume that the Hillary-Trump contest was genuine?
Why not assume that the Deep State's candidate won in every election since Carter and work from there.
That first is a difficult one to answer, for I quite agree with you on the second part. Rigged elections from Carter on to
the present day matches my own thoughts as well. In 2000 "they" had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get their man in
office, but GWB did indeed move into the White House.
My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary
(and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity
which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. Hillary ran a horrible campaign because
she is an arrogant and "entitled" woman. The incompetence of that campaign simply didn't uncover the extent to which she was hated
by so many people. (myself included, but I didn't vote for the torture-loving Trump, either)
The biggest mistake of all was not having any plan in place to use the touch-screen voting systems (think "Diebold") to
nail down her victory. Again an opinion, but I think that was judged to be a little too risky plus the fact it was obviously
totally unnecessary. Hillary didn't have a "loss" speech prepared, and Trump didn't have a "victory" one.
This is why I call Trump an "accidental" President. I'll admit the Deep State has reacted pretty well since 2016, but they're
still playing catchup. Israel - to name just one - remains in shell shock.
Further to American's general support for Trump's declared intention of reduction of troops in Syria and Afghanistan, the Daily
Caller on the 9th of January 2019 cited 56 % in support, 20 % not sure, and 27 % opposing. This is after MSM and general national
political outrage and 'deep concern' over Trump's decision.
Note that US involvement in Syria has been justified by the most lurid of lies and disinfo continually poured for years into
American's psyches. For Tulsi Gabbard to have a direct conversation with Assad (the designated 'butcher of Damascus', the 'horrid
monstrous dictator' accused over and over of attacking his own people, often with chemical weapons from barrel bombs, and especially
targeting children and hospitals: the man can have no soul, no heart! We must help the Syrians in their struggle against this
animal!) was an outrage!
So not only do most Americans want American troops out of Syria, it would seem that there is some growing immunity among the
people of the United States to their diet of diseased propaganda.
The populist hero must be portrayed as an "outsider" that takes on the establishment. Obama was positioned in much the same way.
Trump is no "outsider". He is very establishment. Even before running for President, he had access that ordinary people never
get.
Trump only won because of a bizarre technicality of the American electoral system.
You are directing our attention to what the establishment wants us to see. It ignores Hillary's spectacular failure: snubbing
of Sanders progressives; Cold shoulder to black voters; insult to white voters ("deplorables"); choosing not to campaign in crucial
states; the wierdness of Bill Clinton being discovered meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Bill Clinton is one of
the most recognizable people in America - why why why would be meeting with the Attorney General on an airport tarmac?), etc.
If the race were easy, Trump woundn't be a populist hero, would he? And Hillary's winning the popular vote is a nice consolation
prize to the Clinton's. Plus, it nicely sets up the fake Deep State vs. Trump conflict.
While Trump is a member of the elite establishment that practically owns the country he has always been a pariah for one main
reason. He does not honor the unspoken code of never exposing inside information about other elite members. He is a big mouth.
Given that, the establishment and their propaganda arm of the media have been out to get him even before he was elected. His presidency
has largely been an inside struggle. However, Trump is clever and crafty. During his tenure he has been give access to tremendous
amounts of information about his political enemies and he continues to bait, insult and fire them, pushing them deeper and deeper
into insanity.
He will fight fire with fire. If they attempt to impeach him he will tit for tat release information incriminating
his enemies. I view this as a positive direction for the US in the long run. ALL of these people need to be banished to "Elba".
Maybe they will fight to the death of both sides. One can dream.
The book, Profit over People by Noam Chomsky, Linguist turned political / social critic, is
an indictment against the process of globalization currently in vogue. Supporters of U.S.
International policy and trade agreements beware. If you agree with present policy then this
book is not for you. However, if you seek to examine your views, or if you need data to
utilize as a critique of current policy then Noam Chomsky offers a strong expose of
capitalism and globalization.
The book revolves around several major themes, including an examination of neoliberalism,
its definition, history, and how it is utilized in current policy. Next, Mr. Chomsky turns to
how consent for neoliberalism is manufactured through institutions such as the media. He ends
with a critique of U.S. Foreign policy especially in Latin America, the NAFTA agreement, and
insights into the Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas Mexico during the 1990's.
Mr. Chomsky uses neoliberalism as a pejorative term to connote the practices of economic
liberalization, privatization, free trade, open markets, and deregulation. In 'Profit over
People' it is defined "as the policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private
interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize
their personal profit." Neoliberalism is based on the economic theories of Friedrich Hayek,
Milton Friedman, and the policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
At the time of 'Profit Over People,' Neoliberalism had been the dominant economic paradigm
for a couple decades. In his critique of this paradigm, Mr. Chomsky observed that it was
being used to justify the corporate domination of the civic and public life of nations
including the U.S. He also noted that through neoliberalism, capitalism was being equated
with democracy and supporters were using this perspective to advocate for deregulation
policies as well as international trade agreements. He insinuated that at the same time
corporations were manufacturing consent for economic liberalization their real goal was to
attempt to gain control of international markets. A quote from the introduction illustrates
this theme;
"....as Chomsky points out, markets are almost never competitive. Most of the economy is
dominated by massive corporations with tremendous control over their markets and that
therefore face precarious little competition of the sort described in economic textbooks and
politicians speeches. Moreover, corporations themselves are effectively totalitarian
organizations, operating along nondemocratic lines."
Contemplating the issues Mr. Chomsky raises it is difficult to be objective with him
because his argument is so one-sided. He does not have one good thing to say about the
effects of globalization or trade agreements. There definitely are some negative effects of
globalization, yet it raises red flags in the mind of a discerning reader when positive
effects are overlooked. For example, he is very critical of NAFTA and provides evidence in
support of his argument, yet his critique is before NAFTA even went into effect.
Still, although a little outdated, and opinionated, Profit over People provides important
insights into the process of globalization, and who gains from the process. Mr. Chomsky
raises legitimate concerns about current trends in global development, and the forces behind
it. This is why I consider 'Profit over People' a book worth reflecting on.
A source close to Rosenstein said he intends to stay on until Mueller submits a report to
the Justice Department on the Russian meddling investigation. The source said that would mean
Rosenstein would remain until early March. Several legal sources have said they expect the
Mueller team to submit its report by mid-to-late February, although they said that timeline
could change based on unforeseen investigative developments.
Rosenstein had long intended to serve about two years as the Justice Department's No. 2
official, these officials say. They add that this is his own plan and that he is not being
forced out by the White House. That's despite the fact that he's been a frequent target of
criticism from President Donald Trump on Twitter.
The administration officials say he plans to remain on the job until after a new attorney
general is confirmed. After pushing out Jeff Sessions in November, Trump nominated William
Barr, who planned to be at the Capitol on Wednesday, beginning a round of courtesy calls with
senators ahead of his confirmation hearing, which begins Jan. 15.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Wednesday on Fox News: "I know the deputy
attorney general has always planned to roughly stay around two years. My guess is that he is
making room for the new attorney general to build a team that he wants around him."
Rosenstein's intentions were first reported by ABC News. He did not respond to questions
Wednesday morning.
Rosenstein considered resigning last fall, after a report surfaced that he had advocated
secretly recording Trump, but he decided to stay on the job. Aides said he made a comment about
having someone "wear a wire" around the president as a joke during a meeting.
Rosenstein had been overseeing the Mueller's investigation into possible Trump campaign
collusion with Russia and obstruction of justice because Sessions recused himself because of
his role in the Trump campaign. And even with the arrival of acting Attorney General Matt
Whitaker, who took over the probe, Rosenstein has continued to help supervise it.
If Barr is confirmed, as seems likely, he will fully take over the investigation. Several
legal sources have said it appears that the Mueller investigation is entering its final stages.
But Barr would play a key role in deciding whether and how to share Mueller's expected report
with Congress and whether to make all or part of it public.
Responding to news of Rosenstein's impending departure, Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of
Virginia told CNN's "New Day" that he has "deep concern" about how Barr will handle the Mueller
probe. He referred to a memo Barr wrote in which he was critical of the investigation.
"William Barr was sending freelance memos to the Trump administration making a case to
undercut the Mueller investigation," Kaine said. "So the deep concern will be if he comes in
and Rosenstein is gone, is this just a preface to either undercutting the investigation or
trying to keep the results of it hidden from the American public."
Rosenstein has been a consistent defender of Mueller and the Justice Department, responding
to attacks from Republicans in Congress. He told a Law Day conference last May that the
department "is not going to be extorted," after some House Republicans raised the prospect of
seeking Rosenstein's impeachment.
The attacks from Congress and the White House were a jolt for Rosenstein, who enjoyed
bipartisan support for most of his three decades as a federal prosecutor. But his congressional
support faltered when he wrote a memo providing a rationale for Trump's decision to fire FBI
Director James Comey.
By appointing Mueller to take over the Russia investigation as a special counsel, Rosenstein
won back Democrats but angered the president, who tweeted, "I am being investigated for firing
the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt."
American are so tired of foreign wars, that if DNC will not derail her with some "Putin agent" smears, and she wins the
Primary, she has a chance against Donald Trump, who completely discredited himself by his actions and can defeat
only opponent to the right of him (which with Hillary absence for the race now is difficult to find) like Obama against
Romnay
Notable quotes:
"... During an interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government." ..."
Democratic Representative Tulsi Gabbard from Hawaii announced she will
launch a presidential campaign for 2020. Her campaign is likely to distinguish itself from
other Democratic campaigns by making wars and broader United States foreign policy a major
issue.
Gabbard was elected to the Hawaii state legislature in 2002. She joined the Hawaii Army
National Guard a year later and voluntarily deployed to Iraq, where she completed two tours of
duty in 2004 and 2005.
She was elected to the House of Representatives in 2012, and according to her own website,
she was "one of the first two female combat veterans to ever serve in the U.S. Congress, and
also its first Hindu member."
During Senator Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign, Gabbard gained notoriety after she
resigned from her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee so she could
openly support Sanders. She spoke at Sanders campaign rallies to help him distinguish his
foreign policy from the much more hawkish foreign policy of Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard was overwhelmingly re-elected in 2018. She won 83 percent of the vote in the
Democratic primary election.
Most progressives are not as outspoken against U.S. military interventions or what she
refers to as "regime change wars." She witnessed the impact of regime change on the people of
Iraq, as well as U.S. troops, and that inspired her to talk more about the human cost of war
and challenge the military industrial-complex.
Gabbard has persistently called attention to the war in Syria. She traveled to Aleppo and
Damascus in January 2017 to see some of the devastation Syrians have endured since 2011. Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad invited her to a meeting, and she accepted.
"Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I
felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a
chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much
suffering," Gabbard
declared .
Supporters of the Syrian war -- the same people who do not want President Donald Trump to
withdraw U.S. troops -- seized upon Gabbard's meeting with Assad to discredit her, and it has
fueled the backlash among Western media pundits to her decision to run for president.
Yet, in spite of a smear campaign encouraged by the political establishment, Gabbard has not
backed down from protesting U.S. support for terrorists in Syria. She sponsored legislation,
the Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
During an
interview for the Sanders Institute in September 2018, Gabbard said, "Since 2011, when the
United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and these other countries started this slow drawn-out
regime change war in Syria, it is terrorist groups like al Qaida, al Nusra, and Hayat Tahrir al
Sham, these different groups that have morphed and taken on names but essentially are all
linked to al Qaida or al Qaida themselves that have proven to be the most effective ground
force against the government in trying to overthrow the Syrian government."
Gabbard opposes what she calls a "genocidal war" in Yemen, and she is one of the few
representatives, who has worked to pass a war powers resolution in the House to end U.S.
military involvement since Congress never authorized the war.
"The United States is standing shoulder to shoulder supporting Saudi Arabia in this war as
they commit these atrocities against Yemeni civilians," Gabbard said during the same Sanders
Institute interview.
Another war Gabbard questions is the war in Libya. In an interview for "The Jimmy Dore Show" on September 11, 2018,
she spoke about the devastating consequences of pursuing regime change without considering what
would happen after Muammar Gaddafi was removed from power.
"After we led the war to topple Gaddafi, we have open human slave trading going on, in open
market. In today's society, we have more terrorists in Libya today than there ever were
before."
Gabbard is also one of the few elected politicians to oppose weapons sales, especially to
Saudi Arabia. She recognizes the military industrial-complex benefits the most from Congress
not exercising its authority over war-making by presidents, whether they are Republican or
Democrat.
She spoke out against Secretary of State Mike Pompeo when he refused to revoke support for
Saudi Arabia and the war in Yemen because it would jeopardize a $2 billion arms deal.
Not many Democrats are willing to be optimistic on North Korea, but Gabbard sees potential
for peace and does not view Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un as an act of treason.
Gabbard said during the Sanders Institute interview, "For years, I've been working in
Congress and calling for direct engagement with North Korea with Kim Jong-un to be able to try
to broker a peace agreement that will result in de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and
and finally bring about an end to the Korean War."
"So I think that the recent engagement that we have seen -- both the historic meeting
between a sitting U.S. president and the leader of North Korea -- is certainly a positive step
in the right direction. We have to be willing to have these conversation to promote peace,"
Gabbard said. And, "I think the continued engagement between North Korea and South Korea is
positive."
Gabbard acknowledged there are a lot of details that have to be worked out, but that does
not make her hostile to the entire process, which is the attitude of many pundits and Democrats
in the establishment.
Joe Rogan interviewed Gabbard in September 2018. He
raised the issue of Russian troll farms and Facebook's failure to deal with them. She had a
sober response to his concerns.
"The United States has been doing this for a very long time in countries around the world,
both overtly and covertly, through these kinds of disinformation campaigns," Gabbard contended.
"Not even counting like the regime change wars, like we're going to take you out."
She continued, "I think it is very hypocritical for us to be discussing this issue as a
country without actually being honest about how this goes both ways. So, yes, we need to stop
these other foreign countries -- and Russia's not the only one; there are others -- from trying
to influence the American people and our elections. We also need to stop doing the same thing
in other countries."
Such positions on war and U.S. foreign policy effectively make her a pariah to establishment
media pundits and the political class. But her anti-establishment politics do not end
there.
Gabbard has advocated against superdelegates, which are Democratic party insiders that have
an outsized role in influencing the outcome of presidential primaries. She favors open
primaries and same-day voter registration. She is outspoken against the influence of money in
politics, and she is audacious enough to question members of her own political party.
"We have to dig a few layers deeper as people are running for office, say what do you
actually stand for?" she said on "The Jimmy Dore Show." "What is your vision for this country?
That's the debate that we will have to have in Congress should Democrats win over the House or
win more seats in the Senate."
"Otherwise, it will be more of the same status quo, where you'll have lobbyists who have
more of a seat at the table writing policies that affect healthcare and education and Wall
Street and everything else rather than having a true and representative government by and for
the people," she concluded.
She was also critical of self-described progressives, who are pro-war, while on "Jimmy
Dore":
You have these individuals and groups of people who call themselves progressive but are
some of the first to call for more war in the guise of humanitarianism. They look at these
poor people suffering -- and there are people suffering in the other parts of the world.
Let's go drop more bombs and try to take away their suffering. And when you look at example
after example after example, our actions, U.S. policy, interventionist regime change war
policy, [has] made the lives of people in these other countries far worse off than they ever
were before or would have been if we had just stayed out of it.
***
Gabbard was much closer to an establishment politician prior to her resignation from the
DNC. She accepted tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from political action
committees (PACs).
The Center for Responsive Politics noted, "One of the largest contributing sectors was the
defense industry. While Gabbard has gained a following for her
anti-interventionist stances , yet, her 2016 campaign was given $63,500 from
the defense sector . In fact, the campaign
received donations of $10,000 from the Boeing Corporation PAC and from Lockheed Martin's
PAC, two of the biggest names in the military-industrial complex."
In 2017, Gabbard announced she would no longer accept PAC money. She raised $37,000 from
labor associations and trade unions.
Gabbard was "conflicted" over whether to support the Senate report on CIA torture. She said
in 2014 that she thought there were "things missing or it was incomplete." She also endorsed
the "ticking time bomb" scenario that officials use to justify torture, and it is unclear what
her view would be now, if asked about the issue.
She has taken a position on Israeli occupation of Palestine that is
common among Democrats. She supports a two-state solution and describes Israel as the U.S.'
"strongest ally." But it may be shifting. In the last year, she condemned Israel for its
violence against the people of Gaza, and she was reluctant to vote for a House resolution that
condemned the UN Security Council for criticizing Israeli settlements.
Journalist Eoin Higgins
questioned Gabbard's support from the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), which he described
as right-wing. She has garnered criticism for her trip to India in 2014, when she met with
India prime minister Narendra Modi, a Hindu nationalist.
But HAF believes this criticism of Gabbard is unfair because other members of Congress, like
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have attended gatherings with Modi. They also point to financial records
and maintain they are a U.S. organization without ties to any organizations in India.
When she was much younger, Gabbard helped her
father's organization mobilize against a same-sex marriage in Hawaii. The organization,
Alliance for Traditional Marriage, backed conversion therapy
However, there is evidence to suggest that Gabbard has abandoned much of the bigotry that
she probably learned from her father. She backed Edith Windsor when she challenged the Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"Let me say I regret the positions I took in the past, and the things I said. I'm grateful
for those in the LGBTQ+ community who have shared their aloha with me throughout my personal
journey," Gabbard stated, responding to media coverage of this aspect of her past.
She noted that she has since supported "the Equality Act, the repeal of DOMA, Restore Honor
to Service members Act, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Safe Schools Improvement
Act, and the Equality for All Resolution," and added, "Much work remains to ensure equality and
civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ Americans, and if elected President, I will continue to
fight for equal rights for all."
There are powerful forces in American politics that will seize upon her past opposition to
LGBTQ rights and meeting with Assad to neutralize her presidential campaign before she even has
an opportunity to tour the country and meet with potential supporters. They fear the impact she
could have if voters gravitate to her campaign, which will likely promote her
anti-imperialism.
Often Democrats do not bother to connect foreign policy to domestic issues. Gabbard is
likely to run a rare campaign, where she makes the case that they are intertwined -- that in
order to make investments in universal health care, education, infrastructure, etc, the massive
investment in war must be severely curtailed.
Gabbard also aware of the disenchantment among voters, who do not believe either political
party has the answers. She understands President Trump is a symptom of what ails the
country.
As she said on "Jimmy Dore," "If we look at the lead-up to the 2016 election, and if we
actually listen to and examine why people chose to vote the way they did, it points to much
bigger problems, a much bigger disaffection that has been building for quite some time, that
voters have against the establishment of Washington, the political establishment within both
parties."
Looks like Warren is a variation of the theme of Hillary Clinton: a ruthless female careerist, a closet Republican
who is quote jingoistic in foreign policy.
On home front Warren is probably more hostile to financial oligarchy then Hillary Clinton, but like Hillary she can be bought.
Currently the US citizens are "... Prisoners of the American Dream ...": the evolution of neoliberalism in the USA (and most Western countries)
undermined society because it treated land and labor as commodities. The impact of the neoliberalism on communities and families is
disruptive and that generates a strong backlash against financial oligarchy.
Which started in full force in 2016 which led to election of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... By Thomas Neuburger Originally published at DownWithTryanny! ..."
"... I get the feeling that the Democrats are now more ruthless and heartless than the Republicans. ..."
"... In fact, I read the other day that Nixon had sought to introduce universal Medicare, and that the AFL-CIO, with Watergate in
development, convinced Teddy Kennedy to back away from his long dream of moving similar legislation through Congress, so as not to give
Nixon a victory. ..."
"... I'm feeling extra cynical today, if that can be believed, and am wondering if Warren is being encouraged to run, but not told
that she is intended to be a spoiler to Sanders. ..."
"... Just because the Gang Of Two Mommies hope to exploit Warren as a counter-Sanders spoiler does not mean that she has to run
that way or that Sanders has to take it that way. Sanders and Warren appeal to two some overlapping but still different sets of people.
Their added-together voter-count could be bigger than either nominee-wannabe's voter count total on its own. ..."
"... With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting
Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider.
Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance
to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule:
They don't criticize other insiders.' ..."
"... The elites will, and have been, doing anything to derail rebellion and block any electoral movement towards popular governance,
even of the save-the-system New Deal style of politics. If co-opting fails, then media blackout, vote fraud and silencing follows. ..."
"... They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost. The immiseration of the American people, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright,
is worth it. ..."
"... incumbent elections are always a referendum on the state of the economy, full stop. ..."
"... I also got that Organizing for Bernie email. And I unsubscribed. Bernie, I haven't forgotten about 2016. Especially the part
about taking this fight all the way to the convention. ..."
"... The elite have used leverage thinking to gain control over the mass of humanity and the environment, but now that they reign
supreme, they have run out of ideas as to social evolution. If put to the question- To what purpose are all human labor and effort to
be directed? They seem to not have a clue, other than conjuring up ways to perpetuate the status quo- which is to protect elite interests
at the expense of the weak and poor. ..."
"... I don't intend to be negative on Sanders and Warren, but American politics and life are so out of balance, at times it seems
that being an outsider- or non-participant is the way to sanity. When politicians can blatantly lie their way into office, and the system
allows them to survive and persist, the system is beyond fixing. ..."
"... 'Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused politicians.'
Yes, and this will prevent either of them getting the nomination ..."
"... Sanders is going to get drowned out in 2020. He is too old and it shows. ..."
Posted on
January 11,
2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I know Warren is
deemed to be progressive by American standards, but I recall clearly when I first say her speak at a Roosevelt Institute conference,
Let Markets Be Markets, which was a title I found to be unhelpful, since it suggested that markets would exist in a state of nature
and just needed to be left alone. In fact, markets depend on rules and enforcement mechanisms to operate regularly and well.
Warren, who was the first speaker, gave a long preamble about how she loved markets and had long taught contract in law school.
I don't recall her giving any reason as to why she loved markets, when you'd expect her to make a case, such as how they were good
for people. Her speech struck me as defensive, as in she felt she had to say she was in favor of commerce so as not to be painted
as a Commie if/when she called for reforms.
By contrast, Karl Polyani, in his classic book The Great Transformation, argued that the evolution of market economies undermined
society because it treated land and labor as commodities. Pressured to slow the development economies were inevitable and Polyani
suggested, desirable, because the impact of the development of the market society on communities and families was often so disruptive
that the changes needed to be mitigated.
I didn't get any sense that Warren had those concerns, and I found that troubling. I didn't see how her profession of enthusiasm
for markets connected with the concerns she has expressed for the welfare of American families.
I've written before comparing Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as presidential candidates, but only preliminarily. (See "
The Difference Between
Sanders and Warren, or Can Regulated Capitalism Save the Country? ") But there's much more to say -- foreign policy, for example,
is barely touched on there -- and also much is evolving in their positions, especially Warren's.
That earlier piece focused on the differences between these two candidates based on their economic ideologies. As I wrote then,
"Though both would make the next administration, if either were elected, a progressive one by many definitions, the nature of the
progressivism under each would be quite different."
In particular, I asked:
Can the current capitalist system be reformed and retained, or must it be partly nationalized -- taken over by government
-- and reduced in size and capacity, for the country to be saved from its current economic enslavement to the "billionaire
class"? In addition to questions of personal preference, Democratic primary voters will be asked to decide this question as well.
And the question applies quite broadly. The billionaire class also controls our response to climate change. Is it possible
for a "free" market system -- a system in which billionaires and their corporations have control -- to transform the energy economy
enough to mitigate the coming disaster, or must government wrest control of the energy economy in order to have even a hope
of reducing the certain damage?
But there are other contrasts between these two as well, other differences, as Zaid Jilani,
writing in
Jacobin , points out. He begins where we began, with the ideological and philosophical differences:
Why the Differences Between Sanders and Warren Matter
Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused politicians.
But that doesn't mean Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren share the same worldview.
Sanders tends to focus on "post-distribution" remedies, meaning he prefers to use the government's power to tax and spend to
directly meet Americans' needs -- or replace the market altogether. His social-democratic ideas, like free college and single-payer
health care, are now policies most Democrats have to tip their hat to at least for electoral reasons.
Warren wants to empower regulators and rejigger markets to shape "pre-distribution" income, before taxes. Less likely to push
for big-ticket programs, she wants to re-regulate Wall Street and make life easier for consumers.
So far this is familiar ground.
Different Theories of Change
But as Jilani points out, there are differences in style and "theory of change" as well. ("Theory of change" usually encompasses
how a given policy change is to be accomplished, as opposed to what that change should be.) Jilani again:
The two senators also have distinct theories of change. Sanders has long believed in
bottom-up, movement-based
politics. Since
his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he has tried to energize citizens to take part in government. He generally distrusts
elites and decision-making that does not include the public. Warren, on the other hand, generally accepts political reality and
works to push elite decision-makers towards her point of view.
When I worked at PCCC ["the most influential outside PAC supporting Warren" says Jilani], I was once told that Warren decided
to run for the Senate after witnessing the amount of power she had as an oversight chair for the bank bailouts. She believed that
"being in the room" with decision-makers in the Obama administration was essential to creating change.
About this he concludes: "While Warren wants to be at the table with elites, arguing for progressive policies, Sanders wants to
open the doors and let the public make the policy."
"Elizabeth is all about leverage"
These are significant differences, and his observation goes a long way to explaining this item from a
long piece published in Politico Magazine in 2016, an article otherwise about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Discussing
why Warren refused to endorse Sanders, Glenn Thrush wrote:
Luckily for Clinton, Warren resisted Sanders' entreaties, for months telling the senator and his staff she hadn't made up her
mind about which candidate she would support. For all her credibility on the left, Warren is more interested in influencing the
granular Washington decisions of policymaking and presidential personnel -- and in power politics. Warren's favored modus operandi:
leveraging her outsider popularity to gain influence on the issues she cares about, namely income inequality and financial services
reform.
"Elizabeth is all about leverage, and she used it," a top Warren ally told me. "The main thing, you know, is that she always
thought Hillary was going to be the nominee, so that was where the leverage was."
Warren, several people in her orbit say, never really came close to endorsing the man many progressives consider to be her
ideological soulmate.
For many grassroots supporters of Sanders, who were also strong Warren supporters prior to his entry into the race, these revelations
-- "all about the leverage" and "never came close to endorsing" -- took the bloom off the Warren rose. For whatever reason, that
bloom appears not to have returned, at least not completely.
Jilani's observation in no way diminishes Warren's credibility or core desirability as a candidate. If you care about achieving
your goals through "leverage," joining the Sanders campaign, which may have looked to you like a kind of Children's Crusade, would
seem foreign to your way of operating.
The Bottom Line -- Not Just Method, But Scope
While Jilani notes that many of Warren's past positions, for example,
on charter schools and Medicare
for All, have grown more progressive, she still doesn't seem to prioritize Medicare for All as strongly as Sanders does.
In 2012, Warren was explicitly opposed to Medicare for All (called "single payer" at the time). "Five years later --
after decades of advocacy
by Sanders had helped popularize Medicare for All -- Warren [finally] decided to endorse the policy," writes Jilani. "But unlike
consumer protections or financial regulation, establishing a single-payer health care system doesn't seem to be a top priority for
Warren." He adds, "It's hardly a surprise
that Warren didn't raise single-payer during her first two campaign events in Iowa and when asked about it by a Washington Post
reporter, [she] suggested she didn't bring it up because no one else at the events raised it."
As noted above, if either were president, the odds that America will change for the better would vastly improve. But each would
do that job in a different way. Each has a different philosophy of how government should work, and approach the process of change
from different directions -- though I have to give Warren credit for
picking public fights with
fellow Democrats when others are much more timid.
But to these two differences -- philosophy and approach -- let me add a third, a difference in sweep. The scope of change envisioned
and attempted by a Sanders presidency would likely be far greater than that attempted by Warren.
In these times, with a massive climate tsunami fast approaching and a Depression-style rebellion in full view, can America,
in this Franklin Roosevelt moment , afford just a better manager of the current system, a better rearranger, and survive?
There's not much question that Warren would better fix the status quo, and be a better choice as president, than 95% of the other
candidates on offer. But would a Warren presidency be enough to bring us through this crisis as safely as Washington, Lincoln and
FDR once did?
For many true progressives, I think that's the question she'll be asked to answer, and she has about a year, or less, to answer
it.
Just spitballing here, but I think that Warren has more of a technocrat view of the process of governance than Sanders does.
Warren seems to be an academic at heart.
Sanders has experience dealing with the public in all it's tatterdemalion glory. He was a City Mayor, about as close to the
ground level in politics as one can get. Warren would make an excellent Department Head, a good member of the Cabinet. Sanders
has a reputation of 'getting things done' in the Senate. This suggests that Sanders has the skills of persuasion and, importantly,
coalition building, incorporating strategic concessions. These are a big part of the Art of Politics.
So, Sanders has the Art of Politics in his tool kit while Warren has the bureaucratic skills to work behind the scenes. They
would make a good team, if Warren is to be trusted. And there is the stumbling block.
Sanders has a reputation of 'getting things done' in the Senate.
Really? I wonder how many voters had ever heard of Sanders before he ran for president.
Perhaps the real question is who has the greatest chance of building a movement which is the only way we will really "get things
done" in the face of stiff opposition. Unfortunately–given Sanders' age and Warren's political ham handedness–the answer may be
neither. But at least Sanders seems more willing to upset the apple carts than the go along to get along Warren. It's not about
"persuasion" of elites, who just need to see reason. It's about power, and TPTB are afraid of the voters which is why there's
such a tizzy over Trump.
Yes. Trump did to the Republican Party what Sanders should have done to the Democrat Party. I get the feeling that the
Democrats are now more ruthless and heartless than the Republicans.
Also, when he was in the Senate, Sanders only had to worry about name recognition in his home state. The transition to the
national stage is not instant. It takes time and Sanders seems to have learned that lesson. I'm wondering if even Sanders was
blindsided by his own success in the Democrat primary process the last time around.
I dunno. Lots of us lefties had been following him for years.
Though I am in no way Pollyannaish about his prospects, I tend to see Sanders as our last, best hope. But I confess to being
both baffled and a little bit outraged that all of those liberals who spent several years calling those of us whose policy differences–whose
differences with her record–made Hillary Clinton unacceptable to us "anti-feminist" now won't even give Warren the time of day!
Honestly?
A certain anti-intellectualism obviously informs this view. . . but for me it's also a mark of just what a carefully feminine
(and faux feminist) persona Ms. Clinton carved out for herself along the way, and what a dreadfully long way that women still
have to go–or worse, how much ground has been lost.
In fact, I read the other day that Nixon had sought to introduce universal Medicare, and that the AFL-CIO, with Watergate
in development, convinced Teddy Kennedy to back away from his long dream of moving similar legislation through Congress, so as
not to give Nixon a victory. Crass cynicism has long been in place, as the story demonstrates.
But with "liberals" and the Democratic establishment now telling us that things like universal healthcare are just too ambitious,
and their minions parroting such thinking, we have a stark illustration of just how far right American liberalism has now drifted,
further right–in certain aspects–than centrist Republicanism of the 1970s.
These aren't the 70s. And there is a great deal of political ferment at present. But such analysis does suggest that there
is a great deal of space waiting to be (re)occupied on the left.
That is my take too. Warren has the technical savvy to rewire our regulatory systems, and she appreciates how they are interconnected
(move one and others change). Having drafted a lot of policy myself, it is understanding and minimizing the unintended consequences
of change that creates success. I do not see Bernie as a whiz at technocracy. Where Bernie shines is he nagging attention to the
fact that politics is all about people and making life better for the majority – not just squillionaires – in fact, not even necessarily
squillionaires. As Trump would remark; "They'll make adjustments."
I'm feeling extra cynical today, if that can be believed, and am wondering if Warren is being encouraged to run, but not
told that she is intended to be a spoiler to Sanders.
Out of the wreckage, expect the 'Two Mommies,' Hillary and Michelle to arise promising to heal all wounds and unite the Party.
"Onward to Victory!" (We'll worry about the policy later, after we have slain the Dragon Trump.)
One hopes that Warren and Sanders both have people reading this blog regularly and reporting back with any possibly pertinent
information and theory.
Just because the Gang Of Two Mommies hope to exploit Warren as a counter-Sanders spoiler does not mean that she has to
run that way or that Sanders has to take it that way. Sanders and Warren appeal to two some overlapping but still different sets
of people. Their added-together voter-count could be bigger than either nominee-wannabe's voter count total on its own.
The two seekers and their two groups of supporters might well choose to force-multiply eachother in order to frustrate the
Two Mommies Conspiracy.
What if the two groups of delegates together added up to enough to victorialize One of the Two if all the delegates voted for
One of them? Suppose they all got together and pledged (and meant it) to study very carefully which of the Two got More delegate
votes on the First Ballot? Suppose the Second Votegetter agreed to add their delegates's votes to the votes of the First votegetter,
such that the First votegetter on the first ballot would get ALL the two groups of delegates's votes on the second ballot? Either
Sanders or Warren would win, and the Winner would make the Other One herm's running mate.
We decide who is electable based on responses to debate terms. Electible is not some eternal quality a candidate is born with,
it is a media trope to restrict the field to the corporate friendly candidates. Enough of that
How many of those who actually vote in an election watch debates? Back in horse and buggy days, a debate was the premier way
to reach the 'interested' parties in a district. Debates, and hand shaking, baby kissing and newspaper/handbill politics was the
game before electronic media.
Then there is that indefinable quality known a "charisma." There, the 'art' part of politics comes into play. To get someone
who is marginally cognizant of policies to vote for one, there must be some affinity between candidate and voter. To the extent
that 'charisma' drives the political relationship, 'charisma' is that "eternal quality."
In that regard, 'charisma' is not a media trope, but a personal quality. Thus, villains like Hitler can succeed. If you read
contemporary accounts of Hitler's political style, he was very popular and actually described as "charismatic." An American villain
such as Bill Clinton likewise had charismatic qualities. From further back, an anti-Establishment outsider like Huey Long was
successful through building an almost visceral connection to his electorate. He was killed.
So, don't be in too much of a hurry to dismiss 'alternate' methods of carrying out politics.
Oh, I am not beholden to a techocratic, scoring policy points debate. But electability and charisma are very different. Bernie
was not electable, but was charismatic for most; vice versa for Hillary ? Not sure, I think many found her charismatic, I couldn't
stand her. "Electable" is a terrible, vague concept to be manipulated – at least charismatic provides some basis for definition.
Thanks for the well thought out reply.
I'll agree that "electable" is vague and prone to multiple definitions. However, "electable" is almost the term of art used
by the campaigns themselves. The more technical thinking campaigners can cut the electorate up into an infinitude of 'silos' and
figure how to manipulate each. This strategy naturally falls into an infinite regression state and eventually exhausts itself.
The concept of a "sterile" campaign philosophy comes into it's own in that case. People can usually recognize "inauthentic" political
rhetoric, and react negatively to it. When the campaign splinters into multiple 'silo'd' sub-campaigns, the threat is that each
mini-electorate will eventually spot the inauthenticity and bad faith argumentation of another, related strand of the campaign.
They might fall for the ploy being employed against them, but notice a parallel 'silo' being deceived, due to a detachment inherent
in not being the target audience for that other particular ploy. That way, the seeds of distrust against the entire campaign are
planted. I find this to be the fatal flaw in identitarian politics.
Sorry for the rant.
Well, he was from Tennessee. That whiskey was an early form of "walking around money." Vote Early and Vote Often! Jackson was
the early exemplar of a populist president.
With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A
Fighting Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could
be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots
of access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand
one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.'
That interview introduced me to Warren and made me a fan. And, reminds me how much I miss Bill Moyers. Glad he's enjoying some
downtime in his later years but no one could do interviews like he did and nothing compares to the depth of his show for informing
viewers.
kudos to bill moyers, he did several stories that should STILL be seen by more people. Especially since they have come true..
but that interview was the first place I saw warren too. And she sounded good at the time Given the overreach of the credit card
industry and all that. But now not so much.
The elites will, and have been, doing anything to derail rebellion and block any electoral movement towards popular governance,
even of the save-the-system New Deal style of politics. If co-opting fails, then media blackout, vote fraud and silencing follows.
They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost. The immiseration of the American people, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright,
is worth it.
"They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost."
Sadly this is true and they really don't understand what "any cost" means. Eventually the mobs always come and eventually the
mobs are larger and more angry than any amount of money be spent to stave them off. As Mark Blyth said, the Hamptons are not a
defensible position.
Agree. It's notable that one needs oh-so-complex complex (heh!) "theories of change" when proposing anything that has a hint
of benefiting the many.
When it come to the few and already well-to-do, though, the answer is simple: keep shoveling the money this-a-way, always!
"you many proles need to work, so we few don't have to!"
Elizabeth Warren had no comment when asked if she voted for Ronald Reagan. She was still a registered Republican in 1996. Those
are tall hurdles; maybe she can get over them. Yes, she makes some noise that is congenial to ears here, and perhaps in the country.
But she is no more "electable" than Hillary Clinton, the most recent slam-dunk electable candidate for president. You can be one
of the adults in the dining room so that you can be heard. Or you can be heard by figuratively, of course, burning down the decrepit
house that is far beyond rehabilitation.
And that Cherokee thing? It won't go away, especially against the Current Occupant. I am sympathetic to why she did what she
did regarding her tiny admixture of Cherokee DNA, and the subsequent hysterics from the leaders in Tahlequah were just that. But
she responded to the biggest troll of all. Don't feed the trolls! Every white person in Oklahoma seems to claim a Cherokee "ancestor."
This is true also in the broad swath of the Southern states all the way from Texas/Oklahoma to North Carolina. Funny thing, it
is always a Cherokee, never a Chickasaw, Creek, Choctaw, or Seminole among the "Five Civilized Tribes." A Sequoyah thing, maybe?
Anyway, compared to Kamala Harris or Beto, Elizabeth Warren is FDR. So she's got that going for her. Which is nice. But it
isn't enough. Not yet in her telling. Not for the predicament we are in. The "Left Wing of the Possible" had moved so far to the
right in the past 40 years that is has no distinct meaning, certainly not what the late Michael Harrington had in mind from about
1978 through the 1984 election. I've recently re-read his chapter "The Lesser Evil? The Left, the Democrats and 1984" in Prisoners
of the American Dream by Mike Davis (highly recommended). The current revival of the same play, different cast, will end
the same way if it doesn't close. Now.
>And that Cherokee thing? It won't go away, especially against the Current Occupant.
You respectfully have that exactly wrong. Not sure how it will play with the hand-wringers in the Democratic Party, but in
the general against Trump?
1) Things are decent economically, Trump is going to win, it's just a torture skiv he can twist for fun.
2) Things are not going well, Trump is going to be told "shut up with the 4th grade name-calling and tell us how you are going
to fix the economy compared to what she is proposing".
Trump played his card. He can't play it again 4 years later, again if he really needs some sort of hand to play, as
it would emphasize that he's got nothing else.
Maybe Pence can use it, I dunno. But incumbent elections are always a referendum on the state of the economy, full stop.
"Since 2016, our movement has changed what's possible in American politics. We've made Medicare for All a national issue, challenged
conventional wisdom around combating climate change, and pressured corporations to start giving their employees the wages they
deserve -- but there's more to be done and Sen. Bernie Sanders is just the person to do it.
I am excited to announce that this Saturday, January 12, Our Revolution, Organizing for Bernie, the Bernie Delegate Network,
and the Progressive Democrats of America will be hosting hundreds of house parties around the country to talk about how we lay
the foundation for a Bernie 2020 presidential run.
Will you join us at 1 p.m. PT/4 p.m. ET this Saturday? Sign up here to let us know you'll be there.
Grassroots organizing is the key to building an agenda for the working people of this country, not just the 1 percent. Thank
you for joining this fight."
I also got that Organizing for Bernie email. And I unsubscribed. Bernie, I haven't forgotten about 2016. Especially the
part about taking this fight all the way to the convention.
My only comment is that it is better to vote for someone than not to have anyone that you are able to say is at least better
than the other. Last time I didn't have anyone to vote for on that basis.
America needs bold leadership centered on the needs and interests of the people, the citizenry as a whole, not more elitist,
leveraged thinking.
The elite have used leverage thinking to gain control over the mass of humanity and the environment, but now that they
reign supreme, they have run out of ideas as to social evolution. If put to the question- To what purpose are all human labor
and effort to be directed? They seem to not have a clue, other than conjuring up ways to perpetuate the status quo- which is to
protect elite interests at the expense of the weak and poor.
People are looking for bold change and action, but place their faith in the wrong people. In better times, people like Warren
and Sanders would be quietly working in the background ensuring that a bold vision of equality and justice are actually carried
out. However, Sanders is old and Warren is not a bold visionary- she seems a careerist just like everyone else, though less ruthless
and not blatantly imperialistic to her core. However, she is not for fundamental change and I would expect, once in power, she
could be persuaded to moderate any attempts to make such changes a reality- or push them off into some distant future.
The problem lies in the relentless, narrow vision of capitalism itself. Who in public life can afford to say that openly- or
believe it? Who takes the time and effort to say that life is not about having "better" things? The cynicism in American politics
today makes it a meaningless process for those not making their living from it. Better to think up ways of making political statements
and actions outside the official processes.
The enlightenment seems to have brought about false hopes for humanity. Instead of walking in the sunlight of reason, humanity
still seems to be stumbling along in the dark. A new vision is needed.
A meaningful opposition must be based on a resistance to capitalism itself, a desire to restore the power of the state to act
in the interests of the citizenry as a whole or majority, and to instill a sense of frugality and purpose in the citizenry- not
a desire for endless consumption and distraction.
Fundamental change will always be mocked by those in power- or labeled as treason.
I don't intend to be negative on Sanders and Warren, but American politics and life are so out of balance, at times it
seems that being an outsider- or non-participant is the way to sanity. When politicians can blatantly lie their way into office,
and the system allows them to survive and persist, the system is beyond fixing.
Our future is of Capitalist Nations battling for market share. If the insanity of nuclear weapons does not kill us all first,
meeting human needs by the capitalist system surely will- however slowly.
Capitalists will just redefine what it means to be a human being- as they always have and carry on. This cannot be allowed
to happen. Corporate power must be curtailed.
A new vision is needed, and political leaders willing to articulate it.
Authoritarianism is in our future. How else can radical change occur and is that a bad thing? Slow death brought about by radical
capitalism, or authoritarian rule to nationalize key industries in order to bring about social stability and fairness.
@ Norb: Re: "A new vision is needed." Since Yves invoked Polanyi you could start there. Whatever is old is new again. And as
she points out Polanyi's analysis is also an effective method for separating the gold nuggets from the lighter materials.
If and when it comes to the time for pollsters and the press to throw out the "strong leader" card, Sanders will win it hands-down
over Warren. Warren will be embraced much more by the centrist rich owners of the party. The question remains will Sanders actually
lead this time around. I still think he should have put those owners/thieves through a wood-chipper throughout the primary and
especially for all the world to see at the convention .
But hey I am not now nor am I ever likely to vote for that criminally anti-democratic party ever again. You don't join a mafia
in order to reform it.
This time I think Sanders might put the owners/thieves "through a wood-chipper throughout the primary" because this is his
last chance. He doesn't have to play 'nice' to stay in the party for another run.
Who cares what warren says,on the road to the campign. Words are cheap. When I first saw her on bill moyers, I liked that she
sounded good as a voice of opposition to credit card company policies, albeit in a news interview, while still at harvard,i believe.
Then I have liked that at least she comes off as a voice above the low hum of republican low lifes in congress. more of an adult
in the room ,so to speak. I don't really fault her for "not doing anything" in congress yet.. after all it is a body, and as such
lone voices have little sway so that is a net neutral.
But, If she can't get behind single payer. And in my mind, simplistic single payer that says healthcare should not be a for
profit owned institution, of any ones. Everyone who works for, be they doctors, nurses, or janitors, ought to be paid..
The inventors and manufacturers, ought to be fairly compensated. The physical assets, hospitals, factories, distribution, ought
to be more a federal "in-house" operation like the post office.. to keep it honest, and less expensive.
For all the money they can save, they can afford to keep everything in top notch, clean and current condition better than some
places today. Her stance on single payer is a non starter to me.
If her views on the approach to gov't as being "for the people" is the same as her view of healthcare, meaning for the corporation
than forget it.
After all, When Obama wrote his article in foreign affairs in 2006 or 2007, when he was putting his hat in the ring, that is
exactly who he said he was, and it was exactly what he did he said he was for the system as it was, and he was. He never claimed
he was a "radical" and he didn't stand for "change".
He was looking for a job. And if warren is the same. Looking for a job, and a believer in the way things are . Then nevermind.
I say she needs to show some real progressive inclination not just campaign rhetoric.
"I say she needs to show some real progressive inclination not just campaign rhetoric." She's already shown us who she is.
See above re: Larry Summers' insiders' rules.
I do agree. Warren at this point for me is a non-starter. If she was the democratic party "choice", I would feel very comfortable
voting for the green party again. A vote for the green party may mean there is no chance your candidate is going to win, but my
soul is satisfied I made a choice I actually like. Good enough for me.
If bernie gets the nomination, that is the only one talked about who might sway me as a candidate to the left wing of the bird
I so despise. Now If they put someone like ocasio cortez on the ticket . then wowie! I can't imagine anyone doing a worse job
, professionally speaking than trump, so considering her obvious authenticity, I would vote for her in a heartbeat. I would take
my chances with youthful over exuberance,and in-experience.. and go for someone who has the INCLINATION to do the right thing.
In fact I would rather vote for ocasio cortez then bernie. Berni should be her VP, to add the wisdom of age and to keep her on
the tracks. and advise her of the duplicity and treachery she would face.
Bernie's weakness after all is that he is from Vermont. A politician from vermont CAN be on the progressive side, in rhetoric,
and know nothing will come of it, and be re-elected . but before now, he hasn't really had to DO anything. And his stance on Israel,
is a bit too chummy IMO.
I would be curious how he voted on the senates first bill of the year, in that no one is allowed to criticize the isreali gov't
and boycott a product . What a perfect way for a despicable body to start off a new year. Someone ought to tell them what country
they are supposed to be representing. We have a whitehouse lobbying for russia, and a senate lobbying for isreal . WTF! And americans
are supposed to be okay with a gov't shut down, and if americans aren't getting paid so what.
You're right. She's only 29 years old and I read that the US Constitution states that you have to be a minimum of 35 years
of age to be President. So 2024 at a minimum. This talk is kinda like when years ago that some people said that Arnold Schwarzenegger
should run for President, forgetting that to be President that you have to be actually born in the US.
I liked that she sounded good as a voice of opposition to credit card company policies
Perhaps unfairly, the first thing I think of when I think of Elizabeth Warren is
her appearance on PBS
FRONTLINE's 2004 "Secret History of the Credit Card" where she says:
What I'd ask [the credit card companies] to do is just reprogram their computers to put two little lines on every credit
card statement, one that says if you make the minimum monthly payment, this is how long it will take you to pay off, and if
you make the minimum monthly payment, this is how much interest you'll pay over time. They could go a long way towards educating
a lot of consumers that way
Of course, there's nothing wrong with and everything laudable about that type of fix -- in any sort of political system not
bought and sold by the financial industry, that sort of thing would be obvious. But, it seems like, in Warren's world, if we just
make the system a bit fairer , if the parties contracting -- and all we have are "transactional actors," people contracting
or being consumers -- if they just have clearer, more readily-understood terms -- she taught contract law at Harvard, after all
-- well, that's sufficient and maybe the best we can do or all we should do.
I think it's perfectly valid to view Warren as a defender of the status quo, lover of markets, and all that, as this post says,
but I feel like, ultimately, something else is going on here. Her response regarding her claimed Cherokee heritage -- a DNA test
-- in the interests of "transparency" and
"put[ting] it out
there" typifies the problem. In Elizabeth Warren's wonkish, Lisa Simpson world, the problem isn't that Trump and the right-wing
wing are bullying her into responding, the problem is that the information isn't out there on the table. If the kid in the neighborhood
taunts you, saying "My dad is stronger than your dad," the Elizabeth Warren solution is to get them both to submit to strength
tests. It misconstrues the issue -- she doesn't get the underlying power dynamic.
For Warren, the problem isn't a private, for-profit health insurance industry -- she "loves" markets, after all -- it's
holding them accountable and strengthening consumer protections. (And, more broadly, holding capitalism
accountable .) It's not just that she's
"capitalist to the bone," it's that she seems pretty oblivious to both the underlying power relations -- imagine FDR saying he
wanted to hold the "economic royalists" "accountable" (what he said was "I should like to have it said that
these forces [of selfishness and of lust] met their master") -- and, more specifically, to the idea that some things, such as
health care, are best not left to an for-profit private sector, even one that is "accountable." That's not an issue of
capitalism and the status quo per se any more than Warren's response regarding her background is about DNA tests -- it's
that her take on systems is wrong. (Hillary Clinton's "never, ever" statement on single payer was more of a systemic
take, in its own cynical way, than Warren's opposition.) Warren might be all about "leverage," according to one of her allies,
but, in her talk of transparency and fairness and accountability, she picks the points of weakest leverage in the system
and doesn't even seem to realize she's doing so.
At some level, I think that the question is whether we want to save capitalism (from itself) or replace it. I don't think that
assuming that the current extreme free-markets uber alles version of capitalism is the only or even inevitable form by ignoring
the post war period when capitalism worked reasonably well for the middle class is particularly useful. It is the mirror image
to those that regard any form of socialism as the first step of an inevitable slide to Venezuelan/Zimbabwean authoritarian market
collapse and ignoring the Nordic countries which seem to manage a high level of government intervention pretty well thank-you-very-much.
Neither system works very well when taken to extremes.
To a real extant, I just think that it is easier to move from where we are now to reasonably well functioning system like that
we had in the 60s than to a Nordic-style economy.
The differences between these two candidates is substantial and important. If Sanders supporters can't articulate why Warren's
stances are unacceptable, then it will be that much easier for the Hillary/Warren/Establishment wing of the DNC to paint us as
misogynists.
The DNC is already "painting" the Sanders 'wing' of American politics as misogynist. It doesn't matter whether it is true or
not. The "Big Lie" method is being used. That method has no relation to objective reality, by design. So, don't defend against
the Big Lies' specific items. Attack the 'Big Lie' itself and it's enablers head on.
For instance, when a Hillbot attacks you because "one of Bernies staffers watches porn," don't whine about "people are all
over the place and the bad apples will be thrown out of our barrel." Instead, tell them that you'd rather have one of your staffers
watching porn than having the candidates husband raping underage girls on the "Lolita Express." This level of savagery is needed.
The Dem apparatchiks have already self selected for "True Believers," who will stop at nothing to get their way. They must be
expunged igneously.
"If Sanders supporters can't articulate why Warren's stances are unacceptable .." That just means that Sanders supporters haven't
done their homework sufficiently. The Sanders campaign needs to put out a source of quick replies to anti-Sanders attacks. A Political
F.A.Q.s sidebar on the campaign website as it were.
The one quibble I would have with this analysis is the idea that Sanders is inherently more "sweeping" than Warren in policy
changes. Despite his label, the actual policy positions that Sanders pushes are more SocDem than DemSoc. Don't get me wrong, the
expanded welfare state he proposes would be a vast improvement, but that's standard issue nordic-style sandbox capitalism; it
doesn't touch on the "worker control of the means of production" part that makes up the socialist part of Democratic Socialism.
Warren's plan, while the optics are "save capitalism," ironically does more in that regard by giving workers in large corporations
co-determination and some effective veto powers on board decisions. I'm not saying the policy is socialism, but it would cause
just as much disruption to the political economy as the Sanders agenda.
Yea she might actually be in some ways more radical.
Although I rather doubt either of them are the revolutionaries the writer seems to be looking for. AOC maybe? We don't have
very much experience to go by there though, so it's really too soon to say.
How often have we heard about working from the inside? How often do you have to do it before realizing it will not work with
these overwhelmingly entrenched powers? Moreover, how much more leverage would a Sanders/Warren (or vice versa) ticket have? Far,
far more than a Senator Warren who is lukewarm on issue vital to the people?
'Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused
politicians.' Yes, and this will prevent either of them getting the nomination
Blame the voters. Most are neo-liberals. It was many a neo-liberal who didn't like Hillary Clinton and wouldn't vote for her.
But a Biden? Sure, he is old, but they like him. Hillary lost 400,000 votes from Ohio just from James Comey's hatch act violations.
Now think about that for a sec.
Elections are popularity contest. Always have been. Its about dopamine release.
Most national economies, including that of the US, are held together by mountains of debt, variously estimated at figures well
over $US 125 trillion. Thanks to a decade of ridiculously low interest rates, so are many large companies. Sooner or later some
black swan or other will cause one of these financial houses of cards to topple, and the leverage and interconnectedness of modern
finance, together with the massive proliferation of more and new derivative markets will cause a massive cascading financial crash,
worldwide.
This is notwithstanding the remarkable levels of creativity displayed by financial and political institutions like the US Fed,
the EU and the IMF to kick the proverbial debt cans down the road still further.
Then and only then will the majority of us working stiffs (i.e. Those other than the top one percent) realise that the hyper
capitalism that we have arrived at over the last decade or so simply does not work for most people.
Then and only then will we see real and meaningful economic, political and necessary environmental policy change. The sooner
the better.
In the mean time the old Roman recipe of "Feed them Bread and Circuses" will continue , to the ever increasing detriment of the
planet.
Can't change the system from the inside except by radical mutation or extinction. Which looks to be our course. Liz is just
another elite sell-out. Would she be able to articulate what the country wants (medicare for all, free education, etc) if it weren't
for Bernie? No, she would not. She's a coward. Her pronouncements are as vacuous but emphatic as Theresa May's. "Leverage" is
her euphemism – she just wants to find cover and suck up. What exactly does she mean by "regulate markets to shape pre-distribution
income before taxes"? For god's sake, this is stuff we should have looked at 50 years ago, now it's too late. She wants to "be
in the room" – I'm pretty sure that would be a circular love-fest as usual. Liz is busy fogging up the mirror. She can't hold
a candle to Bernie.
Sanders is going to get drowned out in 2020. He is too old and it shows. He got lucky in 2016 when Biden's son died
making Hillary the consensus favorite with her large "ethics issues". If Biden's son hadn't died, he would have been the nominee.
Instead he could blather on and be the "protest vote".
There may be 30 candidates this cycle. It will be crazy. He is going to feel the Bern all right.
Maybe, but his age won't help. He is old, very old. He is older than Biden. I think he also comes off as a carpetbagger to
neo-libs where Warren or O'Neoliberal is more frank.
It is just like most who whine about "cultural marxism" don't get marxists also don't support cultural marxism .because it
isn't marxist. It is nothing more than a gimmick sold by "contards" to stimulate the dopamine receptors of their flock.
I don't know, I'm more inclined to keep it simple and call Warren a standard-issue liberal whose brand is Wall Street regulation.
Jay Inslee's brand will be climate change, Biden's will be the Golden Age of Obama and his folksiness, and so on. Sanders, on
the other hand, is fundamentally not a liberal as we usually understand it, though he has compromised with liberals in a great
many ways for practical reasons.
I liked Warren when she first popped into the picture but I have real trouble thinking of her as a candidate for President.
Warren seems far far too willing to focus on details, rhetoric, and then move on to some new 'hot-rock'. She impresses me as most
like Obama. Speaking the 'right' words, but small in her concerns, and solutions, and smaller in impact beyond the 'right' words.
I remain firmly in the Bernie Sanders camp -- barring the entry of some truly radical dark horse. I am concerned about his
age. I might be less concerned if he could give a hint about who he favors as his Vice-President -- maybe he has but I'm just
not aware(?). Even so, completely discounting his age, Bernie is not my ideal candidate. I think he is radical only by comparison
with everyone else who might have a chance to become POTUS.
Without radical reform of our Society and its economic system I fear we approach threat of a time of "luan" as tao99 described
such times in Chinese history in a comment to today's post on China [tao99. January 11, 2019 at 7:29 am]: " in China the biggest
fear amongst the government and the people is "luan" (translated basically meaning chaos). Collective memories are there of the
points in the not so distant past where starvation and chaos did reign – and this puts some additional urgency in trying not to
go over the cliff." How many coincident 'unfortunate' events would it take to make -- food and water -- life-and-death concerns
for those living in some of our great cities?
What if the power went out but there was no replacement transformer and no one coming
to install it?
Sanders is the wrench in the system, Warren the oil.
I was aware of Sanders well before seeing him about ten years ago giving an impassioned speech at a single-payer event and
lobby day in D.C. put on by Progressives, the California Nurses Association (now NNU) and other groups. Unfortunately, but the
nature of policy and those outside the pale of the mainstream media and centrist politics is the hinterlands. They do not get
the platform or visibility. We might also ask who ever heard of HR 676 (the better single-payer bill when compared to Sanders')
and John Conyers back then, who had been the sponsor of a single payer bill (until his reason problems), but the number of those
endorsing it has grown in recent years, much due to the work of single payer groups and people like Sanders who have raised the
profile of it. And now the Progressive Caucus (though now filled with some faux progressives who need to co-opt the brand) was
then and is even much more so now the largest caucus in the House. Sanders had a lot to do with raising the profile of single
payer, and many other issues that got little attention, and his penchant for movement building sits well with a populace that
is disillusioned by both political parties and the years of neoliberalism that have made their prosperity suffer.
Sanders keeps plugging away, year after year, and his expanding base are more politically conscious of the need for systemic
change. Regardless of his shortcomings and the already many attacks by the corporate Dems and their surrogates and the mainstream
media Jake Tapper types, he is the only candidate that will enthuse voters, if or course the establishment mud slinging does not
bring him down once again along with centrist Dem machinations.
His continual emphasis on policy is key for me, particularly since he works to avoid the cult of personality that others rely
on, such as Beto O'Rourke. The manner in which Warren handled the whole "Pocahontas" debacle showed a real weakness on her part
to navigate the political world, even if she is good at navigating well in power centers. At times her speeches appear to self-serving
and lack the genuineness of a Sanders speech, and he after all has remained fairly consistent over decades.
When he runs, which I think he will, it would behoove anyone desiring throwing a wrench into the works to do all they can to
get him elected. I say that as one who eschews any cultist belief in him.
He essentially became a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy is a
Deep State controlled republican. In any case he betrayed his voters in a way that resembles Obama betrayal. One has a
fake slogan "change we can believe in" that other equally fake "Make [middle] America Great Again" (which means restoration
of well-being of middle class and working class in my book, not the continuation of Obama foreign wars, and tax cuts for for
corporations and super rich.
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans
and former Sanders supporters. He might do good and not to try to run in 2020. He definitely is no economic nationalist.
Compare his policies with Tucker Carlson Jan 2, 2019
speech to see the difference. He is
"national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on treaties and
prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties.
And his "fight" with the Deep State resemble so closely to complete and unconditional
surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two.
Most of his appointees would make Hillary proud. That that extends beyond rabid neocons like Haley, Mattis, Bolton and
Pompeo.
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them. ..."
"... Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. ..."
"... It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG, fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors. ..."
"... They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them. ..."
"... The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement. ..."
"... It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way ..."
Washington
Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his
discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a
phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private conversation in
Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I
couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which
only the leaders and their translators were present -- as "a great conversation" that
included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the
president of various countries. I do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed
by Republicans.
"The Washington Post is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump
said.
When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York Times report that the FBI had opened an
inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you ever
worked for Russia, Mr. President?"
"I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think it's
the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former
FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush
or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, & as I have often
said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday
we will have good relations with Russia again!"
rumcho
Jeff Bezos paid $250 million for Washington Post, five years later he gets a government contract with the CIA for $600
million. Are you connecting the dots? You do the numbers. This is how fascism works. Bezos is a crony capitalist joker.
is Trump waiting for Mueller to lay down his cards? Head him off at the pass and arrest Obama, Rice, Jarrett, Lynch, Comey,
Rosenstein and McCabe all on day 1
best defense is a good offense. Make the narrative about Dem sedition not impending House impeachment hearings.
You are President, start acting like it. Make them fear you.
your re-election depends on Mike Obama not being your opponent.
Let it Go
WaPo, again?
The Washington Post is without a doubt the most pro-establishment among all large mainstream publications, not only do
they defend the narratives of the Deep State but actively attacks anyone who challenges them.
Jeff Bezos owner of the Washington Post is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all
part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. The
article below delves into how WaPo is behind many of the big stories that manipulate America and moves the needle of public
opinion in huge ways.
It's really sad that people in the public believe this stuff. It's insane and ridiculous. We're living in an Insane Asylum
and the ones who should be there for the safety of themselves and others are walking around giving orders to Media and USG,
fomenting war and making a mockery of laws and "normal behaviors.
shadow54
They flooded the news with the old Helsinki/Putin stuff to hide the real news. Lisa Page's testimony revealed that
John Carlin, Mueller's former chief of staff was running the Russia investigation from the DOJ end, showing another conflict
of Mueller's. Now Mueller is covering for two best friends, Comey and Carlin and he has to frame Trump to save them.
The testimony also showed FBI David Bowditch was heavily involved, and Bowditch is now 2nd in command at the FBI and
blocking the public release of witness testimony, and one reason for it is it reveals his involvement.
It is also now revealed that John Brennan CIA had the dossier before the FBI, and the dossier was likely written by
Nellie Ohr, who belonged to a CIA group, and then the dossier was laundered by Steele to look like foreign intelligence to
get the Crossfire Hurricane investigation started on Trump. You would think it would be big news that Russians may have had
nothing to do with the dossier but the media doesn't see it that way.
Then there is the news that Fusion GPS worked with the Democracy Integrity Project and Knew Knowledge to run a fake Russian
bots campaign against Roy Moore. The Democracy Integrity Project was started by Feinstein's aide and with New Knowledge wrote
a report on Russian bots for the Senate Intelligence Committee. So the Senate Intelligence Committee hired creators of fake
Russian bots to write a report on Russian bots.
In my view, at the moment the deed is done. The president signed onto the report acknowledged
the he accepts the report has even gone as far to say, he blames Pres. Putin
Another backtrack, just muddies the waters, and mat be acceptable because no one wants to
accept the real consequences of a president who has repudiated the one state president he
most desired to make a deal with -- the jig is up.
Whether kabuki theater or real gamesmanship --
A threshold has been crossed and uncrossing it is going to be tricky and in my further
humiliation for the wh. The analysis here mattered before the president agreed with the
report. But when he did, this analysis, becomes moot. Having a chit chat about de-escalating
nuclear tensions is quaint in light of the president acknowledging that russia has in fact
undermined the US democratic process. This is a serious charge and no amount of changing the
subject, crying foul, or pretending it was all a big misunderstanding is going to change
that.
I think it would have been prudent for the president to hold fire in Helsinki and read the
report and then responded . He did make any of those choices. It matters not how exposed the
establishment in wanton eagerness to have their way, wh has embraced the matter. it is on
record and . . . oh well. I see merit in maintaining his original position of disbelief --
however, the president did a complete about face -- and there is no question of that or the
implications.
Earlier tonight I spoke with my friend Van Jones about the challenges we face and the
future of our country.
He asked me bluntly whether I'll run for president, and I told him straight: I've
decided to run and will make a formal announcement next week.
There are many reasons I'm offering to serve you as President -- to ensure every
American gets the healthcare they need, to bring about comprehensive immigration reform, to
make sure we have clean water and clean air for generations to come, to fix our broken criminal
justice system, to end the corrupt influence of special interests in Washington, and so much
more.
But the main reason I'm running has to do with an issue that is central to the rest --
war and peace. I look forward to talking with you more about this in the coming days.
When we stand together, united by our love for each other and for our country, there is
no challenge we cannot overcome.
Aloha,
Tulsi
************************
I received this email from Tulsi Gabbard's office tonight. No, we don't know each other. I
signed up for her updates over two years ago because of my interest in her. We've talked about
her over the years within this committee of correspondence, always on a positive note as I
recall.
As I'm sure you remember, she left the DNC leadership in 2016 because of their high-handed
treatment of Bernie Sanders. She caused quite a stir for meeting with Bashar Assad when she
visited Syria in early 2017. She is still an Army major in the Hawaiian National Guard and
advocates for a strong defense, including a robust ballistic missile defense. Not unusual
considering she represents Hawaii's 2nd Congressional District. As a Progressive, she calls for
an end to all our overseas wars including Syria and Yemen. But I think she's more of a Teddy
Roosevelt Progressive
Before delving into her politics, I recommend an article Tulsi wrote back in October 2017
entitled "My Spiritual Journey." I think it says a lot about her and her upbringing. She is
definitely a committed member of the Hawaiian ohana.
In my few short years there, I was most
impressed by this spirit. I saw it in my neighbors in Mililani Town, my friends and
counterparts in Company C, 1/299 Infantry (HI ARNG) on Maui and in the pig hunters/pakalolo
growers of the Koolau Mountains. I think the DC swamp can use a little more aloha spirit.
Shaka, brah!
"... Yes, plus they could have at least tied in the Rosenstein attempt to wear a wire to trap Trump via the 25th amendment as hatched by McCabe too. Lousy article. ..."
Yes, plus they could have at least tied in the Rosenstein attempt to wear a wire to trap
Trump via the 25th amendment as hatched by McCabe too. Lousy article.
Elizabeth Warren and Her Party of Ideas She's what a serious policy intellectual looks like in 2019. By Paul Krugman
Almost 40 years have passed since Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- a serious intellectual turned influential politician -- made
waves by declaring, "Of a sudden, Republicans have become a party of ideas." He didn't say that they were good ideas; but the
G.O.P. seemed to him to be open to new thinking in a way Democrats weren't.
But that was a long time ago. Today's G.O.P. is a party of closed minds, hostile to expertise, aggressively uninterested in
evidence, whose idea of a policy argument involves loudly repeating the same old debunked doctrines. Paul Ryan's "innovative"
proposals of 2011 (cut taxes and privatize Medicare) were almost indistinguishable from those of Newt Gingrich in 1995.
Meanwhile, Democrats have experienced an intellectual renaissance. They have emerged from their 1990s cringe; they're no longer
afraid to challenge conservative pieties; and there's a lot of serious, well-informed intraparty debate about issues from health
care to climate change.
You don't have to agree with any of the various Medicare for All plans, or proposals for a Green New Deal, to recognize that
these are important ideas receiving serious discussion.
The question is whether our media environment can handle a real party of ideas. Can news organizations tell the difference
between genuine policy wonks and poseurs like Ryan? Are they even willing to discuss policy rather than snark about candidates'
supposed personality flaws?
Which brings me to the case of Elizabeth Warren, who is probably today's closest equivalent to Moynihan in his prime.
Like Moynihan, she's a serious intellectual turned influential politician. Her scholarly work on bankruptcy and its relationship
to rising inequality made her a major player in policy debate long before she entered politics herself. Like many others, I found
one of her key insights -- that rising bankruptcy rates weren't caused by profligate consumerism, that they largely reflected
the desperate attempts of middle-class families to buy homes in good school districts -- revelatory.
She has also proved herself able to translate scholarly insights into practical policy. Full disclosure: I was skeptical about
her brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I didn't think it was a bad idea, but I had doubts about how much difference
a federal agency tasked with policing financial fraud would make. But I was wrong: Deceptive financial practices aimed at poorly
informed consumers do a lot of harm, and until President Trump sabotaged it, the bureau was by all accounts having a hugely salutary
effect on families' finances.
And Warren's continuing to throw out unorthodox policy ideas, like her proposal that the federal government be allowed to get
into the business of producing some generic drugs. This is the sort of thing that brings howls of derision from the right, but
that actual policy experts consider a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Is there anyone like Warren on the other side of the aisle? No. Not only aren't there any G.O.P. politicians with comparable
intellectual heft, there aren't even halfway competent intellectuals with any influence in the party. The G.O.P. doesn't want
people who think hard and look at evidence; it wants people like, say, the "economist" Stephen Moore, who slavishly reaffirm the
party's dogma, even if they can't get basic facts straight.
Does all of this mean that Warren should be president? Certainly not -- a lot of things determine whether someone will succeed
in that job, and intellectual gravitas is neither necessary nor sufficient. But Warren's achievements as a scholar/policymaker
are central to her political identity, and clearly should be front and center in any reporting about her presidential bid.
But, of course, they aren't. What I'm seeing are stories about whether she handled questions about her Native American heritage
well, or whether she's "likable."
This kind of journalism is destructively lazy, and also has a terrible track record. I'm old enough to remember the near-universal
portrayal of George W. Bush as a bluff, honest guy, despite the obvious lies underlying his policy proposals; then he took us
to war on false pretenses.
Moreover, trivia-based reporting is, in practice, deeply biased -- not in a conventional partisan sense, but in its implicit
assumption that a politician can't be serious unless he (and I mean he) is a conservative, or at most centrist, white male. That
kind of bias, if it persists, will be a big problem for a Democratic Party that has never been more serious about policy, but
has also never been more progressive and more diverse.
This bias needs to be called out -- and I'm not just talking about Warren. Consider the contrast between the unearned adulation
Ryan received and how long it took conventional wisdom to recognize that Nancy Pelosi was the most effective House speaker of
modern times.
Again, I'm not arguing that Warren should necessarily become president. But she is what a serious policy intellectual looks
and sounds like in 2019. And if our media can't recognize that, we're in big trouble.
Warren's point is: "the generals, 'adults' to the neocons and media, have to express in clear terms what is 'winning', how we
the unwashed know it is winning and what cost and time to 'win'.
No more deferring to neocon pundits and appeal to generals' authority for insanities like Syria and Libya!
Sort of like what the TDS'ers are saying about the border wall only for the immense pentagon waste machine.
Skeptical about the war mongers, Warren may not be an adult any more........
... Afghanistan has long been called the "graveyard of empires" -- for so long that it is unclear who coined that disputable
term.
In truth, no great empires perished solely because of Afghanistan. Perhaps a better way to put it is that Afghanistan is the
battleground of empires. Even without easily accessible resources, the country has still been blessed -- or cursed, more likely
-- with a geopolitical position that has repeatedly put it in someone or other's way. ...
Were they really "going broke"? They could print unlimited amounts of money.
Or was it that no one was bothering to work?
Or was it that the oligarchs realized they could get richer if they could fire people rather than under a system where they
had to employ everyone?
I had a co-worker that grew up in the Soviet Union. From his point of view, one day you had a guaranteed job and the pay was
going to be low no matter how hard you worked, so no one actually worked much. The next day you could be fired if you didn't work.
So people actually started to work. Output increased, their pay didn't go up, but the oligarchs were able to get a lot richer.
"Were they really "going broke"? They could print unlimited amounts of money."
Sounds like you're being argumentative.
The U.S.S.R. couldn't afford the invasion of Afghanistan. It cost a lot so it reduced their ability to spend on other priorities,
like aid to allied states. The Warsaw PACT countries began to fall away and then it snowballed.
If by "argument" we mean using logical statements to support a conclusion, then YES, I'm being argumentative. Not if you mean,
disagreeing just to be a jerk.
On an economics site, even if no where else, we have to view the economy from two sides... supply and demand.
Work produces supply and money supplies demand.
Was the USSR's problem on the supply side or the money side? Saying "went bankrupt" implies the problem was on the money side.
My view of state socialism, or any system where you can't be fired, is that it creates supply side problems. If you can't be
fired, there is no motivation to work hard.
I think it a HIGHLY important distinction, and one that we must use to keep progressive liberalism on the right track. (or
is it tack?)
Margaret Thatcher's quote "The problem with socialism is that you run out of other peoples' money to spend." is ignorant on
its face. As soon as government spends the money, it is someone else's again, ready to be taxed away again.
This "The USSR went bankrupt" reinforces the false view of socialism's flaws.
This feeds into the "We can't afford it" bulldung when we try to talk about things like Medicare for All.
Did the USSR collapse because they ran out of other peoples' money (went bankrupt)? OR, was production really low because people
couldn't be fired, so didn't bother to work hard? Did the oligarchs decided to end socialism and move to capitalism, so that they
could fire people, to motivate them to work harder, to increase production?
It is HUGELY important distinction for creating a successful progressive economy.
Pro-union? I'm all for it if it is about getting a bigger share of revenue for the workers via collective bargaining. BUT,
does that include making it hard to impossible to fire terrible workers? If so, does that hurt total production? If so, then it
has the same fatal flaw of state socialism.
Guaranteed Job: An idea that if you don't have a private sector job, you show up at a government employment office, do whatever
work is assigned, and get a check. However, since you can't be fired from the guaranteed job, there is absolutely no motivation
to actually do the assigned work. Then, there becomes no motivation to get a private sector job where you actually do have to
work.
Universal Basic Income: Until we reach the level of automation seen in Wall-E, stuff is still going to need to be done, by
someone. UBI makes people not want to do it.
+++++
On the flip side...
For Medicare for All, it is work that is already being done. All we're talking about is if we hand the money to the government
to manage the risk-pooling, or we hand the money over to for-profit insurance companies.
The "how can we afford it?" argument is based on the idea that the USSR went bankrupt from spending too much of "other peoples'
money".
However, if properly viewed as a labor issue, then "How can we afford it?" becomes obvious. We just use some of the money people
are already spending on healthcare.
Any apparent agreement between Liz Warren and Trump can be chalked up to coincidence. Liz Warren's opposition to the US always-war
is a feature, not a bug.
The MIC is an unregulated pox on American history.
War would not end if the USA slashed defense spending. All that would change is that other countries would colonize the USA
instead of the USA colonizing other countries.
You can chose to be the predator, or you can chose to be the prey, but you can't chose to not participate.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
Did Krugman just issue a veiled warning to Pelosi, Schumer, and Clinton Democrats? Did he see
this as a teaching moment for them? Has he turned from unabashed megaphone for establishment
Democrats to an honest broker, willing to explain economics to Demcoratic Big Money
parasites? Could be... If so, this might be a turning point for Krugman from partisan hack to
honest broker!
As always, Robert Reich pulls fewer punches: "Do not ever underestimate the influence of
Wall Street Democrats, corporate Democrats, and the Democrats' biggest funders. I know. I've
been there.
In the 2018 midterms, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, big
business made more contributions to Democrats than to Republicans. The shift was particularly
noticeable on Wall Street. Not since 2008 have donors in the securities and investment
industry given a higher percentage to Democratic candidates and committees than to
Republicans.
The moneyed interests in the Democratic party are in favor of helping America's poor and
of reversing climate change – two positions that sharply distinguish them from the
moneyed interests in the Republican party.
And maybe, just maybe, Krugman, in a veiled warning to Democrats enamored with Trump's tax
cuts, has decided to trump partisan loyalty with economic reality...as any decent economist
should do.
EMichael and kurt will be disappointed, very disappointed that Krugman sided with AOC over
corrupt, sclerotic, corporate Democrats...
There is no reason to think that mainstream liberals would not just go along with whatever
direction the liberal establishment takes. OTOH, there is a major difference in the context
between the rank and file of mainstream liberals and the actual liberal establishment itself.
Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections. They are concerned with
electability and the constraints of legislative process. There is nothing wrong with that. It
is the role of the rank and file.
However, AOC is correct. It is radicals that bring about all significant change.
Mainstream radical is an oxymoron. After radicals cause change then it is no longer radical,
but it becomes mainstream instead.
In contrast, the liberal establishment is also concerned with electability because that is
what they do for a living, either get elected or ride along on the coattails of the elected,
but they are elites and elitists not to be separated from the status quo economic
establishment without considerable consternation. However, the elitists' trepidation over
being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be greatly reduced by severe limits
on private campaign financing. Still, it would be a rare elected official that would rather
eat in a soup kitchen than a five-star restaurant both for the good food and for the good
company. In both regards though that depends upon what your definition of "good" is.
"Mainstream liberals just want to fit in and win elections..." And they are precisely they
kind of "go-along to get along types" who let bad things happen...and then pretend to not
understand what went wrong...Vietnam, Iraq, GWOT, Glass-Steagall repeal, trade
liberalization/offshoring profits, banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy
down. The list goes on.
There are leaders, followers, and radicals. One can choose to be any one or two or those they
want, but no more than two. It is not very rewarding to be a radical from the back of the
line unless there is also a radical to follow at the front of the line. Leaders that are also
followers inherit the status quo and guard it like it was their own because it is. Radical
leaders rarely succeed, but often die young.
Trump is a bad example of a leader, but he follows his nose at least rather than just the
status quo. Trump has a nose for trouble and he cannot resist its stench any more than a
jackal or hyena can resist rotting carrion. Fortunate for Trump the US has a long history of
stockpiling trouble for future consumption that reaches all the way back to colonial times.
Trump likes to think that orange is the new black, but the old black, brown, and red are
still around and neither yellow nor orange can take their place.
The majority of people are just plain old followers. If people think that there is chaos
in the world already, just imagine what it would be like if most people were not just plain
old followers. The status quo always has the advantage of the natural force of inertia.
"...banksters who go Scot free after bringing the economy down. The list goes on."
Because you believe in government as done by Putin, Maduro, Saddam, Saudi Arabia, etc:
jail, torture, kill enemies by the people in power being the law.
You reject the US Constitution where voters are allowed to elect Republicans who legalize
fraud and theft by deception based on voters wanting the free lunch of easy credit requiring
bankers have no liability for the bad loans from easy credit. You reject the US Constitution
prohibition on retroactive laws criminalizzing legal actions.
Only if you were leading protests in the 90s in opposition to laws making credit easy for
below $80,000 workers whether buying houses or trucks/SUV.
Only if you were picketing real estate agents and car dealers from 2001 to 2005 to keep
out customers, you were not doing enough to stop easy credit.
The GOP was only dellivering what voters wanted, stuff they could not afford paid for by
workers saving for their retirement.
Elections have consequences.
The elections from 1994 to 2004 were votes for free lunch economics. The GOP promised and
delivered free lunch economic policies.
In 2005, voters on the margins realized tanstaafl, and in 2006 elected Pelosi to power,
and Pelosi, representing California knows economies are zero sum, so she increased costs to
increase general welfare. One of the costs was reccognizing the costs, and benefits, of the
US Constitution.
In 2008, she did not try to criminalize past action, and when she could not get the votes
to punish the bankers who bankrupted the institutions they ran by prohibiting bonuses in the
future,, she insread delivered the best deal possible for the US Constitutional general
welfare.
I think Bernie wanted all voters who voted GOP to lose their jobs, or maybe he simply
believes in free lunch economist claims that welfare payments in Ohio and Michigan are higher
than union worker incomes.
Maybe he thinks bankruptcy court nationalize businesses, not liquidate them.
Or maybe he figured the solution was a 21st Century Great Depression which would elect a
socialist instead of a capitalist FDR, and he would get to run all the automakers, all the
food industry, and employ all the workers deciding what they can buy?
I can never figure out how the economy would work if Bernie were running it. He talks
about Europe, but never advocates the cost of EU economy that is part of EU law: the VAT. All
EU members must have a VAT that is a significant cost to every person in the EU.
Free lunch economics is when you promise increased benefits with no costs, or lower
costs.
Free lunch Trump and free lunch Bernie differ only in their winners, but their losers are
always the same.
When progressives argue for unlimited increases in debt just like Reagan, they are
rejecting the pokicies of FDR, Keynes, the US when the general welfare increased most by
increasing assets faster than debt.
"'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train.
"elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing."
So, the wealthy liberal elites who pay no taxes by cleverly paying all revenue to workers
need to be punished because they pay too much to too many workers?
Warrren Buffett has never paid much in taxes even when tax rates on corporations were over
50% and individuals reached over 70%. Money paid to workers, directly or indirectly, was and
still is the number one tax dodge.
Unless you go to a sales tax aka VAT which taxes all revenue, expecially business income
paid to workers.
VAT is an income tax with zero tax dodges aka loopholes aka deductions.
""'elitists' trepidation over being separated from their wealthy elite supporters would be
greatly reduced by severe limits on private campaign financing." Which is why so many liberal
establishment politicians...per Reich...pay only lip service to real campaign finance reform.
Being parasites, they feed off of their hosts and dare not disrupt the gravy train."
In your view, its the poor who create high paying jobs?
It's wrong to listen to people who convince rich people to give their money to people
paying US workers to build factories, wind farms, solar farms battery factories,
transportation systems, vehicles, computer systems in the US?
Instead Democrats should listen to people who have never created long term paying jobs,
but only pay elites who run campaigns using mostly unpaid workers, or workers paid only a few
months every few years? Like Bernie does?
When it comes to how to run a "Green New Deal", I want the policy crafted by someone who
listens to Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and the CEOs of California energy corporations,
tech companies, who are commited to consuming more and more energy that requires no fossil
fuels. Listening to Home Depot and Walmart building managers and retail sales managers should
be a priority. All these guys both focus on paying more workers, and selling more to workers
paid more.
AOC and Bernie seem to listen to the Lamperts who are destroying the value of companies
like Sears by "taxing" both the customers, workers, and owners, by giving money to people who
don't work to produce anything.
I make going to RealClearPolicy, Politics, etc a daily practice to see how bad
progressives are at selling their policies, making it easy for find all sorts of costs,
without any benefits to anyone.
The New Deal was not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. The New
Deal was about paying workers more.
In 1930, half the population still lived on farms. (They might work off the farm, but they
were farmworkers first.) The problem for farmers is Europe had recovered from the war and was
no longer sending gold to the US to secure loans to buy food, but instead repaying the loans
by shipping high value food to the US, wine, cheese, etc, and that meant too much food drove
prices down, which meant farmworkers earned less and less.
One of the first laws set minimum prices for food, enforced by destroying crops, or
government overpaying for food like milk, cheese, bread, which the government gave away to
the poor who could never buy this food. It was not about giving food away, but about paying
workers, the farmers, ranchers, etc. Giving the food to the poor who could not afford to buy
food was simply to avoid the attacks on FDR for destroying good food to drive up farmer pay.
Which was the truth.
FDR talked about creating a healthy workforce to make America great, then about building a
healthy soldier. Ike in the 50s and JFK in the 60s campaigned on creating healthy soldiers.
And smart, educated soldiers and workers.
The policies of liberals was about better workers, richer workers.
Conservatives since Reagan has been about cutting the costs of workers. Sold based on
consumers benefiting from lower cost workers, because consumees are never workers, workers
never consumers, because if workers equal consumers, economics must be zero sum.
By attracting the intense ire of the GOP, AOC activates the negative polarization of lib
pundits and makes them look for ways to defend left policy items they'd attack in any other
scenario. It's very effective at pushing the discourse forward.
"But the Democrats' moneyed interests don't want more powerful labor unions. They are not in
favor of stronger antitrust enforcement against large corporations."
So, you think beef at $10 plus per pound, salad greens at $5 plus per pound, a fast food
meal at $10 plus, is a winning issue for Democrats?
Or by powerful labor unions, you mean for only white male blue collar factory workers,
long haul white truckers, white construction workers?
Making all work pay enough to reach middle class status at the low end will not happen by
unions because many parts of the US, and workers, and jobs, will oppose unions. Instead,
labor laws and enforcement to lift wages and working conditions rapidly in conservative
regions are required.
Better to get the minimum wage in Indiana and Kansas to $10 than in California to $15.
More important to get farm workers fully covered by Federal law like factory workers, with
exemptions only for farmer family members.
Raising incomes in low living cost regions will not raise prices much nationally, but
increase living standards among the most disadvantaged who feel "left behind".
Automatic increases annually of 10% for 7 years, then indexed by cpi.
Constantly emphasizing this minimum is way below what the low wage is in SF, NYC, LA, but
the goods produced will be bought and thus wages paid mostly by high income liberal elites.
Conservatives sticking it to liberals!
Wow... you need to do a lot better at shopping sales. I wait for sales and then buy burger
at $2.50, crud cuts at $3-4, and can frequently get t-bone and ribeye for under $5.
BUT, on the larger scale, what is the difference if I pay $1 a pound for burger and earn
$20K a year, or I pay $3 for burger and earn $60K a year?
Inflation punishes savers? Really? What is the difference if I earn 3% at 2% inflation or
1% at 0% inflation? The answer is, none.
"In that case, however, why do we care how hard the rich work? If a rich man works an extra
hour, adding $1000 to the economy, but gets paid $1000 for his efforts, the combined income
of everyone else doesn't change, does it? Ah, but it does – because he pays taxes on
that extra $1000. So the social benefit from getting high-income individuals to work a bit
harder is the tax revenue generated by that extra effort – and conversely the cost of
their working less is the reduction in the taxes they pay."
This is not right. Heck, it's not even wrong.
Say the $1000 is for a surgery. The social benefit is the tax they pay on it? The surgery
itself is irrelevant?
Krugman confuses the flow of money, which supports and correlates with production, with
the actual production, the real "social benefit".
If you invent a widget that everyone on earth is willing to pay $1 over cost to get,
congratulations, you just earned $7 billion.
Now, does that mean you get to consume $7 billion worth of stuff other people produce? I
think so.
Or, does it mean you get to trap the world in $7 billion of debt servitude from which it
is impossible for them to escape, because you are hoarding, and then charging interest on,
the $7 billion they need to pay back their debts.
The key is to understand that money is created via debt. Money has value because people
with debt need to get it to repay their debts.
If we all decide BitCoin is worthless, then BitCoin is worthless. It has no fundamental
usefulness.
If we all decide money is worthless, then a bunch of people with debt will gladly take it
off our hands so that they can repay their debt. Heck, they may even trade us stuff to get
the debt... which is why money is NOT worthless.
If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?
Say, the $7 billion in wages was to sing and dance so no matter where in the world he was,
he was entertained by song and dance?
Economies are zero sum. Every cost has an equal benefit aka income or consumption. Work
can't exist without consumption, consumption without work.
"If $1 per day make everyone live better with no added climate change, PLUS paid an extra $7
billion per day to production workers, service workers, that would be good, or bad?"
Obviously, good. Which is what I say in my post.
"Money is merely work in the past or future."
Money is other peoples' debt. They have borrowed money into existence and then spent it
into the economy, AND they have pledged to do work in the future, to get the money back so
they can repay the debt.
That "doing work in the future to get the money back" is only possible if the people with
the money actually spend it back into the economy.
The problem is that the people in debt also agreed to pay interest, and the people with
the money want to keep collecting the interest... so keep holding the money... making it
absolutely impossible for those with debt to pay it back.
I'm saying is that there is obligation on both sides. There is obligation on the part of
people with debt to produce goods and services and sell them for money to repay their debts,
AND for that to be possible, there is obligation on those with money to actually spend the
money...
Contrary to CONservative opinion, money is not created by work, it is earned by selling,
and that means for the economy to function, there has to be spending.
We need a tax code with very high top rates, but deductions for spending and capital
investing... not to take from the rich, but rather to force them to spend and invest to get
deductions.
This is the typical level of repression that exist in Police State: any politician who deviates from the "Inner Party" (aka Deep
State) course is branded as Russian spy and "counterintelligence" dogs are send to sniff any dirty clothing that might exist to and
this politician career.
Notable quotes:
"... counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence. ..."
"... "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy." ..."
"... Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze! ..."
President Trump on Saturday lashed out after a Friday evening report in the
New York Times that US
law enforcement officials " became so concerned by the president's behavior " in the days after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director,
that "t hey began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests. "
According to the NYT, agents and senior F.B.I. officials " had grown suspicious of Mr. Trump's ties to Russia during the 2016
campaign " but held off on opening an investigation into him, the people said, in part because they were uncertain how to proceed
with an inquiry of such sensitivity and magnitude.
What happened next? Well, a collusion narrative was born and carefully crafted as the paper explains:
The president's activities before and after Mr. Comey's firing in May 2017, particularly
two
instances in which Mr. Trump tied the Comey dismissal to the Russia investigation, helped prompt the counterintelligence aspect
of the inquiry, the people said.
The odd inquiry carried "explosive implications" as counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president's
own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working
for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence.
The criminal and counterintelligence elements were coupled together into one investigation, former law enforcement officials
said in interviews in recent weeks, because if Mr. Trump had ousted the head of the F.B.I. to impede or even end the Russia investigation,
that was both a possible crime and a national security concern. The F.B.I.'s counterintelligence division handles national security
matters.
Even so, "...some former law enforcement officials outside the investigation have questioned whether agents overstepped in opening
it ."
Then, in paragraph nine we read " No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction
from Russian government officials. " Or, as The Washington Examiner 's Byron York sums it up:
Some were even more laconic, summarizing the "scoop" as "anybody who fires corrupt Comey must be a Russian spy."
Put another way:
Responding to the "bombshell" NYT report - which curiously resurrects the "Russian collusion" narrative right as Trump is set
to test his Presidential authority over the border wall, the president lashed out over Twitter .
Wow, just learned in the Failing New York Times that the corrupt former leaders of the FBI, almost all fired or forced
to leave the agency for some very bad reasons, opened up an investigation on me, for no reason & with no proof, after I fired
Lyin' James Comey, a total sleaze!"
Funny thing about James Comey. Everybody wanted him fired, Republican and Democrat alike. After the rigged & botched Crooked
Hillary investigation, where she was interviewed on July 4th Weekend, not recorded or sworn in, and where she said she didn't
know anything (a lie), the FBI was in complete turmoil (see N.Y. Post) because of Comey's poor leadership and the way he handled
the Clinton mess (not to mention his usurpation of powers from the Justice Department).
My firing of James Comey was a great day for America. He was a Crooked Cop who is being totally protected by his best friend,
Bob Mueller, & the 13 Angry Democrats - leaking machines who have NO interest in going after the Real Collusion (and much more)
by Crooked Hillary Clinton, her Campaign, and the Democratic National Committee. Just Watch!
I have been FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good
relations with Russia again!
Lyin' James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter S and his lover, agent Lisa Page, & more, all disgraced and/or fired and caught in
the act. These are just some of the losers that tried to do a number on your President. Part of the Witch Hunt. Remember the "insurance
policy?" This is it! -Donald Trump
Update: Comey has responded over Twitter with a pithy FDR quote:
Although we seem to recall that Democrats were Comey's enemy when he reopened Hillary Clinton's email investigation during the
election.
While there is nothing new here confirming Trump was colluding with Russia, as Byron York asks following the article, was the
New York Times story about Trump, or about FBI malfeasance?
Thoughts
on Warren and Sanders: How Much Change Is Needed in 2021? Posted on
January 11,
2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I know Warren is
deemed to be progressive by American standards, but I recall clearly when I first say her speak at a Roosevelt Institute conference,
Let Markets Be Markets, which was a title I found to be unhelpful, since it suggested that markets would exist in a state of nature
and just needed to be left alone. In fact, markets depend on rules and enforcement mechanisms to operate regularly and well.
Warren, who was the first speaker, gave a long preamble about how she loved markets and had long taught contract in law school.
I don't recall her giving any reason as to why she loved markets, when you'd expect her to make a case, such as how they were good
for people. Her speech struck me as defensive, as in she felt she had to say she was in favor of commerce so as not to be painted
as a Commie if/when she called for reforms.
By contrast, Karl Polyani, in his classic book The Great Transformation, argued that the evolution of market economies undermined
society because it treated land and labor as commodities. Pressured to slow the development economies were inevitable and Polyani
suggested, desirable, because the impact of the development of the market society on communities and families was often so disruptive
that the changes needed to be mitigated.
I didn't get any sense that Warren had those concerns, and I found that troubling. I didn't see how her profession of enthusiasm
for markets connected with the concerns she has expressed for the welfare of American families.
I've written before comparing Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as presidential candidates, but only preliminarily. (See "
The Difference Between
Sanders and Warren, or Can Regulated Capitalism Save the Country? ") But there's much more to say -- foreign policy, for example,
is barely touched on there -- and also much is evolving in their positions, especially Warren's.
That earlier piece focused on the differences between these two candidates based on their economic ideologies. As I wrote then,
"Though both would make the next administration, if either were elected, a progressive one by many definitions, the nature of the
progressivism under each would be quite different."
In particular, I asked:
Can the current capitalist system be reformed and retained, or must it be partly nationalized -- taken over by government --
and reduced in size and capacity, for the country to be saved from its current economic enslavement to the "billionaire class"?
In addition to questions of personal preference, Democratic primary voters will be asked to decide this question as well.
And the question applies quite broadly. The billionaire class also controls our response to climate change. Is it possible
for a "free" market system -- a system in which billionaires and their corporations have control -- to transform the energy economy
enough to mitigate the coming disaster, or must government wrest control of the energy economy in order to have even a hope of
reducing the certain damage?
But there are other contrasts between these two as well, other differences, as Zaid Jilani,
writing in
Jacobin , points out. He begins where we began, with the ideological and philosophical differences:
Why the Differences Between Sanders and Warren Matter
Both are critics of the Democratic establishment. Both are foes of Wall Street. And both are substantive, policy-focused politicians.
But that doesn't mean Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren share the same worldview.
Sanders tends to focus on "post-distribution" remedies, meaning he prefers to use the government's power to tax and spend to
directly meet Americans' needs -- or replace the market altogether. His social-democratic ideas, like free college and single-payer
health care, are now policies most Democrats have to tip their hat to at least for electoral reasons. Warren wants to empower
regulators and rejigger markets to shape "pre-distribution" income, before taxes. Less likely to push for big-ticket programs,
she wants to re-regulate Wall Street and make life easier for consumers.
So far this is familiar ground.
Different Theories of Change
But as Jilani points out, there are differences in style and "theory of change" as well. ("Theory of change" usually encompasses
how a given policy change is to be accomplished, as opposed to what that change should be.) Jilani again:
The two senators also have distinct theories of change. Sanders has long believed in
bottom-up , movement-based
politics. Since
his days as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he has tried to energize citizens to take part in government. He generally distrusts
elites and decision-making that does not include the public. Warren, on the other hand, generally accepts political reality and
works to push elite decision-makers towards her point of view.
When I worked at PCCC ["the most influential outside PAC supporting Warren" says Jilani], I was once told that Warren decided
to run for the Senate after witnessing the amount of power she had as an oversight chair for the bank bailouts. She believed that
"being in the room" with decision-makers in the Obama administration was essential to creating change.
About this he concludes: "While Warren wants to be at the table with elites, arguing for progressive policies, Sanders wants to
open the doors and let the public make the policy."
"Elizabeth is all about leverage"
These are significant differences, and his observation goes a long way to explaining this item from a
long piece published in Politico Magazine in 2016, an article otherwise about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Discussing
why Warren refused to endorse Sanders, Glenn Thrush wrote:
Luckily for Clinton, Warren resisted Sanders' entreaties, for months telling the senator and his staff she hadn't made up her
mind about which candidate she would support. For all her credibility on the left, Warren is more interested in influencing the
granular Washington decisions of policymaking and presidential personnel -- and in power politics. Warren's favored modus operandi:
leveraging her outsider popularity to gain influence on the issues she cares about, namely income inequality and financial services
reform.
"Elizabeth is all about leverage, and she used it," a top Warren ally told me. "The main thing, you know, is that she always
thought Hillary was going to be the nominee, so that was where the leverage was."
Warren, several people in her orbit say, never really came close to endorsing the man many progressives consider to be her
ideological soulmate.
For many grassroots supporters of Sanders, who were also strong Warren supporters prior to his entry into the race, these revelations
-- "all about the leverage" and "never came close to endorsing" -- took the bloom off the Warren rose. For whatever reason, that
bloom appears not to have returned, at least not completely.
Jilani's observation in no way diminishes Warren's credibility or core desirability as a candidate. If you care about achieving
your goals through "leverage," joining the Sanders campaign, which may have looked to you like a kind of Children's Crusade, would
seem foreign to your way of operating.
The Bottom Line -- Not Just Method, But Scope
While Jilani notes that many of Warren's past positions, for example,
on charter schools and Medicare
for All, have grown more progressive, she still doesn't seem to prioritize Medicare for All as strongly as Sanders does.
In 2012, Warren was explicitly opposed to Medicare for All (called "single payer" at the time). "Five years later --
after decades of advocacy
by Sanders had helped popularize Medicare for All -- Warren [finally] decided to endorse the policy," writes Jilani. "But unlike
consumer protections or financial regulation, establishing a single-payer health care system doesn't seem to be a top priority for
Warren." He adds, "It's hardly a surprise
that Warren didn't raise single-payer during her first two campaign events in Iowa and when asked about it by a Washington Post
reporter, [she] suggested she didn't bring it up because no one else at the events raised it."
As noted above, if either were president, the odds that America will change for the better would vastly improve. But each would
do that job in a different way. Each has a different philosophy of how government should work, and approach the process of change
from different directions -- though I have to give Warren credit for
picking public fights with
fellow Democrats when others are much more timid.
But to these two differences -- philosophy and approach -- let me add a third, a difference in sweep. The scope of change envisioned
and attempted by a Sanders presidency would likely be far greater than that attempted by Warren.
In these times, with a massive climate tsunami fast approaching and a Depression-style rebellion in full view, can America,
in this Franklin Roosevelt moment , afford just a better manager of the current system, a better rearranger, and survive?
There's not much question that Warren would better fix the status quo, and be a better choice as president, than 95% of the other
candidates on offer. But would a Warren presidency be enough to bring us through this crisis as safely as Washington, Lincoln and
FDR once did?
For many true progressives, I think that's the question she'll be asked to answer, and she has about a year, or less, to answer
it.
Just spitballing here, but I think that Warren has more of a technocrat view of the process of governance than Sanders does.
Warren seems to be an academic at heart. Sanders has experience dealing with the public in all it's tatterdemalion glory. He was
a City Mayor, about as close to the ground level in politics as one can get. Warren would make an excellent Department Head, a
good member of the Cabinet. Sanders has a reputation of 'getting things done' in the Senate. This suggests that Sanders has the
skills of persuasion and, importantly, coalition building, incorporating strategic concessions. These are a big part of the Art
of Politics.
So, Sanders has the Art of Politics in his tool kit while Warren has the bureaucratic skills to work behind the scenes. They would
make a good team, if Warren is to be trusted. And there is the stumbling block.
With Warren wanting to be at the table with the elites, perhaps she took the advice of Larry Summers. In her memoir, "A Fighting
Chance", she mentions a dinner conversation where she was told by him 'I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an
outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don't listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of
access and a chance to push their ideas. People -- powerful people -- listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand
one unbreakable rule: They don't criticize other insiders.'
The elites will, and have been, doing anything to derail rebellion and block any electoral movement towards popular governance,
even of the save-the-system New Deal style of politics. If co-opting fails, then media blackout, vote fraud and silencing follows.
They took it all and plan to keep it at any cost.
The immiseration of the American people, to paraphrase Madeleine Albright, is worth it.
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
Notable quotes:
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
Both
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
opposed.
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet,
MSNBC, is
stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while
even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the
pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a
"national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism").
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
"... Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the most visible Justice Department protector of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and a frequent target of President Donald Trump's wrath, is expected to leave his position soon after Trump's nominee for attorney general is confirmed. ..."
"... In September, Rosenstein went to the White House expecting to be fired after news reports that he had discussed secretly recording Trump and invoking a constitutional amendment to remove Trump as unfit for office. He was ultimately allowed to stay on after private conversations with Trump and John Kelly, then chief of staff. ..."
"... Trump also shared a photo on Twitter in November showing Rosenstein and others criticized by the president behind bars, calling for them to be tried for "treason." ..."
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the most visible Justice Department protector of special counsel Robert
Mueller's Russia investigation and a frequent target of President Donald Trump's wrath, is expected to leave his
position soon after Trump's nominee for attorney general is confirmed.
The departure creates uncertainty about the
oversight of Mueller's team as it enters what may be its final months of work. But the attorney general nominee,
William Barr, moved quickly Wednesday to quell concerns that his arrival could endanger the probe, telling lawmakers
during Capitol Hill visits ahead of his confirmation hearing that he has a high opinion of Mueller.
"He had absolutely no indication he was going to tell Bob Mueller what to do or how to do it," said Republican
Sen. Lindsey Graham, the incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will question Barr next Tuesday.
If confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, Barr could be in place at the Justice Department by February.
Rosenstein is expected to leave his position soon after that, though he is not being forced out, said a person
familiar with the plans who was not authorized to discuss them on the record and spoke on condition of anonymity to
The Associated Press.
The departure is not surprising given that Rosenstein has been deputy for almost two years. It is common for new
attorneys general to have their own deputies and Barr has told people close to him that he wanted his own No. 2.
It was unclear who might replace Rosenstein, though Barr has some ideas for a selection, Graham said, without
elaborating. The deputy position requires Senate confirmation. It was also not immediately clear whether Rosenstein's
top deputy, Edward O'Callaghan, who has a prominent role overseeing Mueller's investigation, might remain in his
role.
Rosenstein's departure is noteworthy given his appointment of Mueller and close supervision of his work. He's also
endured a tenuous relationship with Trump, who has repeatedly decried Rosenstein's decision to appoint Mueller, and
with congressional Republicans who accused him of withholding documents from them and not investigating aggressively
enough what they contend was political bias within the FBI.
In September, Rosenstein went to the White House expecting to be fired after news reports that he had
discussed secretly recording Trump and invoking a constitutional amendment to remove Trump as unfit for office. He
was ultimately allowed to stay on after private conversations with Trump and John Kelly, then chief of staff.
Trump also shared a photo on Twitter in November showing Rosenstein and others criticized by the president
behind bars, calling for them to be tried for "treason."
Mueller is investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and contacts with the Trump campaign. Rosenstein
and his chief deputy have continued to maintain day-to-day oversight over the probe, a senior Justice Department
official told reporters last month.
Rosenstein was a puppet on more powerful forces, which were hell-bent on deposing Trump. And those included Intelligence
agencies brass, Clinton clan and UK government.
leave as expected
when a new U.S. attorney general is confirmed. Rosenstein broke the normal rules to save a
shred of normality. Usually that kind of compromise doesn't work. In this case, it did -- mostly.
Rosenstein is going to be remembered first for naming Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Russian
interference in the 2016 election. Because Attorney General Jeff Sessions was recused from anything Russia
related, because of his false statements to Congress during his confirmation process about his Russian contacts,
Rosenstein also had the task of supervising Mueller. Rosenstein's second important accomplishment was to
successfully protect Mueller from being fired by President Donald Trump, despite repeated threats and attacks on
the investigation from the White House.
But Rosenstein should never have been in a position either to appoint Mueller or to supervise his
investigation. He should've been recused from both tasks.
To begin with, the event that triggered Mueller's appointment was Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Rosenstein played a central role in that process: He drafted a memo providing reasons to fire Comey that Trump
relied on, whether in good faith or otherwise.
If you've advised the president on how to perform an act that is going to come under investigation, you really
shouldn't choose the investigator or supervise the investigation. That's classic grounds for recusal. Indeed, back
in June 2017, when Trump tweeted that he was effectively being investigated by Rosenstein for conduct Rosenstein
had advised, it seemed
obvious
to me that Rosenstein would have to recuse himself.
He didn't.
Then, in September 2018, it came out that Rosenstein was so troubled by Trump's conduct around the Comey firing
that he had discussed wearing a wire to record the president. He had also reportedly discussed having the cabinet
invoke the 25th Amendment and declare the president unfit for office. This made it
clearer still
that Rosenstein should recuse himself.
Once again, he didn't.
Under normal circumstances, Rosenstein's failure to recuse himself would stand as a serious blot on his
otherwise excellent reputation as a nonpartisan career prosecutor and Department of Justice professional.
Prosecutors especially, but also other top Justice Department officials, gain their professional and moral
authority from following the rules all the time, not some of the time.
Prosecutors hold tremendous power, greater than any other actor within our federal system, including judges. If
you're prosecuted, your life is going to change drastically. Guilty or innocent, you're going to have to spend all
your resources on defense. Most of the time, you will be guilty of something. The U.S. code criminalizes so much
activity that prosecutors can typically find some area where you've broken some law -- and hold you accountable.
Given that prosecutors have extraordinarily broad discretion to decide whom to charge and what crimes to charge
them with, prosecutors need to be paragons of rule-following. In other areas of life, bending the rules is
sometimes necessary or desirable. In a prosecutor, it's the cardinal sin. And Rosenstein definitely bent the rules
by not recusing himself.
Yet, from the perspective of two years, Rosenstein's rule-bending was probably justified -- because Mueller's
investigation is necessary to assuring that the rule of law plays a role in making sense of Russian interference
in the 2016 elections.
Without Rosenstein's appointment of Mueller, there might have been no special prosecutor at all. Or the person
appointed might have been weaker or less competent than Mueller. Or the person appointed might have been more
susceptible to pressure from the Trump White House.
It's also easy to imagine that without Rosenstein, another Justice Department official might have interfered
with Mueller's investigation at the urging of the White House or even fired Mueller. Ask yourself: Do you have any
faith that acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker would have resisted Trump's pressure for two years?
Now that Mueller has been able to operate for two years, and a new attorney general has been nominated, it's
totally reasonable for Rosenstein to plan to step down.
If confirmed, William Barr will take over supervision of Mueller. Technically, Trump handed over that
supervisory role to Whitaker after Sessions was fired -- but Rosenstein needed to stick around because Whitaker's
appointment
was itself legally questionable
and because Whitaker
isn't especially trustworthy
as an independent actor.
In contrast, Barr, whatever his views on executive power and the Mueller investigation, would at least be a
credible attorney general. He served in that role under President George H.W. Bush. At that time, there was no
serious talk of firing independent prosecutor Lawrence Walsh, whose investigation of the Iran-Contra affair was
getting close to the president.
A new attorney general should be able to recommend his own deputy. Rosenstein is free to step down because, in
essence, his job is done. Mueller survived. The ends arguably justified the means. That's not a sentence I'm very
happy to write when it comes to prosecution and the Department of Justice. But that will probably be the judgment
of history this time.
Some of neocon/neoliberal critiqur below are valid. But what if Trump policy from the very beginning was based on the idea to
declare national emergency and then use those powers to appropriate the funds? Bush declared fake war of terror with
much success before. Now it might be Trump turn
Notable quotes:
"... "Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals." ..."
"... Donald Trump, "The Art of the Deal" ..."
"... Left reeling and desperate, he said on Friday and again on Sunday that he may declare a national emergency on the southern border so he can simply appropriate the taxpayer funds he wants. Such a move may not even be legal , would prompt Democrats to file a lawsuit to stop him regardless, and is likely to further alienate some Republicans worn down by his antics. ..."
"Deals are my art form. Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making
deals, preferably big deals."
--
Donald Trump, "The Art of the Deal"
***************
President Trump's supporters elected him, in part, because they saw him as a wily tycoon and deft dealmaker who
could shake up Washington and bring decades of business know-how to the Oval Office.
He was always ready to tap into those beliefs. "We need a PRESIDENT with strength, stamina, heart and
incredible deal making skill if our country is ever going to be able to prosper again!" he
tweeted
a few months after launching his presidential bid in 2015.
Trump, in reality, was never a peerless or even a particularly skillful dealmaker, and many of the most
significant business transactions he engineered
imploded
. Instead, he made his way in the world as an indefatigable self-promoter, a marketing confection and
a human billboard who frequently licensed his name to buildings and products paid for by others.
In Trump's professional life, his
inept dealmaking
often came home to roost in
unmanageable debts
and
serial bankruptcies
. In his more recent political and presidential life it has
revealed itself
through
bungled, hapless efforts
to overturn the Affordable Care Act; forge a nuclear agreement with North Korea; wage
trade wars with China, Mexico and Canada; retain control of the House of Representatives; turn military and
diplomatic strategy on its head; lay siege to sensible immigration policy; and, now,
force a government shutdown
to secure funding for a prized project -- a wall along the U.S.'s southern border.
Striking lasting deals requires intimacy with the finer points of what every party wants out of a negotiation,
realistic goals, maturity, patience, flexibility -- and enough leverage so the other side can't simply stall or
walk away from the table. Trump hasn't met any of those prerequisites in his repeated efforts to fulfill his
campaign promise to build a wall, a promise that played to the most xenophobic and bigoted portion of his base
while
not addressing
any of the
real shortcomings
or
necessary enhancements
of
federal
immigration policy
.
"Policy" and "Trump" don't really coexist, of course. The president lacks the interest or sophistication to
steep himself in policy details, so he enters the immigration debate and dealmaking for his wall at a distinct
disadvantage. For as much as he disparages politicians and public service, Trump is surrounded by Democrats and
Republicans who have immersed themselves in immigration discussions for years. Expertise does matter, after all --
and Trump doesn't have it.
The most visible reminder of the raw amateurism that has undermined Trump's dealmaking came in December during
a memorable White House visit with a pair of Democrats, Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer.
As the trio gradually became unsettled over policy differences that could lead to a government shutdown, Trump,
ready to perform for the media he had invited to observe the chat, sallied forth in a burst of bravado.
"I am proud to shut down the government for border security," Trump
told
Schumer. "I will take the mantle. I will shut it down. I'm not going to blame you for it."
Unforced error.
Trump -- undoubtedly content to prove he's willing to burn things down to get his own way -- needlessly
publicized himself as the author of the shutdown that ultimately arrived. Hmmm. Let's think about that. Doesn't
every politician in Washington with a sense of the town's history know that voters grow weary of government
shutdowns and tend not to like those responsible for them? Newt Gingrich, whom Trump has occasionally solicited
for input, surely knows this. Back in
1995
and 1996, when Gingrich was speaker of the House, then-President Bill Clinton maneuvered to hang a
government shutdown around the speaker's neck -- inflicting permanent political damage on the once-ascendant
Gingrich.
A word to the wise: If you get saddled with a reputation as a guy who likes to blow up things it can be hard to
orchestrate deals. ("President Trump is a terrible negotiator," Schumer recently
said
, highlighting how much leverage the president has lost in the wall negotiations.)
Trump also missed chances last year, when Republicans still controlled the House, to
seal deals
that might have given him significantly more funding for a wall than the $5 billion he wants -- and
is unlikely to get -- now. Early in the year, hampered by his inability to be flexible or understand the other
side's needs, Trump opposed a bipartisan Senate proposal that offered $25 billion for a wall as long as a path to
citizenship was opened for 1.7 million young, undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
Just before Christmas, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell got Republicans behind a short-term funding
package to keep the government open until February. That proposal didn't include money for a wall, and Trump was
prepared to support it until backlash from conservative media pundits Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Laura
Ingraham
convinced him to retreat
. Lacking clear goals for a deal -- did he want to keep the government open or did he
want to dig in behind a wall? -- Trump left his own party befuddled and empowered Democrats.
In recent days, Schumer and Pelosi have said they're unwilling to give Trump more than $1.3 billion to build a
border fence (not a wall) and that they won't commit taxpayer funds to Trump's wall. The president responded that
he then would be willing to leave the government unfunded and shuttered indefinitely -- a posture he is unlikely to
be able to maintain and a negotiating strategy for which few in his White House or his party had been prepared.
Good dealmakers prepare their teams so they can get the support they need to move a negotiation across the
finish line. But Trump has apparently overlooked the fact that his administration's signature accomplishments --
landing
two conservative
justices
on the Supreme Court, pushing through a
major tax overhaul
, and passing
criminal justice reform
-- had been initiated and guided by Republican dealmakers more able than him.
Building a wall, on the other hand, has been Trump's personal piece of performance art and he has invoked
fantasies to promote it (like, for example, compelling Mexico to foot the bill). He has also become so emotionally
attached to the effort that he's put himself at a strategic disadvantage. The president is now so consumed with
appearing to win, that he may not win at all.
Left reeling and desperate, he said on Friday and again on Sunday that he may declare a national emergency
on the southern border so he can simply appropriate the taxpayer funds he wants. Such a move
may not even be legal
, would prompt Democrats to file a lawsuit to stop him regardless, and is likely to
further alienate some Republicans worn down by his antics.
This, however,
is who the president is
. He's focused on fostering his own, carnivalesque image, and he has little real
interest in policy outcomes. And he's been here before. In 1988, he overpaid in a deal for the
Plaza Hotel
because he was irrationally enamored of the property. A few years later he lost it in bankruptcy.
Around the same time, he bungled negotiations for another project that would have made him a
transformative figure
in New York real estate because he couldn't exercise the restraint, foresight and
financial discipline needed to get the deal done. In 1996, he passed on selling a stake in one of his casinos that
would have netted him about $180 million and helped prop up his struggling
Atlantic City
operation
because he didn't want his name removed from the property.
None of those episodes humbled him.
"We need a dealmaker in the White House, who knows how to think innovatively and make smart deals," he
tweeted
back in 2011.
It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed
at all.
― McCarthy, Cormac. (2005). "No Country for Old Men"
It's become clear justice is dead in the United States. The respect for law is gone. If
President Trump was ever going to drain the swamp, the Clintons, and even former president
Obama, would have been dressed in orange by now. It didn't happen. Instead, it is Trump who now
stands accused:
There is nothing Trump or any member of his administration has done that is comparable to
Hillary Clinton's use of her own email server while U.S. secretary of state, or her
destroying tens of thousands of emails after they were subpoenaed by Congress, or foreign
governments' and corporations' paying vast sums of money to Bill Clinton and The Clinton
Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. Nor is there anything Trump or
anyone in his administration has done comparable to the Obama administration's use of the IRS
to suppress conservative nonprofits; its selling guns to Mexican drug cartels, at least one
of which was later found at the scene where a Border Patrol officer was killed; or the lies
it told about the cause of the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in
Benghazi. Yet any suggestion by Republicans that these activities be investigated is
effectively shouted down by the Democrats and the media. And let's not talk about the real
collusion in 2016 – between the FBI, the State Department, the Clinton campaign and the
Obama White House, using material sourced in part from the Russian government – to
undermine the Republican candidate for president and his presidency.
Even worse, it appears the investigations into government corruption by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz and Utah U.S. attorney John Huber, were, in fact, the
cover-up :
At this point, there is every
reason to believe that the purpose of Huber's investigation is to hide the truth, not to
find it; to protect the criminals, not to charge them. The key witnesses in each of the
matters under investigation have not even been contacted. It appears that no grand juries
have been empaneled.
Tom Fitton, of Judicial Watch says, "Huber wasn't tapped to investigate anything", he was
just "a distraction".
Obama strategy in Syria was replica of Clinton strategy in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. Divide everybody up by ethnicity
or religion (Croats are Catholics, Serbians are Orthodox not to mention the various Muslims and Albanians lurking about), arm
them, create false flags to set them at each other's throats. Enjoy the results.
Obama like Clinton before him was a real wolve in sheep's clothing
Notable quotes:
"... Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving US imperialism a pleasing face. ..."
"... Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump. ..."
But the notion that it is part of a complex and tightly scripted conspiracy in which he
plays his public part and the deep state play theirs, pretending to be at odds with each
other, is bizarre.
I would've agreed with you before Obama. I followed the criticisms of Obama from true
progressives closely. It was clear within 2 or 3 years that Obama was betraying his 'base'.
His lofty rhetoric didn't match his actions. His Nobel Peace Prize can only be viewed
today as a ruse. He talked of peace and fairness but worked behind the scenes to further the
establishment.
Fast forward to the 2016 election where Sanders was a sheepdog and Hillary ran a terrible
campaign. It's difficult to look back and not be at least somewhat suspicious of the 2016
election. A populist nationalist was what the Deep State NEEDED to face the threat from
Russia and China to their NWO project. And that is what they got. After recognizing the
threat in 2013-14 (when Russia countered the Empire in Syria and Ukraine).
Similar excuses are made for both Obama and Trump. We are told that they were FORCED to
succumb to Deep State scheming and political power. But a much more logical view is that
these "populists" know exactly what they are doing: they know what their 'job' is to serve
the establishment and act as the leader of the Deep State's political arm. In return they get
financial gain, social standing, and life long protection. Sweet.
Obama 'turned the page' on the Bush Administration's warmongering. He promised a more
peaceful USA. But he conducted covert wars and bragged of his drone targeting.
Trump 'turned the page' on Obama's deceitfulness. He promised to put 'America First' but
within months attacked Syria with missiles "for the babies". Evidence that his first attack
was prompted by a false flag didn't deter him from attacking AGAIN - also based on a false
flag. Trump is still helping the Saudis in Yemen. And he's not doing what's necessary to get
peace in Korea.
Obama promised 'transparency' ("Sunlight is the best disinfectant") but 'no drama' Obama
protected CIA torturers, NSA spies, and bankers. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" but has
welcomed oligarchs and neocons into his Administration.
How much sly BS do we have to see before people connect the dots? A real populist will
NEVER be elected in USA unless there is a revolution; USA political elites are fully
committed to a neoliberal economics that make society neofeudal, and a neoconservative-driven
foreign policy that demands full spectrum dominance that brooks no opposition to its NWO
goals.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the Kool-Aid, an addictive, saccharine concoction,
provided without charge and in abundance.
Glenn Brown | Jan 5, 2019 10:27:14 PM |
39@ 10 17
Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he
was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope
inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving
US imperialism a pleasing face.
Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too
blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major
sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump.
Yes, their public rejection of Trump is partly motivated by the need to be able to claim that Trump is an aberration from
all previous US Presidents, as opposed to Trump and his policies being just a particularly explicit continuation of the same
underlying trends.
But I see no reason to doubt that the US elites really wish they had someone as President who was better at supplying the
right propaganda and less obviously an incompetent fool. So I don't understand why you think the US oligarchy and deep state
would have thought they needed someone like Trump, or would have greatly preferred him to Hillary Clinton.
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Anonymous
Shpakova
☭@NovaShpakova
euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(DonkeyHotey/Flickr)
<img height="176" src="https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/assets/mc/_external/2016_02/-donkeyhoteyflickr.jpg" width="300" />
MIGA!
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
© AFP 2018 / Timothy A. CLARY Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard Speaks the Truth on Syria, Gets Smeared by the Mainstream Media
© AP Photo / Marco Garcia 'Assad's
Mouthpiece in Washington': Controversial Dem. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard Announces 2020
Run
© REUTERS / Omar Sanadiki US Lawmakers
Call for Syria Strategy Where Assad Leaving Post, Russian Military Pulls Out
©
AP Photo/ J. Scott Applewhite
House Democrats Will Expand Russiagate in 2019 to Push Trump Toward War
